Sitting of 3 May 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Southwark (North Division), in the room of Edward Anthony Strauss, esquire, deceased.—[Colonel Kerr.]

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

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether steps are being taken to make the guarantee given to Rumania and Greece reciprocal?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No, Sir.
  Mr. Mander: But are the Government proposing to treat these obligations as purely one-sided? Are they not going to make them reciprocal, as in the case of Poland?
  Mr. Butler: I have given the answer to that question.
  Mr. Mander: Is it the objective of the Government to try to make them reciprocal, or are they one-sided?
  Mr. Butler: I have just indicated what is the Government's attitude.
  Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the reasons why the Government are not going to make these guarantees reciprocal? Are we to understand that this is their established policy?
  Mr. Boothbyasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Turkey?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement yesterday on the negotiations with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to which I have nothing to add. His Majesty's Government continue to maintain close touch with the Turkish Government.
  Mr. Boothby: In view of the great anxiety existing in this country regarding the delay in reaching a conclusion of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, may I ask whether there is any objection in principle to our negotiating a straight pact with the Russian Government on the lines of the Franco-Soviet Pact?
  Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the account given in the "Times," often well informed on these matters, of the proposals put forward by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is substantially correct?
  The Prime Minister: I could not answer that question without notice. I glanced at the statement in the "Times," but I have not any accurate memory of what it said.
  Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Herr Hitler has recently charged His Majesty's Government with having adopted a policy of encircling Germany, and that guarantees on a reciprocal basis were proposed by President Roosevelt in his recent peace appeal, His Majesty's Government would be willing to give a guarantee to Germany similar to that given to Poland on a reciprocal basis?
  The Prime Minister: In recent statements I have made it quite clear that there is no foundation whatsoever for the charge that His Majesty's Government have adopted the policy of encircling Germany. What President Roosevelt proposed, and what I understand Herr Hitler to have offered, is the exchange of assurances of non-aggression, rather than a guarantee on a reciprocal basis such as

  1847
  that recently given by His Majesty's Government to the Polish Government. His Majesty's Government would certainly be ready to consider proposals for an exchange of reciprocal assurances with the German Government.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the importance of the statement which the Prime Minister has just made, will the Government take proper steps to ensure that it is brought to the notice of the German public?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that reciprocal assurances were exchanged at Munich and have since been found to be worthless?
  Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether the statement which has just been made by him can be included in the broadcast in German?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government make it plain that the arrangements they are now making are guarantees against aggression and may be participated in by any Government which is prepared in good faith to renounce aggression?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly they are guarantees against aggression solely; and as regards any extension, I have no doubt that the Government will be glad to consider any proposals for their extension.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether he has been officially informed of the negotiations taking place between the Governments of Rumania and Bulgaria regarding the Bulgarian minority in the Dobrudja; and whether he has any information as to the prospects of an amicable settlement of this question?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Riley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is not advisable in the interests of collective security to see whether our good offices can be used to bring about a settlement of the difficulties?
  The Prime Minister: We should like to see any differences settled, but whether we ourselves should offer our good offices is a matter which would have to be considered.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has any
  1848
  information to give the House as to the recent conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Rumanian Foreign Minister?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government were very happy to receive the Rumanian Foreign Minister in London between the 23rd and 26th April. As was stated in the official communiqué issued after the conclusion of our conversations, the visit afforded a welcome oportunity for an exchange of views between M. Gafencu, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and myself. The meetings were characterised by the utmost frankness and cordiality on both sides, and served to emphasise the general community of outlook existing between the two Governments concerning current problems.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that Herr Hitler has continually complained of the Treaty of Versailles, he will draw his attention to the losses of territory suffered by Russia and Rumania by the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by such action, as the German Government must be well aware of the terms of those Treaties.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: In view of the fact that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk took away a quarter of the territory of Russia and 62,000,000 of her inhabitants, while the Treaty of Bucharest placed the whole of the economic resources of Rumania at the disposal of Germany, are not many of the complaints made by Herr Hitler about the Treaty of Versailles misleading, if not to say hypocritical?
  Mr. Butler: Certainly I think that the German Government must be very well aware of the terms of the Treaties in question.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether the Whangpoo Conservancy Board has yet been allowed to resume its work of dredging the approach to Shanghai?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir; but negotiations to this end with the Japanese authorities

  1849
  at Shanghai are being actively pursued and it is hoped that agreement may shortly be reached.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: In view of the fact that these negotiations have been going on for a long time, and the fact that the work done by this board is of international importance to the shipping of all nations, will my right hon. Friend consider whether he should not try again?
  Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is aware of the value of the work done by the board, and I may be able to give a more hopeful answer as a result of the negotiations now proceeding.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of the recent representations made by the Government of the United States to the Japanese Government on the re opening of the Yangtze to merchant vessels; and whether he is in touch with the United States Government in the matter?
  Mr. Butler: The answer to both parts of the question is, Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hannahasked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to secure the removal of the barricades round the British Concession at Tientsin; and how far he has been able to secure the restoration of normal conditions?
  Mr. Butler: The position remains as stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 3rd April. All possible steps are being taken to secure the restoration of normal conditions.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the result of his inquiries into the complaint that a British company in Shanghai were refused permission by the Japanese authorities for four of their British employés to go to Hankow although two American employés of the company were allowed to proceed?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and the facts in this instance are as stated. It appears, however, that in a similar case at about the same time discrimination was exercised in favour of a British subject.
  Commander Marsdenasked the Prime Minister what is the present position of the negotiations with the Japanese Government on the subject of the reopening of the Yangtze to commercial traffic?
  Mr. Butler: The position remains as stated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on 5th April.
  Commander Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these long delays are very detrimental to British trade and the position of this country?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, that is fully realised, and that is why we trust that some solution will be found.

  ANGLO-GERMAN NAVAL AGREEMENTS.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister (1) to what extent the assurance recently given by His Majesty's Government to Poland was inconsistent with the provisions of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty; and whether the treaty contained any clause permitting either Government to denounce its validity;
  (2) whether he has any statement to make on the recent denunciation of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement by the German Government?
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning the denunciation by Germany of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement; and whether it is proposed to accept the invitation of Herr Hitler to negotiate another naval agreement?
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are considering the recent announcements of the German Government on the subject of the Anglo-German Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937. His Majesty's Government do not regard the assurances recently given by them to Poland as in any way inconsistent with the provisions of the Anglo-German Naval Agreements. There is no provision in the Agreements which permits either Government to denounce their validity.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it the intention of the Government to ask Sir Nevile Henderson to come home to report on the denunciation of this treaty by the German Government?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that is necessary.
  Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether, on examination, any justification

  1851
  whatsoever has been found for the grounds on which Herr Hitler has denounced this treaty; and will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of my question, where I ask whether it is proposed to accept the invitation of Herr Hitler to negotiate a further naval treaty?
  The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the question, I think that I have already made that clear in the statement which I have just made. With regard to the second part, I am not sure that the proposal of Herr Hitler is to negotiate a second treaty, but His Majesty's Government are considering what reply they should make to the German Government.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MONTROSE STATION.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Air whether waiters and other workers employed at the Montrose Royal Air Force flying school are still forbidden to join a trade union; whether this policy is applied at other similar institutions; and whether he will see that workers employed in such institutions retain their full rights of trade union combination?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am not aware that domestic and industrial employés at the Royal Air Force Station at Montrose have ever been forbidden to join trade unions.
    Mr. Gallacher: If I get some information for the Minister in connection with this matter will he investigate it?

    AUXILIARY FORCE (LIFE INSURANCE).
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that when persons join the Auxiliary Air Force they are called upon to pay an increased premium for life insurance up to 20s. per cent., due to the increased risk incurred; that this is pre venting numbers of men from joining this force, and others, after joining, have been compelled to let their life assurance policies lapse; and whether, in order to encourage young men to join the force, he will consider making provision for meeting any increased premium that may be required out of public funds?
    Sir K. Wood: A scheme in relation to this matter has been prepared, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Flight-Lieutenant Grant-Ferris: Will that scheme apply to the Volunteer Reserve as well as to the Auxiliary Air Force?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that policy will also relate to the Civil Air Guard?
    Sir K. Wood: I will look into that point.

    SHADOW FACTORIES (ACCOUNTING).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to remedy the state of affairs revealed in the Air Services Appropriation Account, 1937, which shows that efforts of the Air Ministry to control the prices of two shadow factories were ineffective, through the lack of adequate accounting records, whilst nine others were in little better condition?
    Sir K. Wood: I am aware that there have been certain difficulties with regard to accounting at shadow factories, but steps have been taken to overcome them. I cannot accept the interpretation placed by the hon. Member upon the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General which has yet to be examined by the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is very grave suspicion regarding the whole character of the keeping of accounts and costing in connection with these shadow factories, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a thorough inquiry into the matter?
    Sir K. Wood: I am sure that we may rely upon the Public Accounts Committee to do that.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the setting up of national factories, as we did in the last War?

    ENLISTMENT.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of persons that have enlisted in the Royal

    1853
    Air Force in Durham and Northumberland during the years 1937, 1938, and 1939, respectively?
    Sir K. Wood: The following are the figures:

    1937

    …

    697

    1938

    …

    1,560

    1939 (to 21st April)

    …

    707

    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of recruitment in these areas; and do the figures not suggest that the voluntary system is working very satisfactorily?
    Sir K. Wood: I must commend what this part of the country has done in relation to the Air Force, and hope that it will continue its efforts.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of young men between the ages of 20 and 21 years who have joined the Royal Air Force during the past 12 months from the respective mining districts of the British coalfields?
    Sir K. Wood: Separate records of recruiting in mining districts are not maintained by my Department, and I regret that I am unable, therefore, to furnish the figures required by the hon. Member.

    OBSERVER CORPS (UNIFORMS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to uniforms for the Observer Corps?
    Sir K. Wood: The question of providing volunteers of the Observer Corps with uniforms to be worn in time of war is under consideration, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very important work which is done by these persons, who are really far more important than many persons who are in uniform at the present time?
    Sir K. Wood: In reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to express my acknowledgment to the very large number of men who have come forward to do this important work.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the practical value
    1854
    of oilskins and sou'westers for these people?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; I will have regard to it.

  AIR BASE, NEWFOUNDLAND (COST).
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Air what action has been taken with regard to those officials who produced an estimate of £434,710 for the building of the Newfoundland mailplane base which when work started on it was found to cost £746,338; and what safeguards have been introduced to avoid similar errors of such dimensions in the future?
  Sir K. Wood: The original estimate of the cost of the work at the Newfoundland air base was prepared jointly by two engineers, one an officer of the Air Ministry, now deceased, and the other appointed by the Government of Newfoundland. It was necessary to estimate the cost of preparing, in a remote part of Newfoundland, a land aerodrome from virgin forest for use by modern aircraft with their requirements of extensive and well-surfaced runways, as well as the cost of providing marine alighting areas. It was impossible to forecast with accuracy the geological and other difficulties likely to be encountered under such unusual conditions.
  Mr. Gallacher: While it is clear that the figure could not be forecast exactly, was it not possible to get nearer than £434,000 when the real cost is found to be £746,000?
  Sir K. Wood: The circumstances were very exceptional, as the hon. Member will, no doubt, realise.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC CONTROL.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Transport under what authority motorists are compelled to obey the signals of Royal Automobile Club and Automobile Association scouts?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Euan Wallace): Although there is no legal authority to compel motorists to obey the signals of Royal Automobile Club and

    1855
    Automobile Association scouts, failure to obey a signal given by a scout might well constitute evidence of negligence.
    Mr. Hannah: May we take it that it is as obligatory upon the motorist to obey those signals as to obey those of the police?
    Captain Wallace: The matter is carefully dealt with in the answer which I have given.
    Mr. Day: Are not both associations very helpful to the motorist on the road?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir.

    MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.
    Mr. Rathboneasked the Minister of Transport how many districts there are in which numbers of people are waiting to take driving tests; how long the average waiting period is likely to be; and what action he is proposing to take in the matter?
    Captain Wallace: Candidates for driving tests are advised to send in their applications at least 15 days before the date on which they wish to be tested and the waiting period in general is approximately 15 days. In 17 of the 74 districts the present waiting period is from one to eight days in excess of this. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a seasonal rush for driving tests and that the number of applicants in any district varies considerably from week to week. The position is most carefully watched and the necessary adjustments of staff are made to ensure that delay in any district is reduced to a minimum.
    Mr. Rathbone: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that certain rush seasons coincided with the influenza season, and that the transferring of examiners to districts in which examiners were laid up in large numbers by reason of influenza kept applicants for driving tests waiting for considerably longer periods than has been mentioned by him?
    Captain Wallace: I regret that there was a casualty in the area which my hon. Friend has in mind, and to which another examiner had to be sent. I hope that the delay will shortly be minimised.

    ROAD-SURFACING CONTRACTS, ZETLAND (WAGES).
    Mr. Leslieasked the Minister of Transport the rate of wages being paid
    1856
    by the contractor and sub-contractors to the lorry drivers engaged in connection with the re-surfacing of the main roads in the county of Zetland; and what are the daily hours worked by these drivers?
    Captain Wallace: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the road-surfacing contracts which are now being carried out on Class I roads in Zetland. The contractor employs four sub-contractors, and I understand that the wages paid by them to the lorry drivers and the hours worked per day are as follow:

    Weekly Wage.

    Hours work per day.

    42s. 6d.

    …

    …

    10

    50s. 0d.

    …

    …

    10

    45s. 0d.

    …

    …

    9

    45s. 0d.

    …

    …

    9

    Mr. Burke: Is that what is known as Shetland?
    Captain Wallace: That is so.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the trade-union rate paid for this class of work?
    Captain Wallace: The contractor is, of course, responsible for the wages and conditions which are imposed by his subcontractors. I understand that the rates paid compare favourably with those prevailing in the district. Owing to the fact that it was impossible to telephone this morning I have not as complete information on this matter as I otherwise would have had.

    ROAD HAULIERS (TAXATION).
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case in the Scottish High Court by which road hauliers who make use of removable containers for the purpose of carrying livestock are now rated for taxation of their vehicles at a higher rate than has hitherto prevailed; and whether he will consider, in the interest of agriculture, taking any action to remove this additional burden upon such road hauliers?
    Captain Wallace: In December last my predecessor drew the attention of local taxation officers to the decision of the Scottish High Court in the case of Paterson versus Burnet, where, on the facts before them, the court held that a certain structure on a vehicle had not the
    "real purpose of … something to sling on or off the vehicle with the load inside"

    1857
    and was, therefore, properly reckoned as part of the unladen weight of the vehicle. I see no reason for asking Parliament to amend the existing law on the subject.
    Mr. Roberts: Am I not right in thinking that the law operates very unfairly and that railway companies' lorries which might very occasionally have the superstructure taken off are now taxed at the lower rate; whereas the private hauliers' lorries with a similar superstructure on them are taxed at the higher rate?
    Captain Wallace: I think it is perfectly consistent, because the rate of tax payable on goods vehicles depends upon their unladen weight. It is clear that the intention of Parliament in 1930 was that the unladen weight should include everything that is an integral part of the vehicle in use.

    SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES (REGULATION).
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Transport particulars of the number of regulations made by his Department restricting the use in selected streets in the London area of horse-drawn and other slow-moving traffic; and whether, in the near future, he proposes to issue similar regulations applicable to streets in the West End of London?
    Captain Wallace: Two sets of regulations have been made restricting the use of horse-drawn and other slow-moving vehicles, one relating to Oxford Street and short lengths of adjoining side streets, and the other to parts of Regent Street, Haymarket, Bond Street, New Oxford Street and High Holborn. Notice has been given of my intention to make regulations for Blackwall Tunnel. I do not at present propose to extend the regulations to streets in the West End not covered by the existing regulations.
    Mr. Day: Are the present regulations working satisfactorily?
    Captain Wallace: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. Adamsonasked the Minister of Transport the percentage of motor cars up to 10 horse-power, and each additional 5 horse-power, above that rating involved in fatal and non-fatal accidents, during each of the last five years?
    Captain Wallace: The figures for which the hon. Member asks are not available for the calendar years 1934 to 1938, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT certain particulars as to motor cars taxed on horse-power for the year ended 31st March, 1937. Further particulars as to vehicles involved in accidents during that period are contained in table 7 of the Report on Road Accidents in Great Britain for the year ended 31st March, 1937.
    Following are the figures:

    Motor cars taxed on horse-power.

    Horse-power.

    Number recorded in Census of 1936.

    Number involved in accidents, year ended 31st March, 1937.

    Fatal.

    Non-fatal.

    Without Trailer:

    1–8

    …

    436,428

    660

    23,878

    9–12

    …

    688,601

    1,174

    36,779

    13–16

    …

    343,162

    462

    13,768

    Over 16

    …

    174,659

    374

    9,419

    Unknown

    …

    —

    91

    9,322

    With Trailer

    …

    —

    5

    1,590

    1,642,850

    2,766

    94,756

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Transport whether he can now make some statement regarding the introduction of the Electricity Distribution Bill?
  Captain Wallace: I cannot add to what has already been said regarding the introduction of this legislation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the reorganisation of electricity distribution is regarded as a matter of major importance with which it is intended to deal as soon as circumstances permit.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in July, 1937, there was a public inquiry in Evesham because the rural areas were inadequately supplied with electricity by the Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electricity Supply Company? Just as we have a national telephone system, could we not have a uniform rate and a uniform supply of electricity throughout the country? The present position is an absolute scandal.
  Captain Wallace: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister answered this question on 1st March.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that although the rural areas stand in need of urgent electricity nothing is done, owing to the persistent obstruction of these vested interests?
  Mr. T. Johnstonasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Grampian Electricity Supply Company has a statutory monopoly for the supply of electricity to the rural and agricultural areas in Western Stirlingshire; that the company has recently refused to carry its supplies into an area on the ground that guarantees have not been forthcoming for demands sufficient to meet an undefined percentage return upon its estimated capital expenditure; what is the percentage required; and what steps he is taking to see that the area in question is supplied with electricity at a reasonable rate?
  Captain Wallace: I assume the right hon. Gentleman is referring to an extension of the Grampian Company's mains to Fintry and Newtown. I am informed that the eventual maximum gross revenue on an immediate expenditure of £2,800 is at present estimated at only £195, but that the company would be prepared to proceed if they were assured of a gross revenue of £350.
  Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that under the Act of 1922, under which this concern operates, they may require a prospective profit of 25 per cent. upon their capital outlay before they will take electricity into a rural area; and does he think that that is encouraging electrical development in this country?
  Captain Wallace: Surely it is a gross revenue of 25 per cent?
  Mr. Johnston: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Act gives this concern power to demand that profit, and that the canvass has been grossly insufficient to enable the concern to discover the number of prospective consumers?
  Captain Wallace: This is a difficult question to discuss across the Table. I have given the right hon. Gentleman in-
  1860
  formation on the subject and I shall be glad to see him again.
  Mr. Ede: Is not 12½ per cent. gross revenue on the capital outlay a very high percentage for this company to demand? Do the Electricity Commissioners not exercise pressure on other bodies to give a supply when a far lower gross revenue than that is guaranteed?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BOAT-OARS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the quantity of boat-oars manufactured from American ash and purchased from the United States of America, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, together with possible to find a British timber suitable the cost of same; and whether it is for this purpose in order that these oars could be made in His Majesty's dockyards.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): Orders for 6,773 American ash oars to the value of £13,292 10s. 7d. were placed during the 12 months ending 31st March, 1939. These orders are invariably placed in the United Kingdom with British importers. With regard to the second part of the question, I am afraid it is not.
    Mr. Day: Do we understand that it is impossible to obtain ash within the Empire from which these oars can be made?
    Colonel Llewellin: We have made very careful investigations, and have tried all the ash in this country, but it is unsuitable. We have also tried Dominion ash, and we are having further trials made with some ash from Australia, which we hope may give us what we want. Certainly, if we could buy British, we would.
    Mr. Day: Has the ash from Ireland been tried?
    Colonel Llewellin: That is a part of the British Empire.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the Civil Lord give the reason for the difference in the ash from America, Canada and Australia, seeing that they grow in practically the same atmosphere?
    Colonel Llewellin: Of all the different types of ash, the American ash is the most suitable and serviceable for the work we want.
    Mr. T. Smith: Have inquiries been made in Western Australia?
    Colonel Llewellin: We are trying, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, further ash from Australia.
    Mr. Keeling: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why the number of oars purchased is an uneven number?
    Colonel Llewellin: I believe that some boats in the Royal Navy have not an equal number of oars on each side. Some that I have noticed have seven rather than eight.

    BATTLESHIPS ("ROYAL SOVEREIGN" CLASS).
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Herr Hitler has denounced the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, it is now proposed to scrap the two battleships of the "Royal Sovereign" class?
    Mr. Donnerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the denunciation of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement by the German Chancellor, the decision to scrap two battleships of the "Royal Sovereign" class in 1942 will now become the subject of reconsideration?
    Colonel Llewellin: The implications of the denunciation of the Anglo-German Agreement will be carefully considered, but no decision has yet been taken on the matter referred to in these questions.
    Sir P. Harris: In coming to a decision, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the speech made by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in which he pleaded for the retention of these two ships?
    Colonel Llewellin: Certainly; all relevant considerations will be borne in mind.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the denunciation of this treaty automatically give us a free hand with regard to the "Royal Sovereign" class of ships?
    Colonel Llewellin: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is going to make a general statement on the matter, I would prefer to leave my answer where it is for the moment.

    ENLISTMENT (MINING DISTRICTS).
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of young men between the ages of 20 and 21 years who have joined the Navy during the past 12 months from the respective mining districts of the British coalfields?
    Colonel Llewellin: I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

  PALESTINE.

    REFUGEES.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Greek ship "Aghios Nicoloros," carrying refugees to Palestine, was recently fired on by one of His Majesty's ships, whereby two refugees were wounded and one killed; and who authorised the firing and this use of the Navy?
    Colonel Llewellin: The allegation contained in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is without foundation.
    Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask whether it is the fact that no such incident has taken place, seeing that I have this telegram from America:
    "American opinion outraged by shooting of refugees to Palestine"?
    Colonel Llewellin: We have, of course, made careful inquiry from the Mediterranean Fleet, and there is no foundation for any allegation that any of His Majesty's ships fired on this Greek ship or any other.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Does His Majesty's Navy include the motor boats as well?
    Colonel Llewellin: It includes all ships of the Royal Navy.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement with reference to the landing of 182 illegal immigrants

    1863
    from the "Panagai Conestria"; what were. the acts of the passengers which frustrated the Government's attempts to compel this vessel to leave Haifa; and to what extent were these acts assisted by Jews on shore?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The High Commissioner reports that, on being informed that they were to put to sea, the passengers of the "Panagia Conestria" became frenzied and hysterical, throwing into the sea the food which had been provided for them. In all the circumstances it was not considered possible for the ship to leave harbour. No active assistance was rendered by Jews on shore.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the statement, signed by 200 members of Congress, protesting against the proposed abandonment by Great Britain of the Balfour Declaration relating to Palestine; and whether, in view of the importance of the good will of the United States of America, he will postpone the declaration of the new policy with a view to reconsidering it in the light of the present world situation?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that reports have appeared in the American Press indicating that such a statement has been signed. It has not been communicated to His Majesty's Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can rest assured that the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding Palestine will be considered in the light of the world situation, and that it will take full account of their obligations towards both Arabs and Jews.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Will this House be consulted before the new settlement comes into operation?
    Mr. MacDonald: Nothing effective can be done unless and until it has the approval of this House.

  CYPRUS (PRESS AND FILM CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. Dingle Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons which recently led to a censorship being
  1864
  imposed by the Cyprus authorities on the newspaper "Embros"; and whether he will specify the article or articles which were thought to justify such a step?
  Mr. MacDonald: Under the Cyprus Press Law, the Colonial Secretary of Cyprus is empowered to impose censorship upon a newspaper when he is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, and this was the reason which prompted him to take the action referred to by the Member. The Colonial Secretary is not required to specify any particular article or articles. I may add that, though the proprietor of the "Embros" did not exercise his statutory right of appeal in this matter, the censorship was in fact removed early in February last.
  Mr. Foot: Is it not the fact that this censorship was imposed on the day following the publication of an extremely mild and inoffensive leading article on the subject of the freedom of the Press?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am not prepared to add to the statement which I have already made. As I have indicated in my answer, the matter was satisfactorily settled many weeks ago.
  Mr. Foot: Is it not reasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the reasons why this action should have been taken?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have given the reason in my answer, and beyond that I am not prepared to go.
  Mr. Footasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons why the Cyprus authorities last year banned the film of the funeral of Kemal Ataturk and the film of a recent wedding in the Greek Royal Family, while films depicting Nazi and Fascist activities were allowed to be shown?
  Mr. MacDonald: Film censorship in Cyprus is exercised by a body composed partly of officials and partly of non-officials, on which I understand that the principal local communities are all represented. I do not exercise any detailed control over their proceedings, and am unable to say what reasons may have guided them in reaching particular decisions.
  Mr. Foot: Will not the right hon. Gentleman inquire what the reasons are, and inform the House?
  Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir; I am already making inquiries.

  COLONIES (BRITISH TEXTILE IMPORTS).
  Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the imports of British textiles into those Colonies where preferential tariffs exist show any increase during the last six months?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: In most Colonial dependencies, figures distinguishing between British and foreign imports of textiles are published on an annual basis only, and I regret, therefore, that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available. Such figures as there are indicate that there has been an increase in the six months ending 31st March, 1939, as compared with the immediately preceding six months.
  Mr. Kerr: In view of the advantage which Lancashire has derived from these tariffs, will my right hon. Friend say that he intends to maintain them?
  Mr. MacDonald: There is no intention to alter them.

  MILITARY TRAINING.
  Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the specific election pledge against conscription given by his predecessor at the opening of the general election campaign at Wolverhampton, on 28th October, 1935; and whether, in view of that election pledge, he will consider postponing further consideration of legislation contrary to the said pledge until a further appeal has been made to the country?
  The Prime Minister: My attention has been called to the speech referred to in the question, in the course of which my predecessor (replying to a remark made by an Opposition candidate) said there was no intention of introducing conscription. He also said, in the same speech, that there was not and would not be any question of huge armaments or materially increased forces. Since then the march of events has made it necessary to embark upon the largest and most costly pro-
  1866
  gramme of rearmament even undertaken by this country when not at war, and the same considerations have now compelled us to adopt the limited measure of compulsory military training provided for in the Bill at present before the House.
  Mr. Macdonald: Does the Prime Minister not consider that to dishonour so specific a pledge on so vital an issue is a serious disservice to democratic methods?
  Wing-Commander James: Is my right hon Friend aware that in the interview given in New York last Friday Lord Baldwin stated that circumstances must alter cases and that he would have acted as the Prime Minister has now acted?
  The Prime Minister: I did not see that statement, but I am naturally very gratified to see that my action has the approval of Lord Baldwin.
  Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in connection with the pledge his predecessor gave with reference to there being no great rearmament, he later confessed in this House that when he gave that pledge he had no intention of keeping it? Is that true of the other pledge, too?
  Mr. Mander: Is it not usually the case that all pledges given at Wolverhampton are honoured?

  FLEET AIR ARM.
  Mr. Dayasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has now completed his examination into the questions that have arisen in regard to the working or organisation of the Fleet Air Arm; and will he make a statement as to the conclusions arrived at?
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware of the particular questions which the hon. Member has in mind. Problems of organisation arising out of the transfer to the Admiralty of responsibility for the Fleet Air Arm are being dealt with by that Department in close contact with the Air Ministry.
  Mr. Day: Is the Minister aware that his predecessor who answered this question said the matter was receiving consideration?
  Mr. Morrison: Since then there has been the transfer of the Fleet Air Arm to the Admiralty.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    ALIENS (ENROLMENT).
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what decision has now been arrived at with regard to the acceptance as volunteers in the Defence services of this country of aliens of proved loyalty; and what steps should be taken by such aliens willing to offer their services?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am not in a position to add anything to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 27th April.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that quite a number of persons are being enrolled for this purpose; and could the right hon. Gentleman give some definite assurance, because there are a number of refugees, aliens in this country, who are most anxious to offer their services to us?
    Mr. Morrison: I understand that the matter is being actively considered, and a statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Day: Does that apply to rank and file as well as officers?
    Mr. Morrison: The whole problem of using their services is being investigated.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Is it not a fact that nearly 800 have already applied since the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and are there not more applying constantly?
    Mr. Morrison: I could not verify those statements without notice.

    EVACUATION.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce any alterations in the areas provisionally listed as evacuation, reception, and neutral.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce a decision on the points to which my hon. Friend refers, but he hopes to be able to do so in the near future.
    Mr. Ede: Does that mean within the next 14 days?
    Mr. Bernays: I could not give so specific a time as that, but my right
    1868
    hon. Friend will be making an early announcement.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the very important duties which fall upon local authorities in this matter, will the Government treat this as a matter of great urgency so that local authorities may know where they are?
    Mr. Bernays: The Government are treating this matter as one of great urgency, but, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, it is a very complex problem.

    FOOD STORAGE.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been called to the appeal which has been issued in Switzerland by the Cantonal Governments to all families to store a supply of foodstuffs sufficient for two months' needs and to renew this store periodically; and whether he will cause a similar appeal to be issued by the Government in this country?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: My attention has been drawn to the appeal in regard to household storage in Switzerland to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave on 2nd February.
    Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend realise the heavy responsibility of the Government in neglecting this very obvious need of increasing our food resources in time of war?
    Mr. Morrison: The responsibility in the matter is well understood. As my right hon. Friend stated, the Government see no objection whatsoever to people who can afford to do so laying in a store of food of modest dimensions, but obviously it would not be right for the Government to sponsor such a movement of this character as would upset markets and raise the price of food in normal times to the poorer sections of the community.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that there are tens of thousands of people in this country who can hardly get bread from day to day, never mind from week to week and month to month? If it is possible for the people in Switzerland to lay in stores of food for a month or two, why cannot the Government see to it that

    1869
    the working classes of this country are enabled to do that?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not know that that arises from my answer, but it is quite evident that the problems confronting Switzerland and this country are not the same.
    Mr. John Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything further to add in regard to the storage of feeding-stuffs?
    Mr. Morrison: Not beyond what I told the hon. Member a day or two ago.

  BALLOON EXPLOSION, PAIGNTON.
  Sir Arnold Wilsonasked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he can make any statement as to the injuries caused to 16 children and two men at Paignton, on 20th April, by the explosion of a hydrogen balloon released by the National Physical Laboratory; and whether he is prepared to accept liability for medical expenses incurred in treating the injured persons without prejudice to any claims for damages that may be made hereafter?
  The Paymaster-General (Earl Winter-ton): I am desired to express my Noble Friend's sincere regret at this accident, and I am sure the House will wish to join with him in extending sympathy to the victims. While it is understood that the burns sustained by Mr. Lymath and Mr. Browse are more extensive than those by the children, the majority of whom are believed to have sustained only minor injuries, my Noble Friend hopes that in no case will there be any permanent injury or disability. Although there can be no question of legal liability, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will be prepared to pay fair compensation to those injured, and this decision was communicated by letter to the clerk to the Paignton Urban District Council on 21st April, the day following the accident.
  Mr. Thorne: Have any of the children suffered any permanent injury?
  Earl Winterton: In my reply, I said it was hoped that none of them had suffered any permanent injury.

  TRINIDAD (PETITION).
  Mr. James Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the petition of Mr. J. W. Butler, of Trinidad, respecting his allegations of unjustifiable degradation; and whether he is now prepared to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The petition has been under consideration, but it has been necessary to refer back certain points to the Acting-Governor of Trinidad. Until I have received his reply I am unable to answer the second part of the question.

  GOLD COAST.
  Mr. Chorltonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position in the Gold Coast of the cocoa trade and also of the textile, cotton, imports into that district; and whether the results of the commission's recommendations have proved satisfactory and effective?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Almost the whole of the 1938–39 Gold Coast cocoa crop has now been disposed of. No marketing difficulties have been experienced, but prices have remained low throughout the season. Imports of cotton piece goods have fallen by nearly 20 per cent. during the cocoa season just completed, as compared with imports in the 1937–38 season, when importers were laying in stocks which have since had to be liquidated. With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot yet add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) on 8th March.
  Mr. Burke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to give a reply with regard to the recommendations of the Commission?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am expecting the report of the Commission which has been set up on the Gold Coast, some time early in June.

  JAMAICA, TRINIDAD, AND BRITISH GUIANA (TRADE UNIONS).
  Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of registered trade unions in Jamaica,

  1871
  Trinidad, and British Guiana, respectively; and the approximate membership of the registered unions in each Colony?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: According to my latest information, there are six registered trade unions in Jamaica, 16 in Trinidad, and six in British Guiana. In Jamaica three further unions have applied for registration. I have no information as to the approximate membership of registered unions in each Colony.
  Mr. Jagger: Will the Minister make representations to the Government Departments in Trinidad to recognise those unions?
  Mr. MacDonald: In Trinidad 16 are recognised.
  Mr. Jagger: Would he ask the Government Departments, in their capacity as employers, to recognise the unions?

  BARBADOS.

    LAND SETTLEMENT, ST. LUCIA.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the project of the Government of Barbados to settle approximately 1,000 persons in land settlements on the island of St. Lucia, in the West Indies?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Land has been acquired for the settlement of Barbadian immigrants in St. Lucia, and the necessary preliminary work is now being carried out by the Barbados Land Settlement Company, which was formed by the Government of Barbados for the execution of the scheme. It is contemplated that some 475 Barbadian families should be settled under this scheme.
    Mr. Riley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the labourers preparing the site for this scheme are St. Lucian inhabitants. What is to occur when the immigrants from Barbados arrive?
    Mr. MacDonald: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, we do not anticipate that any difficulty will arise.

    FRANCHISE.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the approaching celebrations
    1872
    of the tercentenary of the Barbados Assembly, he will arrange for transforming this body into a proper democratic assembly by extending the franchise to the people of the Colony and revising the terms of qualification of its members; and whether he will make representations that all political and trade union prisoners should be released?
    Mr. MacDonald: I have received no representations from the people or Government of Barbados suggesting that the tercentenary of the House of Assembly should be celebrated in the manner proposed by the hon. Member, nor do I see any particular virtue in seizing this occasion for such a change. With regard to the last part of the question, I cannot accept the suggestion that any persons have been imprisoned for engaging in political or trade union activities in Barbados.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very narrow franchise in Barbados and the considerable feeling among West Indians on this point, and the fact that there is a trade union leader in prison at the present time in Barbados undergoing 10 years' hard labour for organising trade unions?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am aware of the somewhat narrow nature of the franchise, but I have not received any representations on the matter. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot accept the suggestion that any individual is in prison in Barbados for organising trade unions.
    Mr. Creech Jones: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the judge who imposed the sentence?

  NORTHERN RHODESIA.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement made in this House by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on 25th July, 1923, that the land in North-Eastern Rhodesia was regarded as native land was brought to the notice of the recent Royal Commission; whether copies of the treaties with the native tribes were furnished to the Royal Commission; and which Clauses in those treaties support the Commission's report that un-alienated land in North-Eastern Rhodesia is Crown land or the map appended to their report excluding it from native land?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Neither the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on 25th July, 1923, nor the treaties with native tribes were, I understand, brought specifically to the Royal Commission's notice, but the Commission had full opportunity of informing itself in Northern Rhodesia upon the position with regard to land. As regards the third part of the question, the treaties referred to by the hon. Member do not affect the ownership of the land: the Crown's title to the land in North-Eastern Rhodesia rests upon the Northern Rhodesia (Crown Lands and Native Reserves) Order in Council, 1928.
  Mr. Creech Jones: May I have an assurance that the land in question is in exactly the same position as it was when Mr. Ormsby-Gore stated that this was native land? In view of the very grave statement in paragraph 87 of the report as to native rights in land, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me that that has not been altered?
  Mr. MacDonald: The position is the same, except in so far as it may have been altered by the Order in Council, which was made five years after the Under-Secretary of State made that statement—in 1928.
  Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations made in the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the financial and economic position of Northern Rhodesia?
  Mr. MacDonald: It is difficult to deal adequately with this comprehensive question in the space of a Parliamentary Answer. I would invite attention to the answer to a similar question which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 18th February and which indicated that a comprehensive programme for the provision of social and development services, on the lines recommended by the Financial Commission, has been drawn up. The carrying out of this programme, which will entail an expenditure of more than £1,000,000 over the next five years, has already begun. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular part of the recommendations of the Commission and will let we know, I will furnish him with a statement of the progress made.
  Mr. Paling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any special effort has been made to deal with that part of the report which says that there are no medical services whatever for at least half the population?
  Mr. MacDonald: The expansion of health services is one of the items in this programme of general development.

  HABEAS CORPUS (COLONIES).
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on how many occasions within the last 20 years has habeas corpus been abrogated or suspended in any part of the Colonial Empire, and where; under what powers such abrogation of the rule of law can be effected by subordinate parliaments or other local governments; and whether the approval of His Majesty's Government is sought in each case?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the reply is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that at a time when other nations' claims for the return of colonies are resisted by His Majesty's Government on the ground of the nature of those countries' rule, it would be advisable to review very carefully any such abrogation of the rule of law in colonies for which we are responsible and not permit it to occur without the direct approval of the Government?
  Mr. MacDonald: I think that if the hon. Member will study the answer which I propose to circulate he will see that the position is perfectly satisfactory.
  Following is the reply:
  As regards the first part of the question, the information for which the hon. Member asks could not be made available without very considerable research, which I do not consider would be justified. As regards the latter part of the question, the general power of legislation possessed by Colonial legislatures would enable them to abrogate the right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus from a court in the Colony, but Colonial legislation must be submitted to the Secretary of State for the signification of His Majesty's

  1875
  pleasure, and is subject, therefore, to disallowance by His Majesty on the advice of the Secretary of State. I am not aware of any Colonial law which contains such a provision except in the rare case of a special ordinance providing for the detention of a political prisoner. In those dependencies to which the Emergency Powers Order in Council, 1939, applies, the Governor may, in case of emergency, bring the order into operation by Proclamation, and he may then make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the territory, the maintenance of public order and the suppression of mutiny, rebellion or riot.

  AFRICA (NATIVE LABOUR).
  Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the formation and development of labour departments in the interests of native labour in Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, Nyasaland and Northern and Southern Rhodesia?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Paling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present state of development in these labour departments is at least as good now as it was before these economies were made in 1922–33?
  Mr. MacDonald: I would not like to give a specific answer with regard to every one of these Colonies until I have gone into the matter more carefully, but there has been very considerable development since 1931, and in some cases we are considering still further developments at the present time.
  Following is the answer:
  In Kenya there has been for some years a Labour Section which is in process of expansion. In Uganda there is a Labour Inspector, but the arrangements for Government supervision of labour are under review. In Tanganyika there is a separate Labour Inspectorate under a Chief Labour Inspector, and there is also a Standing Labour Advisory Board to advise the Government from time to time on all matters affecting the supply and employment of native labour.
  1876
  There is a Labour Commissioner in Nyasaland, and the creation of a Labour Department in Northern Rhodesia is under active consideration. In this connection, the recommendation of the recent Royal Commission, that consideration should be given to the formation of a single Labour Department for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, will be borne in mind. As regards labour emigrating from these two territories, the Governments of both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have appointed Labour Officers to reside in Southern Rhodesia to safeguard the interests of such labour employed in that Colony. The appointment jointly by the two Governments of an officer with a similar function to reside in Johannesburg, is also contemplated. So far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned, the matter is entirely one for the Southern Rhodesia Government, and my Department is not concerned with it.

  CEYLON.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any legislation has been introduced or is in course of preparation in Ceylon, to implement the recommendation of the joint sub-committee of the Executive Committee of Home Affairs and Education, subsequently approved by the State Council and noted by the Slavery Committee of the League of Nations to the effect that persons taking charge of unwanted infants should be registered as custodians, and that children and girls under 16 years of age employed outside their districts, or more than 10 miles from home, should be registered?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I understand that Bills have been prepared by Ceylonese Ministers dealing with the questions of the adoption of children and of the registration of domestic servants. I have not yet seen these Bills and am not aware what progress has been made with them.
  Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the fact that the ordinance which has now been publicly announced does not include the registration of custodians or the registration of children in domestic employment away from their homes, and as the second Bill will not deal with this problem, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to widen the present ordinance so as to cover these two omissions?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have asked the Governor for a report on the matter, but these are subjects which come under the control of the Ceylonese Ministry over which I have no power.

  MINING DISTRICTS (MEN OF 20 AND 21).
  Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary for Mines the numbers of young men between the ages of 20 and 21 years in the respective mining districts of the British coalfields?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I have been asked to reply. This information is not available in my Department, but I am arranging to obtain it.

  EMERGENCY OIL SUPPLIES (COUNTRY DISTRICTS).
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Secretary for Mines whether any arrangements have been made in an emergency to supply farmers with paraffin and petrol for their tractors and to whom should they apply for a permit; and whether householders who will be billeting refugees will be given permits for oil for their engines to run their electric light, pumping, etc., in country districts?
  Mr. Cross: Plans for regulating the supply of petroleum products in an emergency are being made and suitable notice by means of a public announcement will be given of the steps which those requiring supplies should take.
  Brigadier-General Brown: Can my hon. Friend say when it is likely that an announcement will be made?
  Mr. Cross: If any regulation of supplies were decided upon an announcement would have to be made.

  BURMA.

    RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Under secretary of State for Burma, whether he is aware that the Chinese Government are building a railway to the Sino-Burmese frontier; and whether he can give an assurance that no railway construction in Burma is contemplated to connect with
    1878
    it, and that no such project will be entertained without the fullest previous public inquiry and the assent of the Burmese Parliament?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I have seen reports that the Chinese Government have already commenced preliminary work for a railway from Kunming towards the Burma frontier. The project of a Chinese railway connecting with the railway system of Burma has been contemplated from time to time on many occasions during the past 40 years. I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing would be done in Burma without due consultation with all the interests in Burma concerned.

    MUNITIONS IN TRANSIT.
    Sir A. Wilsonasked the Undersecretary of State for Burma the total tonnage, value, country of origin, and summary description of munitions of war which passed through Burma during 1937, and during the first quarter of 1938; and whether any special trade convention has been concluded between China and Burma in this connection?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My Noble Friend has no information in respect of the periods mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend but will, if desired, inquire of the Government of Burma. No special trade agreement has been made between China and Burma in regard to the transit of arms across Burma, but administrative arrangements have been made in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention between Great Britain and China of 1894.
    Sir A. Wilson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend ascertain approximately what munitions were, in fact, in transit, and whether any duty has been paid?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I will do my best to get the information for my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Shinwell: May we take it that the Government will take no action which will in any way prevent the Chinese Government from obtaining munitions of war in order to resist aggression?
    Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the policy of His Majesty's Government is satisfactory in that respect.

  EMPIRE RAW MATERIALS.
  Miss Rathboneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will supply figures showing the total production in the British Empire during 1938 of antimony, petroleum, mercury and tungsten, and the proportion of these substances which were sold to countries outside the Empire; and whether he is satisfied that the proportion retained within the Empire is large enough to meet both current needs, and to provide a reserve adequate for the requirements of Imperial Defence?
  Mr. Cross: Details of production in 1938 are not yet available but the principal sources of supply of the raw materials mentioned other than tungsten ore are outside the Empire. This country takes most of the Empire output of tungsten ore. I am not aware of any difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies of these materials for current needs, and I can assure the hon. Member that the requirements of Imperial Defence are not being overlooked.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Sir J. Mellorasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will identify the county councils which have refused to transfer control of the air-raid wardens to the police?
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Twelve English, one Welsh and six Scottish county authorities have proposed to defer transferring the control of the air-raid wardens service to the chief officers of police. In most cases the proposal is to defer transfer until a stage of training has been completed; in seven cases the proposed postponement of transfer is indefinite.
  Sir J. Mellorasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will identify the non- county boroughs and urban districts which have applied for his permission to prepare their own air-raid precautions schemes, stating in each case whether such applications have been supported or resisted by the county councils concerned and indicating the nature of his decision?
  Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend is arranging to send my hon. Friend a list of the boroughs and urban districts which have applied for permission to prepare their own air-raid precautions general
  1880
  schemes, and the decision reached in each case.
  Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the county boroughs will also be identified?
  Mr. Morrison: I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend, and I have no doubt at all that it will receive attention.
  Mr. Sandys: Cannot the information be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Morrison: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the desire of my hon. Friend that it should be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the list:
  Applications by Boroughs and Urban Districts to submit Separate Schemes under Section 1 (2) (b) of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937.

  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  Borough or Urban District and Decision.
  Bedfordshire:

  Luton—Granted.

  Berkshire:

  Abingdon—Refused.

  Windsor—Refused.

  Buckinghamshire:

  Aylesbury—Refused.

  Cambridgeshire:

  Cambridge—Granted.

  Wisbech—Refused.

  Cheshire:

  Stalybridge—Refused.

  Cornwall:

  Penzance—Refused.

  Saltash—Refused.

  Derbyshire:

  Chesterfield—Granted.

  Devonshire:

  Brixham—Granted.

  Paignton—Granted.

  Torquay—Granted.

  Dorsetshire:

  Poole—Granted.

  Weymouth—Refused.

  Durham:

  Blaydon—Refused.

  Jarrow—Refused.

  Stockton-on-Tees—In abeyance.

  Whickham—Refused.

  Essex:

  Barking—Refused.

  Billericay—Refused.

  Clacton—Refused.

  Colchester—Refused.

  Leyton—Withdrawn.

  Walthamstow—Refused.

  Glamorganshire:

  Rhondda—Refused.

  Hampshire:

  Aldershot—Withdrawn.

  Basingstoke—Under consideration.

  Christchurch—Granted.

  Eastleigh—Refused.

  Farnborough—Withdrawn.

  Lymington—Refused.

  Winchester—Under consideration.

  Borough or Urban District and Decision.—cont.
  Kent:

  Bexley—Refused.

  Chatham—Under consideration.

  Deal—Refused.

  Gillingham—Refused.

  Herne Bay—Refused.

  Margate—Refused.

  Rochester—Refused.

  Sheerness—Refused.

  Lancashire:

  Crosby—Under consideration.

  Lancaster—Refused.

  Morecambe and Heysham—Refused.

  Prestwich—Refused.

  Stretford—Withdrawn.

  Urmston—Withdrawn.

  Lincolnshire (Holland):

  Boston—Refused.

  Lincolnshire (Kesteven):

  Grantham—Refused.

  Lincolnshire (Lindsey):

  Scunthorpe—Granted.

  Norfolk:

  King's Lynn—Granted.

  Northumberland:

  Newburn—Refused.

  Peterborough, Soke of:

  Peterborough—Granted.

  Staffordshire:

  Bilston—Under consideration.

  Newcastle-under-Lyme—Granted.

  Rowley Regis—Refused.

  Stafford—Refused.

  Tipton—Under consideration.

  Wednesbury—Under consideration.

  Surrey:

  Mitcham—Refused.

  Sutton and Cheam—Refused.

  Sussex (East):

  Hove—Withdrawn.

  Sussex (West):

  Worthing—Granted.

  Warwickshire:

  Nuneaton—Refused.

  Rugby—Refused.

  Solihull—Refused.

  Sutton Coldfield—Refused.

  Wiltshire:

  Salisbury—Granted.

  Swindon—Granted.

  Worcestershire:

  Kidderminster—Withdrawn.

  Oldbury—Granted.

  Yorkshire (East Riding):

  Bridlington—Refused.

  Haltemprice—Under consideration.

  Yorkshire (North Riding):

  Scarborough—Refused.

  Yorkshire (West Riding):

  Brighouse—Refused.

  Todmorden—Refused.

  SCOTLAND.
  Dumbarton:

  Milngavie—Refused.

  Fifeshire:

  Buckhaven—Refused.

  Ross and Cromarty:

  Stornoway—Refused.

  SLUM CLEARANCE (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many local authorities have passed resolutions urging the Government to undertake a larger proportion of the expenditure on the demolition of unfit houses and the alleviation of overcrowding, contending that the re-housing of the working-classes is a matter of national concern, and that local rates should not be unduly burdened in consequence; and whether any action is contemplated in the near future?
  Mr. Bernays: The rates of Exchequer subsidy for the purposes mentioned were fixed by Parliament only a year ago and my right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that they are inadequate. The statute provides for a review of these rates after 1st October, 1941.
  Mr. Smith: Is not the Minister aware that many local authorities in industrial districts which have a low rateable value are finding their work harder in this direction, and would it not be a good thing to have legislation to move these old houses out of existence more quickly than is the case to-day?
  Mr. Bernays: As regards the subsidy, the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that the overcrowding subsidy now payable balances any reduction that there has been in the slum clearance subsidy.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. Silvermanasked the Minister of Pensions whether having regard to the widespread dissatisfaction with the present law relating to ex-service pensions and the administration thereof, he will introduce legislation having for its object the revision of that law and its administration on a juster and more equitable basis?
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): No, Sir. As I have no evidence to support the view on which the hon. Member's suggestion is based, I am not prepared to adopt it.
  Mr. Silverman:Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is, in all

  1883
  quarters of this House, considerable dissatisfaction amounting to indignation, and will he not reconsider his decision?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: I would remind the hon. Member of the report which was made by a sub-committee of the British Legion to the Prime Minister last year, and published in Command Paper 5738, in which it is stated that the committee is
  "satisfied that the general principles which form the basis of the Pension Warrants are sound"—
  and further it is
  "satisfied that where reasonable evidence is produced to show that disablement is due to war service, pension is paid under the war compensation schemes."
  Mr. Batey: If the Minister cannot see his way to bring in legislation, has he considered the question of setting up a committee to go into this matter?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: In view of the very great experience of the British Legion, I am sure that is not necessary.
  Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that in spite of that report, the British Legion asked for an inquiry?
  Mr. George Griffiths: And they were not satisfied with the answer.
  Mr. Silverman: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at a convenient time on the Motion for the Adjournment.

  FILMS (EXCISE DUTY).
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the approximate amount of film used by British cinematograph film producers, including newsreel producers, in 1938; and what will be the approximate annual cost of the new duty on films in respect of such British production?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Figures for 1938 are not available; but returns furnished to the Board of Trade for 1937 showed the amount of blank film used by British film producers to be approximately 58 million feet. Under the Budget Resolutions the Excise Duty chargeable on such film will be equivalent to about ½d. a foot.
  1884
  As, however, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to allow a rebate on any film wasted or rejected as unsuitable for inclusion in the final picture, the duty will, in effect, fall on only a small proportion of the film used in British productions.
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed new tax on films was drawn up in consultation with the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that this tax places a burden on the British film-producing industry, the existence of which is already precarious?
  Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir.

  POLISH JEWS (SETTLEMENT, BRITISH EMPIRE).
  Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Prime Minister whether any discussions took place with Colonel Beck during his recent visit to London with regard to the settlement of Polish Jews in the British Empire; and whether any decision was reached on this subject?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the communiqué issued after Colonel Beck's visit.

  KENYA (JUVENILE LABOUR).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the desirability of raising the age for the employment of juvenile labour in Kenya to 14 years; and with what result?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) on 14th December last, to which I have nothing to add.

  BRITISH GUIANA (JEWISH REFUGEES).
  Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of the Anglo-American Committee which investigated the possibility of settling Jewish refugees in British Guiana; and what action it is proposed to take on this question?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I have seen a copy of the report which is addressed to the United States President's Advisory Committee on Refugees. Prompt and careful consideration is being given to the Report, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the matter,
  Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to publish the report?
  Mr. MacDonald: We are in consultation with the United States authorities on that question, and I think that publication will take place in the near future.
  Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may be able to get access to the report?
  Mr. MacDonald: I cannot give a specific date until we have completed our negotiations in the matter with the United States authorities.

  SHIPBUILDING (BRITISH YARDS).
  Mr. Day (for Mr. David Adams)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has intimated to British shipowners the express desire of the Government that all orders for new tonnage shall be placed in British shipyards; and what are his proposals to prevent lower foreign quotations being accepted?
  Mr. Cross: I am sure that the British shipping industry is aware of the importance attached by the Government to the placing of orders with British shipyards. As regards the second part of the question, I would invite the hon. Member's particular attention to those parts of my right hon. Friend's announcement of 28th March which relate to the proposed schemes of grants and loans in respect of British ships built in this country.
  Mr. Day: Can the first part of the question be answered?
  Mr. Cross: The first part of the question is clearly covered by my reply, particularly when I told the House that the results of the schemes of assistance that are being suggested by my right hon. Friend have been extremely satisfactory. The number of orders placed and the number of orders of which we have received notification for new ships are
  1886
  approximately of the nature of 1,000,000 gross tons.
  Mr. Day: Does not the question ask whether there has been any intimation of the desire of the Government to the shipowners by the Board of Trade?

  FOOD PRODUCTION.

    EMERGENCY PROPOSALS.
    Mr. T. Williams(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to give any information for the guidance of farmers regarding the Government's plans for expanding the home production of food in time of war.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): Under the Government's general plans for ensuring food supplies in time of war the function allotted to the Agricultural Departments is that of making the arrangements that would be required in the event of an outbreak of war to bring about an expansion of food production in the United Kingdom. Plans have accordingly been prepared for a central and local organisation which would be responsible for giving effect to arrangements for increasing the production of food and feedingstuffs. The Agricultural Departments would be responsible for the central direction and executive committees would be set up in each county to whom important functions would be delegated. The names of the gentlemen whose services the Government has been able to secure as chairmen-designate of these prospective committees in England and Wales and in Scotland are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    An expansion of home food production would necessarily involve an increase in the arable area obtained by means of a ploughing-up campaign. The particular crops, the production of which we should have to expand, would depend on a number of circumstances including the season of the year when an outbreak of war occurred, the situation in regard to food reserves in this country, and overseas supplies, and the suitability of the newly-ploughed land for particular crops, whether for human consumption or for feedingstuffs for our livestock which provide vital supplies of milk and meat. A

    1887
    great deal of information has been collected by the Agricultural Departments and prepared in a form in which it would be immediately available for the proposed executive committees.
    A reserve of fertilisers has been secured, and plans have been made to organise and control the supply and distribution of fertilisers, feeding stuffs, tractors and other machinery, fuel, implements, seeds and other farm requisites for the industry's war-time requirements. The problem of labour has been carefully considered with the other Departments concerned. In addition to the safeguards provided under the scheme of reserved occupations, steps are being taken to enrol persons willing to undertake work on the land in time of war, and plans are being made for training by intensive courses, in the event of a war, those who have had little or no previous agricultural experience. This matter is now receiving further consideration in the light of recent Government decisions in regard to the Territorial Army and compulsory military service.
    The Government do not consider it necessary or desirable that the plans for production on the scale or of the character that would be required in time of war should be put into operation in advance of an outbreak of war. They consider that the best preparation for an emergency is to bring the land into a state of greater fertility which would enable it to respond more fully to the increased demands which would be made on it in the event of an outbreak of war. The Government, therefore, desire that farmers should make a special effort this summer to improve their poorer grassland, large areas of which could not in its present condition yield satisfactory crops.
    To assist farmers to improve the potential productivity of such land the Government propose to ask Parliament to authorise the payment of contributions of £2 per acre in respect of permanent grass ploughed up after this announcement and before 30th September, 1939, and brought into a state of cleanliness and fertility by re-seeding, or by fallowing or sowing to an approved crop with a view to re-seeding. The objective would be to encourage farmers to carry out work which in any case is desirable in order
    1888
    to convert poor or worn-out grass land into more productive pasture and would, if the need arises during the autumn or spring, enable the land to be readily used, as arable land, for raising such crops as might be required to supplement supplies of food or feeding stuffs.
    The Government would urge farmers, in consultation where necessary with the landowners concerned, to make arrangements to plough up during the summer inferior permanent grassland that would benefit by re-seeding and could, if necessary, be put in a condition to produce suitable crops. Notice of intention to plough up must be given to the Agricultural Departments in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in order that the land concerned may be inspected at the discretion of the Departments, either before or after ploughing. Applicants will be required to satisfy the Departments that the land has been down to grass for not less than seven years. No payment will be made in respect of areas of less than two acres, and fractions of less than half an acre will be disregarded.
    Further details and particulars of the form in which notice of intention to plough up should be given will be issued at an early date. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, and it is contemplated that payment of the Government contributions would be made in the autumn, subject to the Departments being satisfied that the work has been duly carried out and that any necessary safeguards or conditions have been observed. The Government are confident that they will have the fullest support and co-operation of the agricultural community in this effort to improve the productive capacity of our soil.
    Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether the policy enunciated has been considered by the National Farmers' Union, and whether that body have indicated that they are prepared to make this paper policy a success?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have had no consultations with the National Farmers' Union on this particular matter.
    Mr. Williams: As the farmers are the only people who can turn this paper policy into a successful policy, should

    1889
    they not have been consulted? Also may I ask whether any other method might have been a more suitable means of increasing food production in peace time and accelerating food production in war time?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have every reason to believe that the National Farmers' Union, and indeed all farmers, will do everything they can to forward this policy. I am satisfied that they will realise that it is a helpful policy.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the Department encourage local committees to consult the farmers in their areas as to the necessary changes which will be made in their farms to bring the land into a suitable state for production?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no doubt that the chairman-designate will do what is necessary to bring land into an efficient state.
    Mr. Leonard: If an inspector finds land which is not in a fit state, will any compulsion be brought to bear in order to bring the land up to the necessary requirements?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We have no powers of compulsion.
    Mr. John Morgan: Has the right hon. Gentleman a reserve of tractors; and is he aware that the majority of tractor drivers on farms are under the age of 25 and are not in a reserved occupation? Can we have some idea as to the estimated acreage he has in mind which will be brought into use in this way?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As far as tractors are concerned, we are making arrangements for the distribution of all the necessary tractors. We know the number of tractors already in the country. As far as the drivers are concerned, that matter is being reconsidered in the light of the recent decision of the Government. It is hard to estimate the acreage, but we hope to get at least 250,000 acres.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total estimated cost this year?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is hard to give an exact estimate, but the sum is £2 on 250,000 acres.
    Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he is barring out
    1890
    parcels of land of less than two acres? Is he not aware that in many parts of the country it would be highly advantageous to get plots of land of one acre and an acre and a half in a state of development?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will see that the administrative difficulties are rather immense.
    Captain Cazalet: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is a sufficient supply of fertilisers for the 250,000 acres when they are ploughed up?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There is no difficulty about that.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the finest fertilising agent is a flock of sheep, and will he take steps to increase the number of sheep?
    Mr. Bellengèr: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication as to the proportion which the Government payment of £2 an acre bears to the average rent of the pasturage?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.
    Following are the names:
    Chairmen-Designate of the County War Agricultural Executive Committees to be constituted in the Event of War.
    ENGLAND AND WALES.
    ENGLAND.
    County and Chairman-designate.
    Bedfordshire: H. J. Humphreys, J.P.
    Berkshire: Arthur Thomas Loyd, O.B.E., D.L.
    Buckinghamshire: The Rt. Hon. Lord Addison.
    Cambridge: W. C. Jackson, J.P.
    Cheshire: A. G. Carswell, F.L.A.S.
    Cornwall: J. Lionel Rogers.
    Cumberland: Chas. H. Roberts.
    Derbyshire: U. Roland Burke, F.L.A.S.
    Devon: G. H. Hayter Hames.
    Dorset: W. W. Sampson.
    Durham: (The gentleman originally selected has recently resigned on grounds of ill-health.)
    Essex: Hugh Kemsley, F.S.I.
    Gloucestershire: Major J. H. Dent-Blockle-hurst, O.B.E.
    Hampshire: C. L. Chute, M.C.
    Herefordshire: Dr. E. M. Maples, O.B.E., M.A., LL.D.
    Hertfordshire: A. F. Bott.
    Huntingdon: Major R. G. Proby.
    Isle of Ely: J. W. Payne.
    Isle of Wight: A. A. H. Wykeham.
    Kent: Lord Cornwallis, J.P.
    Lancashire: Sir Miles Ewart Mitchell, J.P.
    Leicestershire: J. T. Jacques.
    County and Chairman-designate—cont.
    Lincolnshire (Holland): J. W. Gleed, D.L., J.P.
    Lincolnshire (Kesteven): Geo. H. Schwind, J.P.
    Lincolnshire (Lindsey): Major Sir John St. Vigor Fox.
    Middlesex: C. Knifton.
    Norfolk: H. E. S. Upcher, J.P.
    Northamptonshire: J. O. Adams, J.P.
    Nottinghamshire: G. E. Taylor, J.P.
    Oxford: Frederick E. Withington, D.L., J.P.
    Rutland: A. D. Potter.
    Shropshire: Captain Edward Foster, O.B.E.
    Soke of Peterborough: The Most Hon. the Marquis of Exeter, K.G., C.M.G., T.D.
    Somerset: R. A. Hobhouse, J.P.
    Staffordshire: H. J. C. Winterton, F.S.I.
    East Suffolk: Stuart Paul.
    West Suffolk: Captain G. Walmsley.
    East Sussex: H. H. Brand.
    West Sussex: Lieut.-Colonel Sir Merrik Burrell, Bt., C.B.E.
    Surrey: S. W. Tringham, J.P.
    Northumberland: Major J. G. G. Rea,
    Warwickshire: Colonel C. J. H. Wheatley, J.P., D.L.
    Westmorland: Major L. S. Hogarth, F.S.I., F.L.A.S.
    Wiltshire: Richard Stratton.
    Worcestershire: F. Paget Norbury, J.P.
    East Riding of Yorks: Lieut.-Colonel J. A. Dunnington Jefferson.
    North Riding of Yorks: Sir Bedford L. Dorman, Bt., O.B.E.
    West Riding of Yorks: R. L. Walker.
    WALES.
    Anglesey: Wm. Edwards, J.P.
    Brecon: Alderman Mervyn T, Davies.
    Caernarvon: Alderman G. Hughes-Roberts, J.P.
    Cardigan: J. G. Morris-Davies, F.S.I.
    Carmarthenshire: Major John Francis, D.S.O., F.S.I.
    Denbigh: R. H. Roberts, J.P.
    Flint: Trevor Eyton, J.P.
    Glamorgan: Hubert Alexander.
    Merioneth: R. T. Vaughan, J.P.
    Monmouth: L. R. Pym, J.P., F.L.A.S.
    Montgomery: W. M. Marriott, F.L.A.S.
    Pembroke: R. S. Wade.
    Radnor: Alderman B. P. Lewis, J.P.
    SCOTLAND.
    Name of Committee, Area and Chairman-designate.
    Aberdeen:
    Deer and Turriff, Deer and Turriff Districts: Lieut.-Colonel G. B. Duff, D.S.O.
    Aberdeen & Ellon, Aberdeen and Ellon Districts: The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Caithness, C.B.E., LL.D.
    Huntly and Garioch, Huntly and Garioch Districts: Brig.-General J. G. H. Hamilton, D.S.O.
    Alford and Deeside, Alford and Deeside Districts: Colonel R. J. Nicol, O.B.E.
    Angus: County of Angus: Colonel I. D. Guthrie.
    North Argyll, Argyll (1) North (Lorn Hull, and Ardnamurchan): Colonel Bryce Allan, O.B.E., T.D.
    Name of Committee, Area and Chairman-designate—cont.
    South Argyll, Argyll (2) South (Kintyre, Islay, Mid Argyll and Cowal); J. Graham Campbell.
    North Ayr, Ayr (1) Northern and Kilmarnock Districts: Sir Neil Cochran-Patrick. K.B.E.
    South Ayr, Ayr (2) Ayr and Carrick Districts: Colonel Norman Kennedy, D.S.O.
    Banff, County of Banff: Sir George Aber-cromby, Bt.
    Berwick, County of Berwick: Major R. W. Sharpe.
    Bute, Bute and Cumbraes: N. H. Constable.
    Arran, Isle of Arran: George Laidler.
    Caithness, County of Caithness: Commander Gore Browne Henderson.
    Dumfries, County of Dumfries: Sir John Milne Home.
    Dumbarton and Renfrew, Counties of Dumbarton and Renfrew: James R. Lumsden.
    East Lothian, County of East Lothian: Major G. H. M. Broun-Lindsay, D.S.O.
    East Fife, East Fife District: Major Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn, Bt.
    West Fife and Kinross, West Fife and Kinross District: Colonel the Hon. David Bruce.
    Inverness (Mainland), County of Inverness Mainland: Major the Hon. Alistair Fraser, D.S.O.
    Skye, Isle of Skye: Duncan MacLeod.
    Inverness (Outer Islands), Outer Isles: John MacDonald.
    Kincardine, County of Kincardine: G. H. Russell.
    Kirkcudbright, County of Kirkcudbright: J. B. Douglas.
    Lanark, County of Lanark: Major B. J. Monteith.
    Midlothian, County of Midlothian: George G. Mercer.
    Moray and Nairn, Counties of Moray and Nairn: The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Moray, M.C.
    Orkney, County of Orkney: Alex Calder.
    Peebles and Selkirk, Counties of Peebles and Selkirk: Major Sir S. Strang Steel, Bt.
    East Perth, East Perth District: The Rt. Hon. Lord Kinnaird.
    West, Perth, West Perth District: Sir Malcolm McGregor of McGregor, Bt., C.B., C.M.G.
    Ross and Cromarty (Mainland), County of Ross and Cromarty (Mainland): Major Sir Robert W. Brooke, Bt., D.S.O., M.C.
    Lewis, Island of Lewis: Angus Smith.
    Roxburgh, County of Roxburgh: Major Mark Sprot of Riddell.
    Stirling and Clackmannan, Counties of Stirling and Clackmannan: Colonel Archibald Stirling.
    Sutherland, County of Sutherland: Colonel Gilbert Gunn.
    West Lothian, County of West Lothian: S. B. Hog.
    Wigtown, County of Wigtown: The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Stair, K.T., D.S.O.
    Zetland, County of Zetland: Magnus Shearer, O.B.E.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. McGovern: I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to a statement I made during the Debate yesterday on the motor car tax. I made a statement that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) had expressed a desire that the effect of this tax would be to drive small cars off the roads. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out to me that it was quite the reverse. I said that if I found I was wrong I would apologise. I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT this afternoon and have tried to get in touch with the hon. Member, who is not in his place at the moment. I will send him a personal note later. What the hon. Member said yesterday was:
"I welcome the effect of the proposals on social life, because they may drive off the roads the high horse-power cars, the 40 horsepower 'suffer little children,' and the road hogs which cause so many accidents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1939; col. 1826, Vol. 346.]
I find that I was completely wrong in the statement I made. I misunderstood the hon. Member, and I ought not to have made the statement I did. I express my regret to him and apologise for having made the statement. Instead of condemning him, I ought to have congratulated him, because he showed a solicitude for human life by desiring to have the larger road hogs driven off the roads. I apologise unreservedly to him and to the House, and to you, Mr. Speaker, for having made the mistake.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 125.

Division No. 92.]

AYES.

[3.59 p.m.

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

Colman, N. C. D.

Grimston, R. V.

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Albery, Sir Irving

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

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

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

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

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

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

Hambro, A. V.

Aske, Sir R. W.

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

Hannah, I. C.

Asshaton, R.

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

Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

Harbord, A.

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

Crook, Sir J. Smedley

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

Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

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

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

Cross, R. H.

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Barrie, Sir C. C.

Crossley, A. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

Baxter, A. Beverley

Crewder, J. F. E.

Hepworth, J.

Beaushame, Sir B. C.

Cruddas, Col. B.

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

Beechman, N. A.

Davies, C. (Montgomery)

Higgs, W, F.

Bernays, R. H.

Davison, Sir W. H.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Blair, Sir R.

De la Bère, R.

Holdsworth, H.

Bossom, A. C.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hopkinson, A.

Bower, Comdr. R. T.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Boyce, H. Leslie

Dodd, J. S.

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Brass, Sir W.

Donner, P. W.

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

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

Hunloke, H. P.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Hunter, T.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

Duncan, J. A. L.

Hurd, Sir P. A.

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

Dunglass, Lord.

Hutchinson, G. C.

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

Eckersley P. T.

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

Bull, B. B.

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Burton, Col. H. W.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

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

Butcher, H. W.

Emery, J. F.

Jones, L, (Swansea W.)

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Campbell, Sir E. T.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Cartland, J. R. H.

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Carver, Major W. H.

Fildes, Sir H.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Cary, R, A.

Findlay, Sir E.

Kimball, L.

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

Fleming, E. L.

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Furness, S. N.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

Gluckstein, L. H.

Lewis, O.

Channon, H.

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

Liddall, W. S.

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Granville, E. L.

Lindsay, K. M.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Lipson, D, L.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Christie, J. A.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Loftus, P. C.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

M'Connell, Sir J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

McCorquodale, M. S.

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

Procter, Major H. A.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Purbrick, R.

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Radford, E. A.

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

McKie, J. H.

Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Maclay, Hon. J. P.

Ramsbotham, H.

Strickland, Captain W. F

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

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Magnay, T.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

Maitland, Sir Adam

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

Tate, Mavis C.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Remer, J. R.

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

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

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Thomas, J. P. L.

Markham, S. F.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Marsden, Commander A.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Touche, G. C.

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

Russell, Sir Alexander

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Salmon, Sir I.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Salt, E. W.

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

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

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

Moreing, A. C.

Samuel, M. R. A.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Warrender, Sir V.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

Sanderson, Sir F. B.

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

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

Sandys, E. D.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

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

Schuster, Sir G. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

Scott, Lord William

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

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Selley, H. R.

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

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

Patrick, C. M.

Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Peake, O.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.

Peat, C. U.

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

York, C.

Petherick, M.

Smithers, Sir W.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Snadden, W. McN.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Pilkington, R.

Somerset, T.

Captain Dudgale and Mr. Munro.

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Paling, W.

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

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Parkinson, J. A.

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

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

Adamson, W. M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Poole, C. C.

Ammon, C. G.

Hardie, Agnes

Quibell, D. J. K.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Hayday, A.

Riley, B.

Banfield, J. W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Ritson, J.

Barnes, A. J.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Barr, J.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Rothschild, J. A. de

Batey, J,

Jagger, J.

Sanders, W. S.

Beaumont, H. (Batley)

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Seely, Sir H. M.

Bellenger, F. J.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Sexton, T. M.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Shinwell, E.

Bromfield, W.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Silverman, S. S

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Kirkwood, D.

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

Buchanan, C.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Sloan, A.

Burke, W. A.

Lathan, G.

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Cape, T.

Lawson, J, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Charleton, H. C.

Leach, W.

Stephen, C.

Chater, D.

Leonard, W.

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

Cluse, W. S.

Leslie, J. R.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

Logan, D. G.

Thorne, W.

Cocks, F. S.

Lunn, W.

Thurtle, E.

Collindridge, F.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Tinker, J. J.

Cove, W. G.

McEntee, V. La T.

Tomlinson, G.

Daggar, G.

McGhee, H. G.

Viant, S. P.

Dalton, H.

McGovern, J.

Walkden, A. G.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

MacLaren, A.

Walker, J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Maclean, N.

Watkins, F. C.

Day, H.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Watson, W. McL.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Mander, G. le M.

Welsh, J. C.

Ede, J. C.

Marshall, F.

Westwood, J.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

Maxton, J.

Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Messer, F.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Montague, F.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

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

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

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Foot, D. M.

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

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Gallacher, W.

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

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Gardner, B. W.

Muff, G.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gibson, R. (Greenock)

Naylor, T. E.

Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence).
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.
Minutes of Evidence to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

HIS MAJESTY'S VISIT TO CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.
4.8 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, conveying to His Majesty, on the occasion of his departure for Canada and the United States of America, an assurance of the loyal affection of this House and of the deep interest with which it will follow the progress of His Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen during Their absence from this country,"
I have been unable to find any precedent for the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper and which I now move, but I venture to think it is none the worse on that account. Their Majesties the King and Queen are about to set out on a journey which to our loss will take them from among us for a period of some weeks, but which will give immense pleasure and satisfaction to their subjects in Canada and further cement the ties of Empire. They will be going on to pay a visit to the United States at the invitation of the President—a visit which, I believe, will be the first of the kind by a reigning Sovereign of this country. The relations between ourselves and the people of the United States have long been of a special character on account of our common language, our common ideals and our common traditions, and we may be sure that the visit of Their Majesties to that country will be warmly welcomed in that great Republic across the Atlantic. I feel confident that hon. Members in all parts of the House will desire to wish Their Majesties God-speed upon their journey.
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Attlee: I desire, on behalf of Members of my party, to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister. We shall all hope that this voyage will be happy and successful, and that it will increase the close ties which bind this country to the people of Canada and to the people of the United States. In these days anything that can be done should be done to unite the great Democracy of the West to the sentiments of the people of this country and the other peoples of the British Commonwealth.
4.11 p.m.
Sir Archibald Sinclair: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I wish to be associated with the Motion so gracefully
1904
and happily moved and seconded by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. In going to Canada the King will be going among his own people, and his visit will emphasise and strengthen those feelings, which are shared by all His Majesty's subjects wherever they live, of loyalty to his person, of pride in our common heritage and of responsibility for the wise use of the opportunities which it gives us for service to the common interests of humanity. The visit of His Majesty to the United States of America will be a demonstration of the friendship and understanding which happily prevail between the people of our two countries. In opening the New York World Fair a few days ago, President Roosevelt said that the Americans had hitched their waggon to a star, the star of good will, progress and peace. It is a striking proof of the sincerity with which the British public share those ideals which the President thus eloquently expressed that at a time when our minds are so gravely preoccupied with dangers nearer home, the King and Queen should be leaving these shores on an embassy of good will and understanding to the people of the West, for it is the ideal, the most cherished ideal, of the British people to build up a peaceful and progressive civilisation founded on the principles of justice and freedom. It is right, therefore, that we should to-day express our loyal affection to the King and wish God-speed to His Majesty and to Her Majesty the Queen at the outset of their journey.
4.14 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: I do not wish to say anything to cause offence, nor have I any desire to offer any opposition to this Motion. I only want to ask the Prime Minister and those who support him, when they are wishing God-speed to this trip to America, to consider at the same time the trip that the old age pensioners have to make to the public assistance committee and think about doing something to relieve them of the heavy burden they bear.
Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
    REPORT [25TH APRIL].
    Sixteenth and subsequent Resolutions considered.
    REPORT [25TH APRIL].
      INCOME TAX.

        CHARGE OF TAX.
        16. "That—

        (1) Income Tax for the year 1939–1940 shall be charged at the standard rate of five shillings and sixpence in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

        (2) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1938–1939 shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1939–1940.

        And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

        HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1938–1939.
        17. "That Income Tax for the year 1938–1939 in respect of the excess of the total income of an individual over two thousand pounds shall be charged at rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate by the amounts specified in the second column of the Table in Section six of the Finance Act, 1931 (as originally enacted) increased—

        (a) in the case of an amount relating to any part of the first six thousand pounds of the excess, by 15 per cent. of that amount;

        (b) in the case of any of the remaining amounts, by 20 per cent. of that amount.

        And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

        AMENDMENTS AS TO SURTAX ON, AND APPORTIONMENTS OF, INCOME OF CERTAIN COMPANIES.
        18. "That there may be included in any Act of the present Session relating to finance such Amendments of Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1922 (which relates to Surtax on the undistributed income of certain companies) and of any enactments relating to or amending that Section or referring to apportionments thereunder, as Parliament may determine, and any such Act may pro vide that any of the said Amendments shall have effect for the purpose of assessments for any year not earlier than the year 1936–1937 and authorise any necessary additional assessments for ny such year."
        NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.
        19. "That the enactments relating to the National Defence Contribution shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect subject to such Amendments as will secure that, in the case of the businesses mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 7 of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1937, any income received from investments or other property is taken into account in computing the losses to be carried forward under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule, notwithstanding that that in come has been separately charged to Income Tax by deduction or otherwise."
      ESTATE DUTY.
        ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE).
        20. "That, in the case of persons dying after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the rates of estate duty set out in the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1930, shall, so far as they relate to estates the principal value of which exceeds fifty thousand pounds, be increased, in the case of each rate, by one-tenth of the amount thereof."

        ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENTS AS TO CERTAIN INTERESTS ARISING ON DEATH AND AS TO CERTAIN DEBTS).
        21. "That the enactments relating to estate duty shall, in the case of persons dying after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be amended with regard to—

        (a) the annuities and other interests that are to be treated as passing on the death of a deceased person by virtue of paragraph(d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1894, and as being property in which he had an interest;

        (b) the exclusion of certain debts and in-cumbrances from those which may be deducted from the value of the estate of a deceased person in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of estate duty;

        (c) the inclusion in property passing on the death of a deceased person by virtue of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1894, of property applied to the discharge of certain debts and incumbrances, and the payment of estate duty accordingly, notwithstanding anything in Section three of that Act."

      MISCELLANEOUS.
        POWER TO BORROW FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL PURPOSES.
        22. "That the whole or any part of the sums required in the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment, may be provided out of money borrowed for the purpose under Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

        UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.
        23. "That the National Debt Commissioners shall as and when the Treasury

        1907
        request, pay into the Exchequer out of their account of unclaimed dividends, under Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870, sums not exceeding in the whole one million five hundred thousand pounds, and may for that purpose sell any stock standing to the credit of that account."
        4.16 p.m.
        The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        The House will not expect at this stage any detailed explanation of this Resolution, but I understand that hon. Members would like a very brief indication of the scope which it is intended to cover by the Resolution, which is necessarily drawn in very wide terms. To put it very briefly, the changes which it is intended to lay before Parliament in the Finance Bill under the authority of this Resolution are changes that affect one-man investment companies, and therefore, they are a sequel to the legislation which has now had a considerable course and which began in Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1922, which dealt with the evasion of Surtax liability by the transference of property to a company that is in effect under the control of one person.
        The changes will deal with and strengthen the definition of "control" since certain devices have been adopted which have succeèded in getting round the already wide definition of "control." Secondly, they will deal with the somewhat technical case which arises when, for example, a shareholder in the main company is a second company, and will enable the interest of the tax evader to be followed through the second and any subsequent company until one comes to the person actually interested.
        The third point which falls to be dealt with is the question whether, in considering investment as distinct from trading companies, one should make any allowance for the withholding from distribution of a reasonable amount of the income of the year. In the case of trading companies, whether one-man companies or ordinary public companies, it is, of course, frequently, and indeed usually, reasonable that a certain amount of the
        1908
        profits for the year should not be distributed in dividends; and therefore, in applying those parts of the Finance Act, 1922, to one-man trading companies, provision is made for that perfectly normal trading requirement. But as the Sections are drafted, the same words apply to an investment company, and certain submissions have been put forward which have been accepted, and had to be accepted under the law as it stands, suggesting that in the case of an investment company an amount might reasonably be withheld from distribution because the capital value of the investments had gone down, and so on. While preserving this principle for trading companies, it is not thought that it has any real application to investment companies which are of this class, namely, companies to which a person has transferred his investments for the purpose of diminishing or avoiding his liability to Surtax.
        The fourth point with which it is intended to deal is to give the Special Commissioners rather wider powers than they have at present to make apportionments of income of investment companies in certain circumstances. It will be seen that the Resolution gives us power to make these provisions retrospective. This will not apply to all of the points, but it will apply to the first two, because my right hon. Friend is satisfied that as far as those two matters are concerned, we are dealing with devices which have been definitely designed to get round the intention of Parliament as contained in the earlier legislation. I am aware that my explanation may not have been entirely lucid, but I hope that it will have indicated to those hon. Members who are interested in the matter the general scope of the changes it is intended to make.
        4.21 p.m.
        Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: After listening to the Attorney-General, I have a general idea as to what it is proposed to do, but I cannot say that I could pass an examination on the proposals, and I do not think many hon. Members could do so. I would like to ask the Chancellor a question relating to the speech which I made a week ago on the question of the avoidance of Surtax. I then gave several cases in which I believed the avoidance of Surtax was still being practised, in spite of the efforts that have been made to prevent it. I should like to ask

        1909
        the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet had time to consult his advisers on this point for the purpose of seeing whether the practices to which I referred did avoid payment of Surtax, and if so, whether there is anything in the present proposals which will check that avoidance.
        Further to the question of the methods that are adopted, I will quote another case with regard to a foreign company. Let us suppose that a man having some £250,000 chooses to incorporate a company in Canada, for instance. The directors of the company, perhaps, may be officers of a Candian trust corporation who cater for this class of work, and possibly they may be friends of the man seeking to avoid Surtax. Let us suppose that the man then transfers his investments to the Canadian company in consideration of the issue to his adult children or friends of debentures of a nominal amount of the original £250,000. The ordinary shares in the company are also issued to the same persons which enable them to wind up the company and to receive the surplus assets on liquidation. The effect of this is that the income of the investment is not liable to British Surtax, and when the company is wound up the assets, with the increment from the income which has been accruing to them, are all treated as capital. That is a further illustration. Of course, I do not expect to receive an answer to this point to-day, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consult with his advisers on the matter before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, so that then he will be able to tell us whether the provisions he proposes to embody in the Finance Bill will deal with a case of that kind, and if not, whether something can be introduced to cover the matter.
        4.24 p.m.
        The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has stated with great clearness another case, or illustration, which has been brought to his attention. I do not pretend at the moment to have followed it with any precision, although the general description is not unfamiliar to me. I would prefer to examine the case when I see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT and to deal with it at a later stage. As the right hon. Gentleman has reminded
        1910
        me, in the speech which he made last week he mentioned some other cases which had come to his notice, and those illustrations have, of course, been examined in the meantime. I will not deal with them exhaustively now, and indeed I am not sure that I could, because, I too, suffer from the inability to answer an examination paper correctly as well as anybody else. I am glad to be able to say that some of the illustrations which the right hon. Gentleman gave were found, on examination, to be covered by the law as we have made it, and more particularly as we have made it quite recently. I am glad that in one case to which he referred, the legislation which we passed last year would prevent what he described.
        The right hon. Gentleman gave one case in connection with Surtax, and two cases in connection with Estate Duty. In the one case, he spoke of a settlor who transferred his funds to a trust to accumulate the income, but subject to a contingency which was stated, and then the contingency did not happen, and upon that being established, the funds, or money which represented those funds, returned to the hands of the settlor. That class of case is one of the cases dealt with by a section of the Finance Act, 1938. I will not argue the matter in detail, for it is very technical, but Section 38, Subsection (3) of the Finance Act, 1938, deals with that kind of case. Under that provision, which was passed after a good deal of close analysis and discussion, if and so long as the settlor has an interest in income arising under a settlement the income, in so far as it is not actually distributed in any year of assessment, is deemed to be the settlor's income for that year even though he has passed it for purposes of accumulation to the trustee. I ought to add that there is an exception, which I think is quite justified and which does not alter the substance of what I am saying. There is an exception laid down in Sub-section (4) regarding cases in which funds will revert to the settlor only by reason of the bankruptcy of the beneficiary, and certain other genuine contingencies. I think that is right, because a man may very properly make that a condition without endeavouring to escape tax at all on that account. Therefore, without wishing to be too dogmatic on the subject, I think I am entitled to

        1911
        say that the case which the right hon. Gentleman raised is really covered by the legislation which was passed last year.
        Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Obviously, we cannot argue out this matter across the Floor of the House, but I think he has dealt with a case slightly different from either of the two cases to which I referred in regard to Surtax. However, this is a matter which must be pursued in detail by other means than across the Floor of the House.
        Sir J. Simon: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I am glad to have his help. As he said, it would not be very useful to discuss it in detail at the moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman mentioned two cases arising out of the Estate Duty. One case was of a man who transfers his property to a private company in return for shares which he receives—
        Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Perhaps it would be better to postpone the point until we are discussing the Resolution dealing with the avoidance of Estate Duty.
        Sir J. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to relieve me of the necessity for dealing with this point now. Therefore, I will shorten the matter by saying that I am obliged to him for having called attention to these difficult matters. It is right that the authorities, and I, myself, should be kept up to the mark in regard to these points. We shall examine these instances very carefully, and it will probably be possible to deal with them more appropriately at a later stage in our discussions.
        4.31 p.m.
        Sir Irving Albery: I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to one aspect of this matter. On two or three occasions already he has had to pass special legislation dealing with the evasion of taxation, thereby adding to the complexities of our taxation law which was already beyond the comprehension of most people. I never could understand why it was impossible to find a simpler way of dealing with this subject. As the right hon. Gentleman has said himself, he introduces legislation to deal with this
        1912
        subject, but no sooner is the new law put into operation than new means of evasion are found and further legislation becomes necessary to deal with those further means of evasion. In all probability next year the right hon. Gentleman may find it necessary to appear before the House with a similar proposition.
        What I wish to refer to particularly is the case of the private company. It has always appeared to me that it is not an essential right of the citizen to trade as a private company. It is a privilege and it is accorded to him by law, under which he gets certain advantages, in being able to trade on a basis of limited liability. I am sure it is necessary to grant that privilege, and that it is a privilege which should be continued but I cannot understand why the Government should not bring in a short amendment of companies law to put the private company on the basis of an annual licence, somewhat similar to that which now exists in the case of a public-house. There would be an automatic annual application for the licence which in normal circumstances would be automatically accorded, but it would be a simple matter, when any private company was found to be trading purely for the purpose of evading taxation, to refuse to renew the licence. Such a course would be beneficial not merely in regard to the question of taxation. We know that some of the worst frauds perpetrated in this country in connection with companies—indeed the majority of such frauds—are perpetrated through the means of private companies. At the present time I believe private companies are being formed by foreigners with English nominees to get round some of the legislation which is being passed. It is high time that those trading under the form of private companies were put under adequate control, and I am sure that there would be no more effective way of achieving the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind.
        4.34 p.m.
        The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

        1913
        I will try to give a brief and, I hope this time, a more intelligible explanation of this Resolution. The House is probably aware that under the ordinary Income Tax law, if a trading loss is made in certain years, it can be carried forward and set off against profits made in subsequent years. That is a natural and just principle and it was intended to apply it to the liability for National Defence Contribution and the relevant part of the Schedule regulating this matter provided that losses as computed for Income Tax purposes could be carried forward and set against profits in subsequent years, in the same way as they can in respect of ordinary Income Tax liability. As far as ordinary trading companies are concerned, the intention of Parliament has been carried out and no trouble arises. Trouble has arisen, however, in connection with certain concerns of which insurance undertakings are the best example. In those cases there may be a loss as computed for Income Tax purposes which is not a trading loss at all.
        That arises in this way. A very large proportion of the income of these concerns is from investments. That income comes to their hands taxed at the source. They therefore suffer tax in respect of that amount of their income before they get it. In the case of life assurance companies it is frequently the case that they suffer tax, in respect of their investment income, on an amount of income which is greater than their profit for the year on their business. They may, in fact, suffer tax on an income, say, of £100,000 whereas the profit for the year is only £90,000. The statutory provision made to adjust that, regards the £10,000, the amount by which the income on which they have paid tax exceeds their actual trading profit, as a loss for Income Tax purposes, because they have paid tax on an amount larger than the amount of their profit, but that loss is not a loss in the ordinary trading sense at all and it was not the intention of Parliament that that loss should be carried forward and deducted from profits for the purposes of the National Defence Contribution. The Clause which will be based on this Resolution is a Clause to put that right. My right hon. Friend has discussed the matter with the representatives of the insurance societies and others concerned, and I do not think there is any dispute that this is a reasonable provision, and
        1914
        that Parliament did not intend losses which are only losses in a technical and statutory sense, to be covered by the principle embodied in the Act of Parliament.
        Mr. Bellenger: I take it this would apply to Schedule D. If so, what is to be the procedure? Will the companies re-claim the amount of the excess tax which has been paid by deduction at the source on their investments?
        The Attorney-General: This Resolution does not raise that point. The exact method of adjustment at present under Income Tax law is not a matter which is touched by this Resolution. The effect of the Resolution is to provide that these technical losses, in the sense in which I have described them, are not to be brought into account for National Defence Contribution. Broadly speaking, the adjustment is rather on the lines which the hon. Gentleman indicates, but the Resolution simply says that the difference between those figures which I indicated representing a technical loss, according to a statutory definition, should not reduce the liability for National Defence Contribution.
        4.40 p.m.
        The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        This Resolution deals with a method of reducing liability to Estate Duty which was never contemplated, and I think it is best to approach it by considering a not infrequent form of provision which is made by a family man for his family in the event of his death. A man takes out a policy or policies with the view that the policy moneys payable on his death, should be available as provision for his family. He may settle the interest in the policies on trustees and the money which will be payable after his death will be there for his wife and children, or his surviving dependants, according to the terms of the settlement. The position will be that, year after year, he will pay the necessary premiums to

        1915
        keep up the policies, and when he dies, the policy moneys will go to his family. If he does that, he cannot deduct for Surtax purposes the sums paid year by year and the value of the policies when he dies, under the existing statutory provisions, of course pays Death Duties, because the policies represent an interest arising on his death and the ordinary law at present applies to a provision of that kind.
        Some people have arrived at the same result as far as their dependants are concerned, by a different route They first settle, say, £100,000 on trustees. The trustees transfer that to a company. It is the company which takes out the insurance policy. The company having got £100,000 lends back £95,000 to the prospective deceased. The result is that the prospective deceased at that moment is only £5,000 out of pocket. The legal position is that he owes the company £95,000. The policy is taken out by the company, and the premium paid out of the original £5,000 and the £5,000 comes in every year from the prospective deceased as interest on the loan made. Under the present law, when the prospective deceased actually dies, the policy moneys do not pay Estate Duty because although in fact coming out of his pocket, the premiums are not paid by the deceased within the meaning of the Act, the policy having been taken out by the company. The artificial debt of £95,000 arising from the company lending the man back that amount, is a debt which again diminishes the value of the estate of the deceased. The purpose of the Clause which will be founded on this Resolution is to put the estate in the same position as if that sort of transaction were done by the normal method. Broadly speaking, that is the device that the Clause to be founded on this Resolution is intended to defeat.
        Sir I. Albery: I am not quite clear what the effect will be. Is this another case of evasion? Is this one of the cases in which I understand the company's licence would not be renewed?
        The Attorney-General: We shall have every opportunity of considering the matter in detail on the Clause, but I thought it would be convenient that at this stage we should indicate the general nature of the Clause, but it is impossible to go into too much detail. So far as the
        1916
        company here is concerned, it is no doubt a company which is formed simply for the purpose of enabling this transaction to be carried through, the obvious purpose of the transaction being solely to diminish Estate Duty.
        Sir I. Albery: The object of the Clause will be to prevent evasion?
        The Attorney-General: The object of the Clause is to see that the same amount of Estate Duty is collected as would have been collected if this transaction had been made by the normal method without the interposition of this company.
        Colonel Burton: Will this Clause form one of those which will be made retrospective?
        The Attorney-General: It applies to the estates of persons dying after the passing of this Resolution. It does not apply to deaths before the date of the Resolution.
        Mr. Annesley Somerville: This Resolution provides for the increases of Estate Duty. Am I right in supposing that the increases do not apply to landed property?
        Sir J. Simon: They do not.
        4.48 p.m.
        Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the same question which I put with regard to Surtax, but relate it to Death Duties. Having had the opportunity of looking into the two illustrations of avoidance which I gave last week, can he tell the House whether they are either covered by the existing law or will be covered by these new proposals? I made another suggestion last week that primarily affected the Surtax, but also did affect to some extent Estate Duty, and that is that a further question should be asked of the taxpayer who makes up his Income Tax returns which would elicit from him certain transactions which would be of value for the Inland Revenue to know in both these respects. Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to have that point examined, and, if so, what conclusion has been reached?
        I was interested in the illustration that the Attorney-General gave, because I thought he was going to deal with another matter which has also been represented to me as a means of evading a part of Estate Duty, but after I had listened very carefully to what he said,

        1917
        it does not seem to me to be a case that is precisely on all fours. The method which has been represented to me as being one of those which are used is to take advantage of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, and I understand that this is the procedure. A man insures for the benefit of his wife and children under that Act, and on his death the insurance moneys belong to the wife and children and form no part of his own estate. The policy moneys, of course, are liable to Estate Duty, but are treated as a separate estate and are not aggregated with the rest of the man's estate for the purpose of determining the rate of duty applicable. If it is correct that a man can succeed in this way in partitioning his estate into two parts, he does avoid paying a particularly high rate of duty. I do not know whether that point can be answered straight away, but, if not, perhaps that also will be looked into and, if necessary, dealt with in the detailed Clauses of the Finance Bill.
        4.52 p.m.
        Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, first, what it is expected to save by this kind of Clause, and, secondly, what steps are being taken in regard to the transference of moneys before death—in the case, I mean, of a rich man passing over some of his money to members of his family. What steps are taken to avoid that happening? Some 12 months ago it was stated quite openly that one very rich person had transferred a huge sum of money to his children, but one child had died before the father, and the Chancellor came in for a larger revenue than he would otherwise have got. I am given to understand that that method is largely practised by rich people. Can the Chancellor tell the House the length of time before a man dies that money has got to be transferred in order to avoid Estate Duty? If that sort of thing is happening on a large scale, I think steps should be taken to prevent it. I may be wrong in my assumption. It is only a kind of talk that is going on, and I have no ground for putting it forward as a definite fact, but I shall be pleased if the Chancellor can help me in the matter.
        4.54 p.m.
        Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will understand that these questions are necessarily rather complicated in detail. Death
        1918
        duties are duties which are charged at varying rates, according to the size of the estate or property, at death, on property that passes at death, as their name implies. If, however, you made no provision in the law for giving away property shortly before death, evidently the scheme of the tax would be liable to be defeated, say, on the death bed of a person, whether rich or poor. This duty is not limited, of course, to people of great wealth, and many a man, or woman, feeling that the last day had come might find that he had presents to give to his relations. Therefore, it has always been necessary, in the death duties scheme, to include in the property treated as passing at the moment of death property which did belong to the deceased in his lifetime, but which the deceased made a gift of a short time before his death. Originally, the period was a much shorter period than it is now—I think it was 12 months, or it may have been shorter—but anyhow it was felt, after some experience, that that was not long enough, and the present period is three years. There is, therefore, included in the amount which has to be vouched for by the executor when the death duty is calculated, worked out, and charged, not only the property which in fact belonged to the deceased at the moment when he died, but also any property which belonged to him within three years of his death, and which he had given away in the interval. If he sold property, say, in the last year of his life for full value, then the property sold would not be included in his estate, because he would only have exchanged one thing for another, but this provision I have referred to applies to gifts between living people which are treated as though they were in fact something which still continued to belong to the deceased at the moment of his death.
        It is true that the period is a period of three years and no more. It would, I think, destroy the character of the tax if you did not have some limit of time, because it is a tax which is charged when property passes at death. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) made a very interesting suggestion the other day which would have meant some annual contribution, but that is a different kind of tax. A death duty is a tax collected

        1919
        at death on all the property which passes, but you have to go back three years and account for everything that has occurred in that time. It has a very good indirect effect from the revenue point of view since, if a person does bestow some of his property away, let us say, to his son, because the son is younger and is therefore likely to survive him, and it does not in any particular case work out in that way, then, of course, death duty is paid by the son instead of by the older person.
        Mr. Tomlinson: What happens if the prospective deceased realises his property within the three years period?
        Sir J. Simon: Does the hon. Member mean when he sells all that he has?
        Mr. Tomlinson: No, but if he gives it away, and within the period the son dies, and the man himself dies within the three years period?
        Sir J. Simon: Let us call A the father and B the son, and say that A has given away a large part of his property to B in advance of his death, and B dies before A. The first thing that happens is that B has got to pay death duty.
        Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman means, of course, that a payment has to be made out of B's estate.
        Sir J. Simon: Yes. It is the estate that suffers. He did not bring anything into the world and he cannot take anything out. He has to leave something behind and it is his estate which pays the tax. Suppose A also died within three years of making his gift; I am not aware of anything to prevent the amount which he had handed over to B being regarded as passing when he dies.
        Colonel Burton: The estate does not necessarily revert to A. It might go to C—a son of B.
        Sir J. Simon: I did not say it does. My proposition is that if the son dies his estate will pay Death Duties and suppose A dies within three years of having given his property to B, I am not aware that there is anything to prevent the property
        1920
        of B being regarded as passing on A's death. There is an hon. and learned Friend behind me who is more instructed in these matters than I am, and he assures me that I am right. I am interested to have noted the state of astonishment on the benches opposite at the severity of these duties.
        With regard to the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite I think that the cases he mentioned are, in part, covered by recent legislation though it may be that they are not wholly covered. I am glad that he mentioned them because apart altogether from what we are able to do this year in the Finance Bill I am making arrangements to have a definite and careful survey made of what is the real result of the recent legislation.
        5.3 p.m.
        The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        This Resolution is the basis for a Clause in the Finance Bill authorising the payment of £1,500,000 to the Exchequer from the Unclaimed Dividends Account of the National Debt Commissioners. Under the National Debt Act, 1870, dividends on Government stocks which are not claimed within a period, which is generally speaking five years, are transferred to the National Debt Commissioners, who have a liability if at any future time they are called upon to repay the dividends. They invest the money and it earns interest. In actual fact, in no year have the claims in respect of unclaimed dividends made upon the National Debt Commissioners been great enough to require them to draw on their investments. Therefore, the fund goes on accumulating. At the present time there is sufficient in the fund for £1,500,000 of that accumulation to be taken out and passed to the Exchequer. This form of transaction is not being done for the first time. The first occasion of this kind was in 1866 by Mr. Gladstone, when £3,000,000 nominal of stock was cancelled. It was done again in 1904

        1921
        by Sir Austen Chamberlain, when £1,000,000 in cash was paid into the Exchequer. I am sure that it will not surprise the House to be told that such a transaction again took place in 1928 under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when £1,000,000 in cash was transferred to the Exchequer. The necessary Clause will be drafted, and I hope it will have the assent of the House.
        5.5 p.m.
        Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does this proposal apply in any way to unclaimed repayment of National Savings. Certificates? They run for a certain period, and how long must elapse before they can be regarded as unclaimed?
        Captain Crookshank: This Resolution applies only to dividends on Government stocks. The Savings Certificates are another question.

  WAYS AND MEANS [1st MAY].
  Resolution reported:
  WAYS AND MEANS [1st MAY].

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise), and to make further provision in connection with finance."
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions, and upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on 2nd May and agreed to by the House on that day, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Captain Crookshank.

    FINANCE BILL.
    "to grant certain duties of Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise), to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and the National Debt, and to make further provision in connection with Finance," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
  CAMPS BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  CAMPS BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to authorise recognised companies to purchase land compulsorily.)
    5.8 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert,
    "and also any land reasonably necessary for, the preservation of the amenities of any land acquired or proposed to be acquired for such purposes."
    In the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was moved by the hon. Membar for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to enable recognised companies to buy land adjacent to a camp site in order to preserve the amenities of the site. We had a discussion of some length on that Amendment, and in the end I undertook to consider the matter further before the Report stage. In consequence I am moving this Amendment. I think that it fully meets the points which were made on various sides of the Committee. There is no doubt that the Bill as it stands makes it possible to acquire land for necessary playing fields and for any expansion of the camp which may be desirable in an emergency. It does not provide specifically for the acquisition of land for preserving the amenities of the camp, and it was strongly stressed that that should be mentioned in the terms of the Statute. In view of the strong support from all sides of the House for a power of this kind we have put down this Amendment. It confers on the companies, subject to the approval of the central Department, which was included in the original Amendment, powers of purchase, if necessary by compulsion, for the purpose of preserving amenities. The land must be reasonably necessary for the purpose in question. That suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) in Committee, and it will prevent any undue or excessive exercise of the power. Then, of course, the financial resources of the companies are limited. We do not want to spend too much money by buying up ground, because we want to get ahead with the construction of the camps.
    Perhaps a word of warning is necessary that all these proposals for extending sites, improving the conditions, and so on naturally add to the cost of the camps.

    1923
    So does anything in the way of improvements in design and lay-out. We are as anxious as anyone to make sure that the lay-out and design are satisfactory and that the standard of accommodation which is provided is such as to enable the children from the great cities to get the utmost benefit and enjoyment from their stay in the countryside. We believe that with the help of our skilled advisers we shall fully secure these objects. But all these things cost money, and I warn the House that the original calculations, which were made at a time when the details were not fully worked out and had to be based on the experience of other camps, may prove to be an under-estimate. I have carefully considered the suggestion made from many quarters during the Committee stage that a person of experience in planning should be added to the board. I was anxious that we should not inflate the membership of the board or ask the board to multiply itself unduly, but if the addition is limited to one extra person, that will not affect the working power of the board. Consequently, I put this question before Lord Portal, the chairman of the board of management, and I understand that the proposal to appoint an additional director with the qualifications mentioned will be favourably recommended by the chairman and by the managing director at the next meeting of the board, which will take place early next week.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I want to thank the Minister for what he has said. It seems to me that the Amendment should fully meet the case of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), and it is satisfactory to me and my hon. Friends. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement that he proposes to add another director to the board of management.
    Mr. Elliot: I do not wish it to be understood that I am doing it; I have merely suggested it.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That satisfies us, and I am sure that the action the right hon. Gentleman has taken will protect a vital national interest.
    Mr. Mander: I am entirely satisfied with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. It meets the
    1924
    point I had in mind when I moved my Amendment in Committee, and I am grateful to him. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there is a good hope of another director of the company, who will be a specialist in planning work, being appointed. It will meet the criticism of those on all sides who spoke about this matter in Committee. With these two changes the Bill has been made entirely satisfactory.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to offer a word of congratulation and thanks to the Minister as one of those who troubled him on the Committee stage when we had a long discussion on these points. I should also like to correct one point which he made just now. He said that all these things cost more money and mentioned good design as one of them. That is a complete delusion and one from which the Minister's Department often suffers. Houses and buildings of good design need cost no more money than those of bad design. The things that offend our countryside are not the cheapest buildings but very often the more expensive.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "every," to insert "county and of every."
    Provision is made in the Bill for notice to be given to borough councils and urban and rural district councils, but there is no provision for notice to be given to county councils, and as they are the highway authorities I think it is desirable that notice should be given to them. I understand the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Elliot: I recommend the House to accept this Amendment. It is obviously desirable that a county council should be given notice as well as borough and district councils, all the more so since, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, it is the highway authority.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Exemption from building restrictions.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 12, after the second "the," insert "county and of the."—[Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Application of Act to Scotland.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, leave out from "to," to "and," in line 7, and insert "a borough, there shall be substituted a reference to a burgh and references to urban or rural districts shall not apply."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    5.17 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Lindsay): My speech on the Financial Resolution was a little blurred by the prospect of a solemn announcement which was about to be made, and on this occasion I want to remind the House that the purpose of this Bill is twofold—evacuation in wartime and education in peace-time. The House has, I think, tended to discuss quite important questions such as amenities but not perhaps to discuss very fully these two main purposes of the Bill. The fact that we are introducing quite revolutionary changes in the technique of education, and the fact that unemployed men who have lost some of their natural strength are going to earn what are really, in effect, subsidised wages, are matters on which the House has preferred not to dwell. I think it is typical of legislation in this country that we introduce important changes by, as it were, a side wind. I must at this Third Reading stage say one word about the peace-time uses of these camps, because that is extremely important. Many of the sites have been chosen and some of the camps will be ready, I hope, by September. Let us picture these camps in the happy event of our escaping war. Much of the talk in the recent Debates about the utilisation of these camps by adults and the possible effect upon seaside resorts is, to my mind, completely beside the point and, indeed, out of place. I wish to see relays of town children filling these camps during term-time. It will be the deliberate policy of the Board to promote this movement.
    So much for the nine months of the year during which the children will be at school. Then there will remain the Christmas, the Easter and the Summer holidays, and at these times I should like to see juvenile associations of various kinds using the camps on reasonable terms from the Corporation. The ideal
    1926
    camp, I think, is the small one pitched by a few boys. They can be seen every week-end at the side of farms all over the country. The boys have taken their equipment with them, perhaps on bicycles. But there are hundreds of boys' clubs and other organised bodies possessing no sites for their camps, who would welcome this opportunity. It is imperative, therefore, as the Minister of Health said, that there should be adequate space for recreation. The camp sites might well cover, as I believe they will, 20 to 30 acres. I make the suggestion that the juvenile organisations in the various districts might well take over these camps perhaps for the whole period of the summer vacation, and let them out, because they will have a complete knowledge of the various clubs in their districts. In many cases it will be impossible for one club or one Scout troop to take over a camp with accommodation for 350, but if there are four or five there at the same time it will be possible to arrange all kinds of competitions and to organise the camp on a local basis. Indeed, I suspect that some of the bigger authorities would wish to take over the camps for the whole year.
    Mr. R. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many existing camps there are which are recognised by the Board?
    Mr. Lindsay: There are between 18 and 20, and their total accommodation is about 1,400. Therefore, the present arrangements are on a very small scale; but with camps having accommodation for 350 boys between 14 and 18 there will need to be deliberate organisation. I see great possibilities in this movement for the young people between 14 and 18. I see possibilities not only of the ordinary unorganised activities, which are much easier in a small camp, but possibilities of dramatic performances as well as of ordinary sing-songs, perhaps educational films and popular lectures—something which I described elsewhere as the beginning of a voluntary youth movement in this country. Therefore, I should like to bring before the House this particular aspect of the camps which has not hitherto been stressed—the possibility of using them for those between 14 and 18.
    Let me return to the school side. Here is a chance of doing something far more important. About half of those who attend

    1927
    the present 20 camps to which my hon. Friend referred are sick and weakly children, and they are sent there on the advice of the medical officers in their districts. By the construction of these camps it will be possible to send relays of children not only to camp but to the country, and here they will live and eat together and will learn to appreciate and to understand each other in conditions which are quite impossible in the ordinary urbanised school. It is my conviction that two weeks in these camps will be worth two months in some of the schools which at present exist. It would be better still if the children could make two visits a year in order to see something of the seasons. Let us remember that many of these children, as those who have any experience of London know, have never heard country sounds, have never smelt country smells. We talk glibly about training teachers who will have a rural background. You cannot gain a rural background in a training college between the ages of 20 and 22. The most impressionable years are the young years. I believe that this may mean a revolution in the technique of education in this country. Only this morning I received very interesting details about an elementary school in South London, situated not very far from here, which wishes to start a young farmers' club on quite new lines in the middle of a big city. The objects are:
    "To assist in breaking down the ignorance and apathy of urban populations towards rural problems, and to provide backgrounds for classroom study in geography and nature study."
    Later the letter says:
    "It is most desirable that instruction should begin at an age when handling animals is a joy, when fear can be eradicated and soiled clothing is a matter of small account."
    Here, I believe, is a chance of restoring what has been lost to many, an early acquaintance with the country at an impressionable age. Two years ago I had the pleasure of moving the Third Reading of the Physical Training and Recreation Bill, and recently this House has seen fit to pass the Access to Mountains Bill. To-night we are, I hope, going to pass unanimously the Camps Bill. I believe this is only part of a great national movement to restore to what is, after all, a rather over-urbanised and nerve-ridden world something of the peace
    1928
    and simplicity which come from living in and knowing something about the country. I think that a Bill which gives us the possibility of 250,000 children getting a fortnight in the country every year ought not to be passed over as an ordinary Bill dealing with the question of evacuation, important as that is; it is a Bill which has enormous possibilities and is part of a more sensible and healthy approach to education. I believe that with sympathetic leadership we may, through this Bill, give a chance to the education system of this country to change over from its present rather narrow and pedantic curriculum and provide that equality of physical opportunity which, I believe, is at the basis of democracy.
    I wish I could announce this afternoon what I know many hon. Members opposite are desirous of securing, equally with me—a bigger grant to local education authorities for the maintenance of the children at these camps. I cannot at the moment give any further undertaking. I can only say that the matter has really nothing to do with this Bill. It will be discussed on its merits between the local education authorities and the Board of Education, and all I can say to my hon. Friend opposite is that I shall press very strongly for this increased grant, because I believe that it is vital to the success of this movement. I go as far as that; and the fact that I cannot actually announce anything this afternoon will not, I hope, be taken as indicating that the Board of Education is not in earnest about the matter. As I say, it has no specific relation to the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: In Scotland it seems to have.
    Mr. Lindsay: Everything is different in Scotland. But quite apart from this Bill, and on its merits, I shall press to secure full advantages for elementary education in connection with these camps. For this and many other reasons I hope the House will give the Bill the Third Reading.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I say at once that I fully agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education when he expressed the hope that the camps would be full throughout the year with relays of school children. I hope with him that during the holidays it will be possible for the juvenile organisations to take them over

    1929
    as he suggests, and again to keep them in full use. That will very greatly ease the financial problem of the statutory companies and will enable them to charge a lower rate per head per week and thus to maximise the use to which the camps are put. I do not agree with what he said if he meant to exclude the possibility that there should be camps under this Bill for adult holiday purposes. I am delighted that he thinks that the use of these camps ought to be driven forward with all the energy which the Board can put into it, and that he thinks the camps will introduce a revolutionary change in our method of education. I think that he is very likely right, but I am convinced also that there is a great demand for camps for adult holidays as well. I believe that the Government ought and will be compelled to take further powers under the Bill as well as to exercise the powers which they now have, to make camps for adults.
    On the question of money, about which the Minister of Health spoke on the Report stage, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be necessary for the Government to come and ask for more money. I have always thought that the basic estimate of £20,000 for camps was very low. I doubt whether in many cases 30 acres will be all that we shall need. I have seen, and I do not know whether the Minister has seen, the plan of the Lambeth Municipal Camp. It is now at the Housing Centre in Southwark. It allows for50 acres, and I am bound to say, looking at the plan, that the camp is far better with 50 acres and that it would have been rather narrowly restricted if it had been confined to 30 acres. It is a question not only of additional land but of expansibility, about which the Minister gave us such a good deal of satisfaction on the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman has held out hopes that in time of war the camps will be expansible far beyond the two-fold expansion originally suggested. That will mean more money.
    The Parliamentary Secretary says that local education authorities are to be encouraged to send children to the camps for two weeks and perhaps for two weeks twice a year. I am not sure that one month instead of two periods of two weeks each would not be more beneficial to their health, but that is another question, and experience will show. He suggested that four weeks might be ordinarily allowed to other children, but 50 camps accommodat-
    1930
    ing about 350 children each will not go very far, and I think that we shall be obliged to have more camps. If the Government are thinking rather in terms of money, and come to the House and ask for more money, we shall be very glad to vote it. We are very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary could not announce that the rate of grant for elementary schools for the use of these camps is to be increased beyond 20 per cent. It would be most ludicrous if the Board were to give 50 per cent. for the use of the camps to secondary schools and only 20 per cent. to elementary schools.
    Mr. Lindsay: Perhaps I might just correct what is something of an exaggeration. It is true that everything in connection with secondary schools receives a 50 per cent. grant, but it is also true that secondary schools have their own camps all over the country, and that they do not therefore make use of the 50 per cent. grant specifically for camps. I want to make that point clear.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The children are to be taught in the camps, and if the education authorities receive 50 per cent. while teaching the children in their home towns they should receive 50 per cent. while teaching them in camps. If they receive 50 per cent. for secondary school children they ought to receive that percentage also for elementary school children. It is in the elementary school period that the children can receive most benefit from the camps. The years from five to 12 are the decisive ones in which their physical future is determined. I am certain that if we had to choose whether we ought to send to the camps children of elementary school age or of secondary school age, it would be right to choose the elementary school age, and if that is true surely it is desirable that 50 per cent. should be given. It would be an anomaly to give a lower rate than that which you would give for secondary school purposes.
    If it is the case, as the Minister tells us, that the camps are to be ready in September, and if it is desirable then that they should be in full use from the very start, it is also desirable that the Government should make up their minds on the question of grant, because until they do so local education authorities will not be able to lay their plans for the coming autumn. Unless those plans are made

    1931
    now, the camps will be kept empty for a considerable time after they are set up. We shall continue to press the Government on this matter, and I hope that then decision will be taken with the least possible delay.
    There is only one other point which I wish to raise, and it relates to the siting of camps. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to see the camp exhibition at the housing centre of which I have already spoken. There are some extremely valuable maps in that exhibition, dealing specifically with the siting of camps. They take account of what I may call the strategic effect, namely, the relation of the siting of the camps to the danger from various targets which the enemy will probably try to bombard in time of war. I think that subject is very important and I hope that the Government are taking it duly into account. There is another factor of which I hope they will take account and which is more important still, and that is that the camps should be put in good country. By that I mean beautiful country. I hope that the Government are not just going to dump them down in a field when two miles away there is a moor or a wood. I hope that they will ensure that the children in the camps will have natural beauty all round and all the time. Let us remember that most of the children will not go far from the camps most of the days they are there. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that what is primarily desirable is natural beauty close to the camps.
    I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary made the speech he did. We think with him that this is a very important Bill, and we agree about its peace-time social purposes, both educationally for the children and for holidays for their parents and older children. We agree much more about those peace-time purposes than we do about the evacuation of children from towns in time of war, important as that may be. We are glad that the Government have at last taken this first step—we think a very modest and hesitating step—towards providing equality of opportunity for our people to see the countryside.
    5.39 p.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: It is very fortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary was
    1932
    allowed to introduce the Third Reading of this Bill. I think that the Minister of Health will agree that for the evacuation of school children the Bill is a very small contribution compared with the vast number of children who will have to be evacuated, because only a very small percentage will be accommodated at the camps. I agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that it is a good Bill and that something good has come out of the rumours of war that have influenced our policy so much in the last few months. While I agree with the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that the impression should be given abroad that the Bill is a novel proposal because we are initiating the first introduction of children under our school authorities to the country.
    I should like to take the opportunity here of paying a tribute to the great and pioneer work done by the School Journeys Association. Hundreds of thousands of children have visited the country during the last quarter of a century as a result of the activities of that society. Sometimes they have stayed in camps near the sea and sometimes in villages under the supervision of their school teachers. The work and the initiative have been provided by associations representing the school teachers with, of course, the good will and financial assistance of the Board of Education and the local authorities concerned. It has been a marvellous thing and the pennies of the children and their parents have been contributed to enable children to go away on those organised school journeys. I am able to say from my personal knowledge that many boys and girls have been prevented from taking advantage of a school journey because of shortage of money and inability on the part of the parents, by reason of poverty or unemployment, to make the small contribution required. I can bear testimony from many years' experience of the school journeys to the important effect they have had on the minds and characters of the children who have been lucky enough to have those facilities. In most of the schools with which I am familiar the journeys are followed by quite amusing and attractive essays which show the new outlook on life which has come from the visit to the country.

    1933
    I hope that these camps will be largely organised by that great society, at any rate for London, because they have an accumulated experience and knowledge which it would be a pity not to utilise for this purpose. I understand that the camps will be largely for the advantage of London, which is a great, continuous urban area. Tens of thousands of children very rarely got a sight of the country unless they go on one of the school journeys organised by the Country Holiday Fund. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary accentuated the importance of using the camps during school holidays. School journeys take place generally during the school terms and are part of the school education. They are subsidised on that basis and come into the syllabus of training. In holiday time some sites for the clubs are urgently necessary, but there is nothing about it in the Bill.
    I remember the great work that was done by a former Member of this House, Mr. Frank Briant. He was helped by Lord Arnold, and although I will not say it was pioneer work, it was magnificent in the way it organised camps for children who lived in a very poor and overcrowded district. There are dozens of clubs which have been running camps of this kind under great difficulty, both of money and of opportunity, and as the Bill will extend that work it is all to the good. It is good also to know that the State, the Government, have recognised the utility of this movement and that they will now bring school holidays within the reach of tens of thousands more children.
    We do not want the rules to be too strict, or the regulations too severe. I hope that the new trust will be under the control of men and women with knowledge and experience of young people and sympathy with their ideas, that there will be that freedom which is the essence and foundation of the holiday spirit, and that the rules for the control of these camps will be inspired by that spirit, so that, when young people go into the country, they will go there in a spirit of inspiration, not fettered by severe State regulations drawn up by officials and tied up with red tape. If the Board has an understanding of the purpose of the Bill, I believe that great advantages and benefits will accrue from it to the permanent well-being of the community and of the nation.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I should like to say a word of thanks to my hon. Friend for his speech in moving the Third Reading. The view he put forward that the 50 camps to be established under this Bill should be for the children in the first place will appeal to everyone. Whatever provision may exist at the present time, it is certain that hundreds of thousands of children who could make use of camps do not get the opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that there was nothing novel in the Bill, and it is true that great pioneer work has been done by private individuals and private subscription, but here, after a quarter of a century, we have, not a Socialist or a Liberal Government, but a National Government, stepping in and giving an enormous impetus to the movement. No doubt that impetus originates in one sense from sources abroad, but what we have mostly been discussing is the use of these camps in peace-time. I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to think I do not appreciate, as they do, the desirability of holiday camps for adults, but I felt some anxiety when listening to their speeches in Committee, because there seems to be a great desire on their part that these first camps should be appropriated, at any rate-partly, for use by adults. I hope that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) will agree with me that the first object should be the children.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I personally should like the great majority of these camps to be devoted to children, but it would be extremely difficult to make camps which would be suitable for use by children at one part of the year and would be usable by adults for the rest of the year. I hope that under the Bill the Government will establish new experimental camps for adult holidays, because there is an enormous demand for such camps, and it is very important that experiments should be made in this direction at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Spens: I am much obliged to the hon. Member; the difference between us seems now to be reduced to something comparatively small. I agree with him on one point, namely, that these camps should be placed in proper country, and, as one who represents an area where we have these camps, I should say that

    1935
    proper country means the really rural parts of the country. Such areas, however, are sparsely populated at the present time, and a 1d. rate brings in but a very small amount. Experience teaches us all along the Kent coast that, if you have a series of children coming from school during the summer, it is certain that in one summer out of two, or one out of three, they will bring infectious disease with them. In one case scarlet fever broke out, and a great number of children got it. Naturally, under the Ministry of Health regulations, those children had to be sent to the local isolation hospital, and they all had to be nursed and attended there, so that that hospital, which normally might have only two or three patients, was more than full for a series of weeks, and the expense incurred came to a very substantial figure. Those who were responsible—I mention no names and no bodies—for sending those children to that camp, refused absolutely to pay a penny towards the cost of nursing them in this local hospital, and the local ratepayers, in a very small area, had to suffer an increase of 3d. in the £ on their rates to cover the expense of nursing their guests. I mention that because it is one of the sort of troubles that come to the local population in such cases, and I hope the Government will consider it in the arrangements that are made. Apart from that, I welcome the suggestions which have been made this afternoon, and wish the experiment all the success that the Parliamentary Secretary has voiced to the House.
    5.53 p.m.
    Sir William Jenkins: I welcome the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. We in the distressed areas in South Wales have had some experience of camps. I remember that years ago our views on the question of camps were not accepted, because it was said that it was as much as we could do to provide schools. Year after year we sent deputations, but our request was refused, until the depression came, and even then we were unable to get anything done except through the Social Service Council. We were, and still are, anxious that the camps should be run by the education authorities, because we know how valuable have been the camps that we have had in South Wales, particularly for weakly children. I want to know where South Wales will
    1936
    come in under this Bill, and whether there are to be any additional camps in Wales. There has been no definite promise that we are to have one in Wales, and we should like to know. The camps that we have at present are being run by the Social Service Council in conjunction with the education authorities, who hold joint meetings once or twice a year to make the necessary arrangements. I should also like to be assured that the camps to be set up will be permanent—that they will not consist merely of sheds and wooden structures, but will be permanent, well-equipped camps, so that the children may have every possible opportunity of improving in health and in their general condition. I am glad that the Government are contemplating an area of 20 or 30 acres of land for these camps, because we want, not only to feed the children, but to give them plenty of opportunities for recreation in the open.
    Another very important factor, which has already been mentioned, is the suitability of the site, so that water, drainage, lighting and other facilities may be available, and the children, particularly from the industrial areas, may have an opportunity of going to rural areas and benefiting from the fresh air. I hope that people from London will not be sent to tell us where these camps should be. I think that the people in the areas concerned are entitled to be consulted before the camps are set up, and I hope that such consultation will take place, particularly in Wales, where we may be able to give advice and assistance in the selection of the best places. I am anxious, too, that the grant should be increased. The 20 per cent. grant for elementary schools is unreasonably low for school camps. If the Government are considering, as I think they are, the health and the future of the children, a 50 per cent. grant is the lowest that ought to be expected for these elementary school camps. I hope that the accommodation and arrangements will be such that the education authorities will get full value from them, both on the educational and on the health side. I know that an application is to be made to the Board for a school camp near the Duffryn gardens. We have recently received a magnificent gift of gardens, on which something like £350,000 has been spent, and we want a school camp near to those gardens. They are 40 acres in extent, and contain all kinds of trees,

    1937
    flowers and so on. We should like our children to have the opportunity of seeing these beautiful things for themselves—of seeing something other than coal, steel and iron. I hope that the distressed areas, and particularly South Wales, will be considered in connection with this matter.
    5.59 p.m.
    Mr. R. Morgan: I want to join in the chorus of congratulation to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Third Reading. As one who has seen something of school camps, I heartily welcome the Bill. I put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking how many school camps there were in existence at the present time, and I was rather alarmed at the smallness of the number. The question that concerns me now is when we are going to have a larger number. The camps I have seen in Worcestershire and Staffordshire are excellent examples of what such camps should be. I attach no importance to whether this is an innovation, or whose suggestion it was; I want to give full credit to the Board and the Government for what they are doing now, and I rather resent the implied charge made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and also by the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins), that little help has been given by the Board in the past. Let us be quite fair. I suppose one of the greatest pioneers of school camps, and all that appertains to school camps and school boy life was an Inspector of the Board—I think his name was Sir Roger Curtis. No one knew better what the life in those camps should be.
    I would like to join with the hon. Gentleman opposite, and say that I hope we shall get a larger grant for these camps. There should be no differentiation in grants between those for elementary children and for secondary schoolchildren. I hope the new camps will be arranged so that they can be easily doubled or trebled, so that, instead of having only 350 camps, we can get two or three times that number in a very short time. I have nothing to say this afternoon about the question of the protection of these children in the event of evacuation—I suppose there will be an opportunity for discussing that on another occasion—but I hope satisfactory arrangements will be made at all these camps. That is a very important factor. These
    1938
    children will require very careful and ample protection. I am sure the whole of the teaching profession and others concerned with children will welcome this Bill.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: It was quite refreshing to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education this afternoon. As one who has been trying to extend. open-air education in one form or another for over 30 years, I was glad to hear that a little fresh air is getting into the Board of Education. In the early days, those of us who were pioneers had no help, and considerable hindrance, from the officers of the Board, and I welcome the new attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the Bill is worked by the Board in the spirit of his speech he will have no cause to complain of lack of co-operation, either from the local education authorities or from the teachers. I hope his warning to the Treasury, from the Treasury Bench, that he intended to put up a stiff fight for additional grants will be heard and understood by the Treasury, and that he will be successful in the fight.
    I was very glad to hear the point he made about juvenile organisations that will be expected to use these camps during school holidays. I hope that both they and the senior children in the schools will be allowed to carry out some measure of improvisation in the camp and in their lives there. I know nothing more heartening than the way in which in suburban areas children will get a few sheets of canvas—not always altogether waterproof, I am afraid—a couple of sticks, and a piece of string, and make a camp of their own for Saturdays and Sundays. They get the real camping spirit. They may not get the creature comfort that comes from being in weatherproof huts, but, after all, they are enjoying a healthy open-air life. I hope there will be arrangements in the camps for children for whom such arrangements are suitable to pitch tents, strike the tents, and live in the tents when they desire. A very great deal of the advantage to be gained from this kind of life comes from doing as many things as possible for oneself, so that at some future occasion one can carry on in one's own way with a small party. Having seen this sort of thing going on for the

    1939
    past 30 years, I am sure that it is in such improvisation that the greatest delight is obtained.
    I recall—over 30 years ago now—taking a party of boys up the Thames in a boat from Mortlake to Oxford, where we had a very rough time indeed, but when we came back every one of the boys considered he had had a wonderful time, because we had not known where we should be at any future time and had had to improvise things all the way. I see a well-known Thames Conservator opposite. I regret to say that that sort of thing came to an end because the Conservators put up the fees for the locks to such a height that the funds of the boys were no longer adequate to meet the expense. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that, for many of the boys and girls going to these camps, it is very difficult for the parents to provide from their incomes even a small sum. The boys of whom I was speaking saved up for a long time until they had enough to cover their expenses. I welcome the Bill; I especially welcome the spirit in which the Third Reading was moved this afternoon, and I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is going to be successful in his fight with the Treasury for the extra grant, because on the success of that depends the final triumph of this scheme.
    6.9 p.m.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: I whole-heartedly welcome this Bill, but there are one or two points in connection with it that I would like to mention. One relates to the selection of the sites and the areas in which the camps have to be placed. The Minister of Health, in his Second Reading speech, referred to what was happening as far as the North-East of England was concerned. I come from Durham County, a county which is highly industrialised, with a school population of approximately 120,000 or 125,000. Although we are not in the evacuation area, one is concerned as to what would happen to those children in the event of air raids. The Parliamentary Secretary said this afternoon that these camps had two purposes: evacuation in war-time and education in peace-time. As I have said, Durham at the moment is not an evacuation area, but we are hoping that, although the Government have decided
    1940
    along those lines, they will in the near future, owing to our vulnerability, reverse that decision. It is absolutely necessary that some provision should be made for the evacuation of our children to a part of the county that would, to an appreciable extent, be immune from air attack. Although Durham is a highly industrialised county, there are in the upper reaches of Weardale, the Tyne, and Teesdale beautiful areas, which, I should think, are far away from any possibility of bombing.
    Surely, if it is imperative, in the interests of the elementary school population in the other areas of the country, that something should be done on educational lines as far as camps are concerned, Durham ought to be brought into this scheme. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, in the Second Reading Debate, what was going to be done in regard to Durham County, and I am afraid he did not give me a very satisfactory answer. In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that those camps will have to serve the dual purpose of evacuation in time of war and education in time of peace, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether something cannot be done to meet the position of Durham by selecting sites in the North-Eastern area, and so bringing a certain measure of justice to that large school population which we have.
    6.13 p.m.
    Mr. A. Somerville: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), than whom nobody is more qualified to speak on this question—I regret that he has left his place—made reference to the Thames Conservancy. That body is most anxious, within its limitations and statutory obligations and its small income, to do its best to provide facilities for camping and bathing in the Thames Valley. I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as I can, I will make his appeal known to the Conservancy. May I take this opportunity of adding my voice to the congratulations of the Parliamentary Secretary? Even from some of the most evil things good sometimes comes, and it is a very good thing that out of the present international situation has arisen this provision of camps. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that very great good will come from it.
    6.15 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: I do not want to say anything this afternoon on the evacuation side of these camps, as I have expressed my views in a previous Debate on that subject. This afternoon we have the very attractive subject of camps for purposes of education, and I want to say something from the medical point of view. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said some time ago, it has been the objective of Socialist propaganda for over 30 years to have open-air education for school children, and these camps go some way towards providing it. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary really made me almost imagine that I could see him piping, with the little lambs following him into the meadow, so poetical had he become, and I hope that the idea of these camps from the educational point of view will seize on the imagination of the country. If we are able to return at some time from our uncivilised preoccupations with questions of bombing and other things of that kind to really civilised matters of dealing with child life and the humanities, I hope that there will be a very great development of these camps, and that they will develop on the medical side.
    The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) said something about wanting the camps to be solidly built. I agree that they ought to be substantially built, but—and I think that I have the backing of the medical authorities on this matter—do let us get away from the idea of providing permanent structures which will last for hundreds of years, like some of the elementary schools of the London County Council, which, in spite of the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), I say are absolute atrocities from the architectural point of view.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Not the new ones.
    Dr. Guest: They should be camps to last for, say, 20 or 30 years and not for an indefinitely long period. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration the possibility of using these camps more extensively than is perhaps at present contemplated, for the purpose of open-air education of large classes of children. As he knows, large classes of
    1942
    children go to the few open-air schools that are in existence and have special food and so on. These children, in the country as a whole, comprise a very large number, and if they could have their education in school camps they would be enormously improved in health, and, if taken early enough, many children might be restored to real normality. That would be an enormously important thing.
    My hon. Friend sitting behind me has spoken of the need of camps in Durham, and the same can be said in regard to Lancashire, Yorkshire and all the industrial areas of the North. I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that in these counties you very often have a contact town with tramway routes running out, and the open county within five, six or seven miles, where you could easily erect open-air camps and use them as schools. Many of them would be very easy of access and within almost walking distance of the town. I hope that the idea of camps will seize upon the imagination of the country and will very rapidly develop, and that the question of using some of them, at any rate, for the purpose of open-air education will not be lost sight of. I would suggest as a new motto for the Parliamentary Secretary that he should look forward not only to 250,000 children having school holidays in these camps, but to every child in the country having a holiday. It ought to be just as much the right of every child to have a holiday, as it will soon become the right of every worker to have a holiday with pay
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am glad that the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. H. Guest) brought Lancashire and Yorkshire into the picture. It is essential that camps should be put amid delightful surroundings, and I hope that at least some of these camps may be established in Lancashire. There you get not only delightful surroundings and all the amenities that are required, but the type of educational body that will be prepared to co-operate and make a success of this undertaking. It is strange, and to me it is a tragedy, that we should have to be brought right up against the problem of evacuation before we realise the needs of school children. For 30 years demands have been made for school camps and open-air education. I have been to the

    1943
    Board of Education on more than one occasion to plead for the opportunity to set up an open-air school, and time and time again we have been turned down, and it has been said that there was no money. Now that there is money to burn, I hope—[Interruption]—Oh yes, there is money to burn; it may not be for educational purposes, but at any rate for evacuation and other purposes, in the interests of the Defence of our country, and I say unhesitatingly, after the last 12 months' experience in this House, that there is money to burn. Do not let anybody tell me again that we are short of money, because I will not believe them.
    I hope that these camps, which are now to be used for peace-time work, will be utilised to the full, though it will depend upon whether or not funds are made available so that they can be fully used. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will win in his fight with the Treasury, for I realise that he will have to fight. He has said that he will put the case on its merits. The word "merits" in the English language has two different connotations, one used by the Board of Education, and the other by the Treasury. It does not mean the same thing at all in the two different Departments, but I trust that on this occasion, in dealing with the case on its merits, the educational point of view will come put successfully. I have been helping to provide funds for the last five or six years in order that children might have an opportunity of visiting camps in the summer time. I know of many education authorities willing to provide these facilities for the children, but they are dependent upon the coppers which can be saved, and when the coppers are not available the holiday is not forthcoming. I do not want these camps to be utilised merely as holiday camps for children, but as school camps. I believe that the children would benefit in physical health and attain greater advantages from close contact with the countryside.
    The Minister of Health is entitled to our thanks for having seen the necessity for including the Amendment passed this afternoon and now incorporated in the Bill, so that the amenities round the camps may be preserved. If, as I hope, these camps are always to be used for educational purposes and never for evacuation purposes, the amenities of the
    1944
    camps and the preservation of the amenities surrounding the camps become all the more important. However, much as I realise the necessity for the camp site being preserved, I would put in a plea for setting aside some level ground. I know something of the beauty of the mountainside and something of the inspiration which comes from the hills and the woods, but that is not of much use if you want to play football. Boys do want to play football and cricket occasionally, and therefore, I hope that that aspect of the camp site will be kept in mind when the educational value is being considered.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. Hicks: I have been particularly pleased, as, I believe, have other Members of the House, at the generally favourable reception the Bill has received. The only criticism I have heard of the Bill at any time has been that it is inadequate. I am confident that if the Minister had shown greater courage in introducing the Bill, he would have been able to get a larger amount of money and the sanction of the House in order to make a bigger job of it, instead of being limited to 50 camps. In the last Debate a long discussion took place as to the desirability of circumscribing a good deal of the land around the camps in order to prevent ugly buildings being erected and un-favourable trading opportunities created and so prevent a bad environment being introduced, and to all that I willingly subscribe. As to the amount of money allowed for the construction of each of the camps, I really think that the official of the Government Department responsible for giving the Minister a round figure as to the possible cost had either old Army huts or something of that character in mind. Though the provision of these camps has been subjected to the closest possible examination, the money allocated at the present time is not sufficient for the task of building them. I hope that the House will take note of that. After taking into consideration all these factors, including the fact that one public-spirited man has given a site, and, as I understand, other people are inclined to do the same because they like the idea of camps, I would ask the Minister seriously to recognise that the amount of money for the construction of the camps is not sufficient. Not only should the camps be constructed in such a way as to be

    1945
    used as holiday camps for school children, but plans and precautions should be adopted at the present time to meet the needs that would arise in the event of war breaking out and evacuation taking place.
    We have considered the question not only of having an assembly hall, but classrooms for children in bad weather, and everyone will agree that that is a desirable thing. With the present amount of money available, however, I am afraid that they will have to be cut out in many instances, unless the House agrees to increase the provisional estimate on which the Minister based his figures. He is not to blame, but those who advised him must have had in their minds such things as Army hats, not dormitories suitable for camps. I rise to strike that note, that in spite of the fact that land is being given and that more will be given, in order to be able to produce an ordinary administration block and an assembly hall and to make some provision for class rooms for the children in the event of bad weather, with a minimum cost of production and the standardising of all the parts, I am sure the money allowed now, on the basis of £20,000 per camp, will be unequal to the task. I ask the Minister to take that matter into his serious consideration. I can guarantee that, so far as the Board is concerned, it will do all that it can to keep the costs down and to have them subject to any examination that may be required, but if the House is called upon to meet the difference between what is provisionally allowed and the actual cost, I hope it will recognise the need of doing it, in order that we may have something decent and respectable for the children to occupy and something of which we shall not be ashamed.
    6.33 p.m.
    Miss Wilkinson: The young Minister opposite has cast himself for the role of David, but I rather gathered from his speech and from the discussion that has followed that he is much more likely to play the role of the smoking sacrifice for the whole Government. This is really a miserable Bill, brought in for a miserable reason, and that is the necessity of doing something about evacuation. The whole thing, even now that it has been amended, gives the impression that the Government are doing something about this subject when really they are doing
    1946
    very little indeed. The Bill is already out of date by the time it has reached its Third Reading stage. The Minister himself has admitted that the amount of money available is terribly small, and presumably, if he wins his battle with the Treasury, he will have to come to this House and ask for more money, which will take more Parliamentary time. He is faced with rising costs every week, and if the Government are going to do even a small amount of what they suggest with regard to evacuation, the sum of money that is proposed to be given is utterly inadequate. It was inadequate when the Bill was first introduced, and it is more than inadequate now.
    We are told that we are starting on an experiment. I would like to ask the Minister whether, as a result of the discussions that have taken place since the Committee stage, he feels satisfied that he will get what he wants with regard to the evacuation of schools. When the Minister was speaking at a very large and most unenthusiastic conference at Newcastle-on-Tyne on this matter, he pooh-poohed the idea of those of us who at that conference advocated very wide expenditure on camps on the moor-side next to the private areas. The difficulty in dealing with any legislation is, of course, that events are moving much more rapidly than we can provide legislation for, and in between the Minister's speech at that conference and the Third Reading of the Bill, I gather from the A.R.P. authorities in my own constituency and area that that area is now almost certainly being marked as an evacuation area.
    Mr. Elliot indicated dissent.
    Miss Wilkinson: If that is the case, the situation is even blacker than we thought. You have this Bill, this talk about camps, this assumption that something is being done, and that this small amount represents something like a contribution to evacuation, and then you have the whole of this crowded area on Tyneside, and what is going to be done with those children? I suggest that we are almost crystallising the position round the £1,300,000 which is mentioned in the Bill, and we could use that amount of money for the six Northern counties alone, and then want more. It is not a question of just running these camps only for holiday or school camps. The

    1947
    Government's idea is that they can be extended for evacuation purposes. What then? Is nothing going to be done towards laying down sewerage and water systems? Those of us who feel some responsibility for the child life in these teeming, crowded areas, where nothing is being done at all, really feel that we cannot join in the congratulations over this miserable little Bill at this time, when the least that the Government should do is to ask for something like a token Vote in order to get on with a reasonable scheme for evacuation purposes.
    I have been specially asked by the chairman of the A.R.P. committee in my constituency, the deputy mayor, to raise this matter, because he was under the impression that this Tyneside area was to be evacuated. It is on a clear line of river in the very centre of munition works and of a shipbuilding area, and if the area is not to be evacuated, what justification is there for any area to be evacuated? There are wide sweeps of moorland which are extremely suitable for the evacuation of children, and the building of camps, and apparently the Government have not even considered them. The more one sees what is happening for the safeguarding of our population and of our children, the more concerned one gets about the Government's lackadaisical attitude to it. Any amount of money can be raised for the killing of other people's children, but what we are concerned about is the safeguarding of our own children, and it is really appalling that this £1,200,000 should be considered as any sort of contribution to the problem.
    This is not the time to discuss whether, as a pleasant piece of educational policy, it is rather nice for the Government to give a bit of money for an experiment to take slum children out for a fortnight's holiday. We could have discussed that five years ago or even a year ago, but the situation now is much too serious for us to be talking merely as though it were a question of a pleasant experiment in holiday camps. This is a point about which the A.R.P. wardens and committees are much concerned. They know that it is not a holiday camp Bill, and therefore they want to know to what extent this really represents the Government's attitude towards camp evacuation. I feel certain that the Government will find that hos-
    1948
    pitality evacuation will probably break down, for all sorts of reasons, but the one type of evacuation that will not break down is where you get evacuation under teachers into properly prepared sites and camps, in areas that are very unlikely to be bombed, areas that can be properly safeguarded. When the Government are appealing to people to give great care and thought and time to these problems, it is very worrying when the Government come along with this sort of Bill and when they are not even frank about it, but dress it up as a holiday homes sort of Bill, when really what they are doing is trying to get away with that issue, when we try and pin them down to the evacuation of children.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: It would be discourteous not to reply to the hon. Lady, although I had not intended to go further in my remarks than those made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. Nearly all the hon. Lady's remarks did not refer to the question which we have to discuss on the Third Reading of this Bill, but rather to the general question of evacuation, and it would be out of order for me to go into that at all. She asked how the matter stood about the areas on Tyneside which were evacuable. I think she herself very well knows the promise that I gave to the conference in Newcastle to send up officers of my Department to hold technical discussions with the technical officers of the local authorities there. The head of my evacuation department went up there and held that conference, and the officers of the local authorities there unanimously decided to leave to my local inspector, in consultation with the local authorities, the demarcation of the areas on Tyneside which would be evacuable areas and which would not. My inspector is now engaged on that work, and I hope to see the result of that demarcation at a very early date. That result will be published along with the results for the other areas that are now under consideration.
    Miss Wilkinson: When the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, was he not denying that this area was evacuable?
    Mr. Elliot: No. I was indicating that the matter was under consideration and that I was not going to let it be thought that it had been decided that

    1949
    the whole of the hon. Lady's constituency was to be evacuated. The whole thing was under technical consideration and the results are not yet published. It is true that the camps, as I said at the time—and the Government still hold to it—do not provide a large scale alternative to billeting. They are an experiment in the way of evacuation, and they are more than an experiment; they are an extension of a proved and tried method of social progress in school camps. I do not think anyone will agree that the billeting scheme is bound to break down. If so, this country would be confronted with a very serious problem, which it would be quite impossible to solve by the construction of any number of camps which it would be possible to provide in any reasonable time. But it should not go out from this House that billeting is bound to break down. It is on billeting that we must rely in the main for the evacuation of the children, the school children, the young children, the mothers, and the sick people whom we intend to evacuate.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: All of us on this side of the House will agree that the billeting system must be exploited to the utmost extent, but we are convinced that the Government are working on far too modest an estimate of the number of people to be evacuated. Whatever the Government do by way of billeting, even if they pack people much more closely, there must be far more accommodation found than is being provided. Therefore, we hope there will be a very great extension of camps, in order that the chaos that will ensue if there is air bombardment will be reduced to the least possible limit.
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is now arguing that accommodation ought to be provided for classes other than the priority classes—children, young persons, sick mothers and so on—on whose evacuation the Government is working. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) said that the position was not satisfactory even as regards the priority classes. I strongly differ from that statement. The response that we have had from the country is good. Plans have been closely worked out, and on those plans we must rely for the accommodation for the priority classes. I do not deny that we may have to provide further accommoda-
    1950
    tion, over and above that already existing, for other classes who may have to be evacuated in case of heavy and long-continued air bombardment.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the more children that are sent to camps the better it will be for the children.
    Mr. Elliot: I must not be led away into a discussion of policy and into admitting that the more children that can be sent to camps the better for the children. That is a view which the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and other hon. Members opposite contested. It was said again and again during the Second Reading Debate that the children could best be cared for in the households of the country. I do not think it is right to say that the more children that can be taken away from their homes and put into camps the better for the child population of this country. That is not so, and it is not accepted on his own side of the House.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: We say that the Minister is now planning the billeting of people, particularly children, in many places which are certain to be targets of air bombardment, and we should like those places to be free of children. Therefore, we think that there ought to be more camps away from the vulnerable areas.
    Mr. Elliot: That may very well be, but the hon. Member's point is that the children are better in camps than in billets. That is a contention which was strongly contested on his own side of the House. I will go no further than that. I have been asked about the areas in which camps are being constructed. The camps are being constructed as far as possible within reasonable distance of the great towns. The camps must be regarded as for the purpose of the housing of school children during peace and the receiving of evacuated population during war. Several of the points made by hon. Members did not seem to take that phase of the position into consideration. I have been asked to put camps in the Special Areas. As is well known, a number of camps have already been constructed in the Special Areas. There will be camps in Wales and in the Durham area, but the larger proportion of the camps will no doubt be nearer to the

    1951
    big centres of population which will be liable to the heaviest and longest air bombardment in case of war.
    The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), whose informed contributions to Debates on this subject we all value very much, warned the House on a point to which I myself drew attention on the Report stage, namely, that the cost of the camps will probably make it impossible for the programme of 50 to be fully completed with the money at our disposal. That is a point which the House must keep in mind. It is probable that the money which the House has voted will not be sufficient to complete the 50 camps. Therefore, any unnecessary expenditure will make it the less possible to complete the programme which was originally thought possible.
    Miss Wilkinson: If the right hon. Gentleman now says that the programme contemplated in the Bill may not be able to be completed with the money provided, what is he going to do about it as a Cabinet Minister?
    Mr. Elliot: If the hon. Lady would really listen to some of the speeches, instead of being so full with the points she wishes to make—I am not saying that in any controversial sense—she would appreciate the point that I am trying to make.
    Miss Wilkinson: That is extremely rude, and not true. I have listened.
    Mr. Elliot: Then I must have been unsuccessful in my attempt to make myself understood. I do not think the hon. Lady fully appreciated what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He was not discussing the amount of money for the construction of camps but what percentage of the maintenance charges could be paid by way of grant by the Board of Education. I have tried to make that clear to the hon. Lady that the Parliamentary Secretary was not dealing with the point to which the hon. Lady drew attention.
    Miss Wilkinson: Really, this Debate is not taking place in the Glasgow University Union, where members score debating points over each other. This is a matter of extreme importance to a large number of air-raid precautions com-
    1952
    mittees. The right hon. Gentleman says that the total amount of money will not be sufficient for the programme recently foreshadowed with respect to 50 camps. He is replying as a Cabinet Minister, and I ask, what is the Cabinet going to do about it, seeing that the money provided will not complete the Cabinet's own programme?
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Lady has certainly no reason to feel that she is not able to give tit for tat, and that in the strongest measure. I will not say anything about the remarks she has made, because on Third Reading it would be very undignified if we fell into a wrangle on the lines towards which I am afraid we are tending. This is not a question of scoring debating points in the Glasgow University Union or in any other union. The Parliamentary Secretary was discussing the point as to the amount of the Exchequer grant to Local Education Authorities towards the cost of the maintenance of children using the camps. The hon. Lady has brought up a different point, which was first mentioned by myself on the Report stage, and later by the hon. Member for East Woolwich and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), namely, that the camps are liable to cost more per unit than the estimate originally given. She knows as well as I do that the money voted by this House remains. Our task now is to press on as rapidly as possible with the completion of the camps for which the House has voted money. When we have completed the programme, or we are in process of completing it, then we shall have to consider whether any further programme should be embarked upon or not. That is a perfectly reasonable statement, and it is not scoring a debating point. That is facing up to the problem and giving a frank answer to the question that has been put, and I hope it will be accepted by the House in the sense that I give it.
    We are approaching the end of a Debate in which points relating to war and peace have been raised. The hon. Member for Jarrow is bitterly apprehensive of the dangers that may come to the people of this country as a whole as the result of air warfare, and her apprehensions are shared in every part of the House. These camps will be valuable to our educational system, but we all have fears as to the other use that may have to be made of

    1953
    them. Let us remember, however, that we are about to pass this Bill without a Division, that the Measure is one which commends itself to the Whole House, for a variety of reasons, not the least of those reasons being that we may get some real advantage from this expenditure to which we are committed on account of the dangers of war. It would be wrong for us to overlook the dangers of war. It would be wrong for us to omit any necessary consideration in regard to war problems. And it would be wrong for us to overlook the chance which is here given to us—that, most fortunately, we may do a real piece of work which will redound to the benefit and health of the school children of our country. We all welcome that fact, and I am sure the House will now unanimously give the Third Reading to the Bill, and part with it with our blessing.

  LIMITATION BILL [Lords].
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LIMITATION BILL [Lords].
    CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions in case of settled land and land held on trust.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 43, after "entitled," insert "in possession."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Limitation of actions to recover money secured by a mortgage or charge or to recover proceeds of the sale of land.)
    6.58 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 10, line 39, to leave out Subsection (3) and to insert:
    "(3) The right to receive any principal sum of money secured by a mortgage or other charge and the right to foreclose on the property subject to the mortgage or charge shall not be deemed to accrue so long as that property comprises any future interest or any life insurance policy which has not matured or been determined."
    This is a Clause dealing with mortgages on future interests, and in such a case the future interest may mature or be realised on different dates. The Clause, as drafted, does not very aptly or clearly cover that contingency. We have made some in-
    1954
    quiries on the matter and the Amendment embodies the results of those inquiries. It makes the period of limitation run from the date when the last or the latest interest was realised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "(b) where the property subject to the mortgage or charge comprises any future interest or life insurance policy and it is a term of the mortgage or charge that arrears of interest shall be treated as part of the principal sum of money secured by the mortgage or charge, interest shall not be deemed to become due before the right to receive the principal sum of money has accrued or is deemed to have accrued."
    This Amendment also deals with mortgage interest. In cases where the property charge cannot be realised until a future date it is not infrequently found that provision is made that if the interest is not paid there is not default, but the amount is added up and put on to the capital sum. The parties contemplate that the mortgagor will be unable to pay and will not be required to pay the interest until the property charged falls into possession. In a case of that kind it would be unreasonable to have the period running until the date when the parties contemplate that the actual interest would be paid.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Limitation of actions against public authorities.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, in page 12, line 34, to leave out "one year" and to insert "two years."
    Hon. Members know that as the law stands the period within which an action may be brought against a defendant in the ordinary way is six years, but in a case in which a public authority is the defendant, the period is only six months and in fatal cases 12 months. It is well known to those who are familiar with the subject that that state of the law leads to great and undeniable injustice. Even those hon. Members who opposed us in Committee upon this matter did not attempt to deny that that was so, and that there are cases, though I do not say a great number, in which plaintiffs have been deprived of their rights by the operation of the Public Authorities' Protection Act. I give one example. It is a case reported in the Law Reports, of

    1955
    Freeborn versus Leeming. I read the head note as showing the sort of thing that happens as a result of the Public Authorities' Protection Act:
    "The plaintiff being injured in an accident was taken to the workhouse infirmary and placed in the care of the defendant, the medical officer. The defendant negligently failed to diagnose the nature of the plaintiff's injury and made no attempt to give him the treatment which, if given at the time, would effectually have cured him. On 15th October, 1923, the plaintiff left the infirmary and from that time ceased to be under the defendant's care. He consulted another doctor who discovered that his hip was dislocated. As it was then too late to apply the necessary remedy, the plaintiff's injury was permanent. On 25th April, some six months after he had ceased to be under the defendant's care, he brought his action claiming damages for negligence:
    Held: That the action was barred by Section 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, not having been brought within six months next after the act, neglect or default complained of."
    I need only add that the report of the case shows that it was the fact that the plaintiff was to some extent disabled, that his wage-earning power was impaired and that the results of the defendant's negligence were undoubtedly grave. Is there anyone who would defend that state of the law or say that it was not a gross injustice of the kind which this House exists to remedy? It will be said that this Bill effects an improvement, because it raises the period from six to 12 months and, naturally, we welcome that proposal, but I think it is the unanimous verdict of hon. Members who are familiar with these matters that the period of 12 months is not enough. As I have said, there is already a period of 12 months in cases where negligence results in death. There was before the courts towards the end of last year a case which received considerable publicity and which showed that the 12 months period was not enough. Sometimes a plaintiff may be under a misapprehension; the wrong defendant may be sued, and by the time the mistake is discovered, the statutory period has elapsed and it is impossible to sue the public authority which is the real defendant. Is there any reason, in logic or justice, why that state of affairs should exist?
    Let me take, as an example, the position of the London Passenger Transport Board. A few years ago they took over the various transport undertakings in
    1956
    London and by Section I of the Act then passed the Board was declared to be a public authority. What is the result? If any hon. Member going out of this House has the misfortune to have been knocked down and injured through the negligent driving of the servant of a private firm, he has six years in which to bring his action for damages. If he is knocked down by a vehicle driven by an employé of the London Passenger Transport Board, he has only six months, and if this Bill becomes law in its present form he will have only 12 months in which to bring his action. Thus we have this fantastic result. Supposing that someone had been injured by the negligent driving of an omnibus driver in the employment of Tilling's company on the day before the London Passenger Transport Board took over its duties, he would have had six years in which to bring his action, but if he had been injured on the following day he would have had only six months. In Committee we proposed to put public authorities on precisely the same basis as ordinary defendants, but that proposal was turned down and I am now proposing a limitation of two years.
    Mr. Macquisten: It was turned down, I think, by one vote.
    Mr. Foot: Actually by three votes, but it was a very close Division. I am now proposing two years, in the hope that the Government will regard it as a reasonable compromise to which they can agree. A two-year period would meet most of the hard cases of which we have heard.
    Mr. Lyons: Was it proposed in Committee to abolish the limitation altogether?
    Mr. Foot: There were two proposals. The first was to give the judge power to extend the time, and the second was to put public authorities in the same position as any other defendants and make the period six years. I wish to make it clear that I am not in any way attacking public authorities, and in particular I am not attacking local authorities. I think there was some misapprehension about that during the Second Reading Debate. I think the House ought to express admiration for those who, without any tangible reward, give their services to local authorities and this Amendment is not brought forward as a criticism of them. But what is the position supposing an action is brought against a public authority after

    1957
    the statutory time has expired? The members of that authority are, it seems to me, in a real difficulty because they know, and they must be advised that this defence under the Public Authorities Protection Act is open to them, and they have to decide whether to avail themselves of it or not. A private defendant might say, "I could avail myself of this defence but it would be shabby to do so and I prefer not to do so." But the member of a public authority is in a different position. He is not dealing with money which belongs to him. He is dealing with money for somebody else and for the administration of which he is responsible, and it is a difficult question for him to decide, whether this defence is to be used and the plaintiff deprived of his rights.
    I wish to deal with some of the arguments advanced on the other side. It is fair to say, without any disrespect to any other hon. Member, that the principal opponent of the Amendments which we suggested on Second Reading and in Committee, has been the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall). In the Committee he used one of the most remarkable arguments I have heard since I have been a Member of this House. This is what he said:
    "I was about to say that when a claim comes before a local authority it is not decided by the town clerk as the hon. and learned Member seems to think but by a committee. You could get no more if you went to court where a jury sits round a table in order to do justice to the individual."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 21st February, 1939; col. 26.]
    The obvious point is that the committee which is deciding the matter is itself a party to the dispute. It is bound to act on the advice of its servants. In a great many cases of this kind such a committee will probably act on the advice of a city engineer. Probably it is the conduct of the city engineer's department which is being called in question and however anxious he may be to be fair, one can understand the city engineer wishing to defend his own subordinates. No one will dispute that it is a fundamental principle of justice that no man should be judge in his own cause, but according to the argument of the hon. Member for Bright-side, the local authority is the judge in its own cause. The members of the public authority may honestly take the view that they are not liable. If they do, and if the statutory period of limitation has run
    1958
    out there is no impartial tribunal to which the injured person can appeal.
    There came before the courts a few months ago a case which, although it is not a case in which this defence was applied, I give as an example of the kind of action which is brought against a local authority. A corporal in the Army was cycling through the streets of a city and was killed by falling off his bicycle on to the road. His widow had reason to believe that the cause of the accident was the state of the tramlines and that the tramway authority, which was also the local authority, had failed to carry out its statutory duty by making the road level with the tops of the tramlines with the result that the rails stood out an inch or two above the road level. The widow had the good sense to consult solicitors at once and they communicated with the town clerk. The town clerk was advised that the road had been in a perfect state of repair at the time of the accident and refused to make any offer. He told the widow's legal representatives and no doubt advised his own committee that the corporation were under no liability. The widow availed herself of the Poor Persons rule and went to the Assizes. On the morning when the case was due to be tried, the local authority settled for a substantial sum. Supposing she had not been aware of her rights or had been dissuaded, as people sometimes are, from taking legal advice in time, what would have happened? The corporation would probably have accepted the advice of their own servant and said, "We are not liable," and instead of receiving a substantial sum, she and her six small children would have been left penniless, apart from a widow's pension.
    That is the kind of thing which happens not in a large number of cases but in some cases. I do not know whether any hon. Member is prepared to defend that state of the law. I have said that this Amendment is not intended as an attack on local authorities but I think it is well-known that there are cases, fortunately rare, in which those representing the public authority have led the injured party to believe that they intended to settle, and have, so to speak, played out time. It happens occasionally that the representative of the public authority deliberately prolongs the negotiations until the statutory time has expired. As soon

    1959
    as the six months or 12 months period has elapsed his tone changes.
    Mr. Marshall: Can the hon. Member give us any instances?
    Mr. Macquisten: I could give half a dozen cases.
    Mr. Robert Gibson: I could give some cases from Scotland.
    Mr. Foot: It is a little difficult to give actual instances, because one has to quote them from one's own experience. However, I may tell the hon. Member, without mentioning any names, that only three days ago I was given an example of such conduct by a public authority by a Member of the party above the Gangway.
    Mr. Marshall: I think I know the case which the hon. Member has in mind. It was not deliberate; it may have been a mistake. The hon. Member has made a charge that these acts are deliberate, and I challenge him to give an instance.
    Mr. Foot: When there is a case where negotiations are spun out and there is a prolonged correspondence between the parties, as in the case which the hon. Member and I have in mind, and then as soon as the time is up, the representatives of the public authorities point out that they can now avail themselves of the Public Authorities Protection Act, one is entitled to assume a deliberate course of conduct. Are we really to suppose that they never think of that Act until after the six months are up? These may be rare occurrences, but they do take place. There are public authorities, very occasionally, which take advantage of their own misconduct in this way. I would like again to refer to the argument used by the hon. Member for Brightside in the Standing Committee. He said:
    "While a couple of cases may be quoted to the contrary, there are hundreds of thousands of cases settled in. this country over a number of years by local authorities; they never see the court and they are settled amicably and justly. Members of this Committee should take that fact into consideration in adjudging this matter."—OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 21st February, 1939; cols. 26–27.]
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member, but I do not think that argument in any way affects the merit of the Amendment. I am concerned with the one or two cases the existence of which the hon. Member
    1960
    admits, and if the Amendment is adopted, and the period is made two years instead of one year, it will not prevent those hundreds of thousands of cases from being settled amicably and justly. A public authority such as that on which the hon. Member has served, which wishes to deal fairly with claims and to settle them out of court, will be just as free to do so if the Amendment is carried. Their position will not be prejudiced in any way. The only public authority that will be prejudiced is that which wants to avail itself of this special defence in order that the case shall not go before an impartial tribunal. No doubt we shall be told that the period of 12 months was recommended by the Statute Law Revision Committee. That is true, but I will quote to the House what that committee said:
    "We have carefully considered how far it is advisable to interfere with the policy of the Public Authorities Protection Act. That policy is quite clear, namely, to protect absolutely the acts of public officials, after a very short lapse of time, from challenge in the courts. It may well be that such a policy is justifiable in the case of important administrative Acts, and that serious consequences might ensue if such Acts could be impugned after a long lapse of time. But the vast majority of cases in which the Act has been relied upon are cases of negligence of municipal tram drivers or medical officers and the like, and there seems no very good reason why such cases should be given special treatment merely because the wrongdoer is paid from public funds."
    I ask hon. Members to note those words. The committee went on to say:
    "We do not suggest that the Act should be dispensed with altogether, but we think its effects in two respects should be mitigated."
    I need not deal with the second of these.
    "We recommend that in cases of civil actions the period of limitation should be extended to 12 months."
    The Committee gave no reason for choosing that particular period of 12 months, but I think it is clear that their reasoning could be used just as well to support a period of two years. The Committee made it clear, as I think it must be clear to every hon. Member, that in these cases where there is negligence by a municipal tramdriver, and so on, there is really no foundation for this distinction. I want to say two things about the Committee's report. First, clearly it is a compromise. Certainly, when I look at the names of those who sat on the Committee and signed the report, I should be very surprised to learn that some of these eminent gentlemen were against the Amendment now

    1961
    under discussion. If they could be asked, we should probably find that they would be strongly in favour of it. Secondly, the Committee was merely one to codify the law and to deal with certain minor Amendments. It was not going back to the first principles upon which these things rest. For example, it did not touch on the period of limitation of six years. I agree with the statement made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) in the Second Reading Debate that the six-year period is too long; but the Committee did not really deal with that matter, because they were not going down to the foundations of our law, but merely making certain minor amendments and endeavouring to codify the Statute Law. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that the period of 12 months is recommended in the Committee's report. I will make one more quotation, because I want to deal fairly with the arguments against an Amendment of this sort. I know that some hon. Members receive a great many circulars and memoranda from various associations of public authorities. A typical passage from one of those memoranda was read in the Standing Committee. I will quote it to the House:
    "Public authorities administer public funds and are more subject to speculative actions than private individuals. It is, therefore, in the interests of the public and the authorities themselves that there should be a statutory deterrent to the bringing of actions which are often instituted in the belief, either that it will be difficult for the authority concerned to rebut the claim owing to lack of evidence, or that the authority, although not liable, may prefer to settle the claim out of the public funds at their disposal rather than to contest it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 21st February, 1939; col. 19.]
    There may be a certain amount of truth in that statement, but if it be true, it applies to a great many other bodies besides public authorities. All sorts of large firms are affected in precisely the same way. The public authorities are not in any special difficulty in this respect. We are also referred to the old bogy of speculative actions and told that it is difficult for the public authorities to rebut claims. As regards speculative actions, I would say that the man who is caught by the Public Authorities' Protection Act is not the plaintiff who goes to the speculative solicitor. The speculative solicitor who wants litigation immediately issues a writ. Where the Act
    1962
    comes into operation is in cases where the solicitor prolongs the negotiations and does not issue a writ in time, or where the party has not taken legal advice within the statutory period. One does not rule out speculative actions by having this particular provision.
    It is then said that after a long period of time it is difficult for public authorities to rebut a claim. That may be true, but a private defendant is in no different position. It is equally difficult for a private firm or a private employer, or any private defendant, to rebut a claim after a period of years. I should have thought that, on the whole, it would be easier for a public authority to do this. In their case, there is greater continuity of employment, and the witnesses coming before the court generally would be employés; and it would also be much easier in most cases for the public authority to look back to see what happened a year or two previously than it would be for a private firm. Another argument that was put forward in the Committee upstairs referred to school authorities. Particular emphasis was laid on this matter. It is true that if an action is brought against a public authority in respect of an accident to school children, after some years it may be very difficult for it to find evidence to rebut the claim. That argument might apply if we were proposing to make the period six years, but I do not think it has very much application in respect of this Amendment, in which we are asking for a two-year period.
    I have read some of the memoranda that have been sent in from associations of public authorities. Their chief argument is that we ought not to interfere with what has been the settled policy of Parliament since 1893. I know that this matter will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and I do not propose to go into details, but I have been at some pains to go through the records of the House and find out the way in which this Statute came into being. Prior to 1893, these periods of limitation were put into certain Statutes, certain private Acts and also in Public Health Acts, but there was no general period of limitation regarding actions against public authorities. In 1892 and 1893, in two Bills—one in each Parliament—it was proposed, for the first time, that this protection should be

    1963
    made general, and from the records of the House it is clear that Parliament passed that Act under a complete misapprehension. There was scarcely any discussion on the matter either in 1892 or 1893. On each occasion the House was assured that it was purely a consolidating Measure and made no actual difference to the law. We know now that that was not correct.
    The Attorney-General: Will the hon. Member tell me how it altered the law?
    Mr. Foot: It altered the law in this respect, that previously a limitation was attached only to specific administrative duties imposed upon public authorities. In 1893, for the first time, the protection became general. The protection under the 1893 Act applied not only to those duties which had already been imposed upon public authorities, but to any duties that might afterwards be imposed upon them. The general principle of limitation was established for the first time in 1893, and Parliament was assured that it was a purely consolidating Measure.
    Mr. Cocks: There was a Liberal Government then.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member is not quite correct. It was first introduced by a Conservative Government in 1892, and that Government gave those assurances. It is true that it was taken over after the General Election by the Liberal Government, and that shows how dangerous it is for the Liberal party at any time to take over its opponents' Measures. Therefore, this evening is the first occasion on which the House has ever considered the principle in its general application. Is it really to be said that because the House passed this Act under a mistaken impression in 1893, we must not interfere with the principle now? Is there any hon. Member who argues, as apparently some public authorities do, that we are bound to perpetuate an injustice simply because it is hallowed by the lapse of time?
    There is one other ground of opposition, based not entirely on argument, but rather upon prejudice. In the Second Reading Debate there were some hon. Members who felt suspicious about the objections on the ground that the objectors were nearly all lawyers. I am not going to embark upon a general defence
    1964
    of the legal profession, but I will make one or two observations on this matter. First, those who want to see this Amendment adopted are by no means confined to the legal profession, as hon. Members will see if they look at the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Secondly, even lawyers are not always united, but this Amendment is supported by lawyers in all parties. I am not trying to make a party matter of this, but I would remind hon. Members above the Gangway that the Haldane Society has declared itself in favour of getting rid of the Public Authorities' Protection Act. I would like also to say that the reason members of the legal profession, in particular, dislike the Public Authorities' Protection Act is that in their practical experience they have seen the hardships which that Act has created.
    May I remind hon. Members of something which happened last Session? A Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) to deal with night baking. He carried that Bill, not perhaps in its original form, as Members in all parties voted for it because the hon. Member spoke from a wealth of practical experience of grievances with which he was actually acquainted in his own working life—and he was able to make a deep impression on the House, The legal profession may not be quite so popular as that to which the hon. Member belongs, but I suggest that the same thing should apply in this case. Members of the legal profession are raising these objections because we know the very hard cases which have occurred as a result of this legislative accident in 1893. There is no power here to extend the time as there is in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Once the year is up there is nothing to look forward to. May I make one more comparison? Hon. Members with trade union experience know that a considerable number of actions are brought against employers for negligence or breaches of statutory duty under the Factory Acts. In every one of these cases the injured man has six years in which to bring his action. Suppose it was proposed that the period should be reduced to 12 months, hon. Members would rise up and oppose it.
    But what is the difference? A man is injured in a colliery or shipyard and has six years in which to bring his action, but a man who is injured in an accident

    1965
    on the roads, who may be just as seriously affected in his earning capacity as the man employed in the mines, is in a different position. Is there any reason why they should be in two different categories? We are considering here, not technicalities, but a very important principle. It is true that if my Amendment is passed it might mean a certain amount of inconvenience to public authorities but, on the other side, we have considerations of justice. This House has to decide whether it is more important to secure justice to the individual than to consider the administrative convenience of public authorities. I should have thought that there was only one way of deciding that question. One of the principles which we always seek to realise in our legislation is that of equality before the law. We all learned at school that everyone in this country is subject to the ordinary law of the land administered in the ordinary courts. We have been taught that if a Minister of the Crown exceeds his authority he is as liable to the ordinary processes of the law as any other citizen. This is an exception to the general principle of equality before the law. Here is a special privilege given to one particular class of people, and on grounds of theory and practice I suggest that there is no good reason for resisting the Amendment, which I ask the House to accept.
    7.34 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like, as my first point, to echo something which the hon. Member has said. I appeal to hon. Members, and particularly to hon. Members of my own party, not to regard this as a legal point. It is true that lawyers have contributed most to the argument upon it, but in this Amendment we are not concerned with the interests of lawyers. If on a fair view of the facts the House can bring itself to believe that there is no injustice done to ordinary people, and particularly to the working classes, then we shall find that the Amendment will be defeated, but I do ask hon. Members not to be prejudiced in any way by the fact that so many lawyers appear to be interested in it any more than I myself would like the House to be prejudiced by the fact that the interests of local authorities may be involved.
    1966
    I want to give an instance within my own experience, and I invite hon. Members to consider it carefully and to say whether the law which permitted it should remain or should be amended. I am not going to mention any names, but it is a case of which I have a personal knowledge. It is the case of a small boy, aged two, treated in a city hospital. The nurse quite properly put that child into the electric blanket. There is no complaint about that; it was the proper treatment to be adopted. But, having put that child into the electric blanket, she went away and, perhaps under the pre-sure of other duties, or perhaps in a moment of forgetfulness, did not come back until the child was very dreadfully burned—so dreadfully burned that the position is that the child will have to undergo an operation every 12 or 18 months during the period of growth, and when mature the best that can be hoped for is that the child will have a permanently deformed, shortened, twisted and maimed right leg. These are facts not to be controverted; I know them. The child's guardians went to a councillor representing the ward on the city council in which he resides and said, "I think I had better consult a solicitor about this." The councillor replied, "If the facts are as you say there is no need for any litigation. I cannot imagine this city, if these facts are correct, refusing to do the right thing. You leave the matter in my hands. Do not go to a solicitor; do not start any litigation. I will look after it for you."
    I am certain that the councillor meant that; it was not a trap. He was honestly and conscientiously trying to help his constituent. He went to the hospital and ascertained that the facts were as stated. He went to the town clerk, who himself verified that the facts were as I have stated, and the town clerk said to the councillor, "You are perfectly right; no one would dream of repudiating liability here, or of not doing the right thing by the child. It is only a question of how much." The councillor went back to the parent and said, "I told you it would be all right. How foolish you would have been to have gone to a solicitor. Do not take any steps at all, leave it to me, and I will negotiate this matter to a successful issue, and there will be no trouble about it." The parent, of course, was quite right in accepting that assurance and

    1967
    doing nothing, and the councillor was right in accepting what the town clerk had said. This is a big public authority and the town clerk had a great many things to do, and the councillor had a great many things to do, and it so happened that time passed until one fine day when the councillor went to the town clerk he said, "I am very sorry, this is not at all what I intended, but, in fact, the six months have gone by. We have not agreed, we have not paid, no writ has been issued, and we are now debarred by law from paying one penny of damages to that child."
    I am not saying for a moment that there was conscious and deliberate fraud in that case—certainly not. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that if we could have proved there was deliberate fraud on the part of the local authority we might have got outside the Act. But let it be granted what I am sure is the case, that no fraud was intended or designed, that it was an honest and reasonable course to take by both parties. It is no good hon. Members saying that no public authority would take advantage of its rights under the Act in circumstances of that kind. A public authority has no right to do other. It is administering public funds, and it has no right to make a payment out of its public funds which it is not obliged by law or entitled by law to make. They are bound to plead it; and if hon. Members want a recent and extremely interesting example they have one in the case of Croydon. A little while ago there was an outbreak of typhoid fever in Croydon which lasted a long time, caused a lot of damage and many deaths. It took a long time before it was decided whether or not the local authority was or was not at fault. Ultimately it was decided in a friendly action—the authority was not acting in any way improperly in taking the friendly action—in the High Court that the epidemic was due to faults on the part of the authority, and damages were awarded.
    But by the time that had been established it was a long way outside the period of six months. The Croydon authority wanted to do the right thing and to pay appropriate damages, but in order to do it they had to come to this House and present a private Bill, which is now before the House, to enable them to do what under the Public Authorities Protection
    1968
    Act, and under this Bill as it is now, they would not be entitled to do. I know that many of my hon. Friends are particularly concerned with local authorities as I am myself. I was a member for nine years of a local authority, and I am a member of the political movement which is represented on these benches. It is part of our policy that the rights and duties of local authorities should be extended to cover a great many things which they are not now allowed to do. I believe that, because I think in that way greater justice is done to the population. We do not want less justice but more justice to be done. Therefore, I put this question to my hon. Friends who are doubtful about the position of local authorities. Take the case of that child of two years. Is it right or wrong that because of this perfectly arbitrary time limit that child should have to go through life with a permanently deformed leg, unable to perform ordinary work and earn its living, without a penny of compensation merely because the hospital in which the injury was sustained happened to be owned by the city instead of being a voluntary organisation?
    My hon. Friends would like to see hospitals run by the State or the local authority. If that came about and there was no amendment of the law in this respect the result might be that a child, as a result of a perfectly natural but certainly a careless act, would have less right to be compensated for what had occurred than if the voluntary hospitals had remained. I cannot see that the local authority has any interest in allowing injustice to persist which it could prevent. It is said that the local authority is vulnerable. Certainly it is vulnerable, but, as has already been pointed out, it is not the unjustified claim, or the fraudulent claim, or the try-on claim that is prevented by a period of limitation. Any period of limitation would protect you from that.
    I hope I am not in my professional practice more unscrupulous than other people, but I do assure this House that the very first thing I do in my own office, if I am consulted in any case in which any public authority might possibly be a defendant, is to issue my writ. I cannot afford to take any risk. I do not say that, after doing that, negotiations may not proceed in a perfectly friendly way. They can then proceed in a friendly

    1969
    way. Then, if I am not satisfied that justice is being done, there is nobody who can prevent me from going to the court and asking the court to determine what is and is not in that case the right thing to do. The existence of a period of limitation, so far from preventing litigation, encourages it, because but for that period of limitation it would not be necessary to issue the writ before you had first ascertained whether you could get justice for your client without litigation at all.
    Then it is said that the local authority is in a worse position than others. Really I do not understand that. If I go outside from here and am knocked down by a taxi I have six years to bring my action; but if I am knocked down by the London Passenger Transport Board's bus I have to do it within six months. It is difficult to understand why. If I go to my native city of Liverpool, the position is reversed. There the buses are a private undertaking, and the trams belong to the local authority. If in Liverpool I am knocked down by a bus I have six years to bring my action, but if I am knocked down by a corporation tram I must do it in six months. I do think this protection was not meant for that kind of case at all. The report, quite clearly, says that where a public authority is performing an administrative act of importance, that is one thing, but where a public authority is performing, not a public administrative act, but exactly the same kind of act which I perform myself when I drive my motor car home at night, then that is quite another thing; and, whereas in the first case I am entitled to full protection, in the other I ought to be in exactly the same position as other people are.
    I am sorry I have been a little long. This is a matter on which I feel strongly. I would say this. When you find, as I suggest is found here, that the only defenders of a privilege are those who profit by it, I think there is a case for considering carefully whether that privilege ought to be retained, ought to be limited, or ought to be abolished; and I suggest that there is nobody to-day who defends the privileged position of the public authority before the courts except where it is performing an administratvie act of importance, except the public authorities themselves. Where that is so, one ought to be very careful to see that it really is the will of the legislature that that privilege should still exist.
    1970
    Finally, I do a little regret that the Amendment designed to take the protection out altogether should not have been debated. I say that for this reason that, so far as I can make out, although this privilege in its present form has been enjoyed for nearly half a century and in some forms for a longer period than that, so far as I can trace there has never been an occasion when the principle of it has been debated and discussed in either House of Parliament, or when deliberately, after full discussion, investigation and analysis, the House has determined that the principle is a right one. This, I think, is the first occasion on which the House has considered it deeply at all, and I think it might have been advisable if we could possibly have considered the whole principle. We cannot do that. We may consider one or two of the applications of it, and this is one of them. But I do urge hon. Members, considering the case as a whole as it has been presented, to say that if we cannot abolish it altogether, if we cannot limit it altogether as we would like to do, at any rate if we can extend the period from one year to two years we shall go some way, perhaps a considerable way, towards removing what is, I venture to suggest, an injustice which cannot be founded on reason or truth.
    7.52 p.m.
    Mr. Macquisten: An hon. Member has said that this is a matter in which the legal profession was taking a great interest. Well, I am no longer a practising lawyer and I have no personal interest in it, but I am interested in the cause of fair play and justice to the citizens. My contention is that from the time this Act was passed in 1893 which made this free of universal application and permitted it to be put forward in all actions against public authorities, there has been hardly a year that has passed when some of His Majesty's judges, especially in Scotland, have not fulminated against the injustice of the Act. Lord Salvesen, a very great judge, has time and again animadverted on it in the gravest possible terms.
    I well remember the Act being passed, and there really was no discussion on it. It was assumed it was a mere codification of the law. No one had the slightest suspicion that this monstrosity of cutting off from his legal rights a man who had been wronged was being brought into being. I was a very juvenile practitioner

    1971
    then, and the deputy town clerk of Glasgow, who was the then Lord Advocate and was the cause of it being enacted, was a very dear friend of mine, and he and I frequently discussed it. The profession in Scotland did not know of the Act when it was passed, it had got through so quietly, and they and their clients suffered severely by its being put up to them after it had become law. The practice was to negotiate till the time was up, and then to interview the plaintiff lawyer, or pursuer lawyer as we call him, being nearer the primitive, and when he saw that, he was so shocked that he had not been aware of it, that he took whatever sum was offered then ex gratia. Many members of the legal profession could not believe that such an Act had been passed. They did not think that this great Imperial Parliament could possibly pass an Act so unjust.
    Now it has been suggested that public authorities are not bound to plead the Act, but I say this must be wrong. They are there in a fiduciary capacity, and they are bound to plead every defence that is open to them; and if anybody criticises them, their answer is that if there is an injustice in it then the blame must be put on the Parliament that passed it. I do not mind admitting that lawyers are a little different from normal citizens. Many of them are more delighted at winning a bad case than a good one. Anyone can win a good case, but it takes a clever lawyer to win a bad one, and to get off a guilty man is a much greater forensic triumph than to get off a man who is plainly innocent.
    Now you have all legal men advising these authorities, and it is their duty to do their best for their clients, and to get away with the minimum sum of damages. If you take the different associations which have sent in representations about this Bill, every one of them is composed of members of the legal profession, and, as I have said, it is up to them to get the maximum for their clients, the local authorities. But it is for us as Members of Parliament to see that justice is done to the citizens, and not to pay any attention to the representations of interested parties.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. and learned Member tell the House why this particular Lord Advocate who introduced this question got this power to do so?
    Mr. Macquisten: I think he was the standing counsel to the Glasgow Corporation. One gives a great deal of attention to one's client.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I would like to ask the hon. and learned Member, does he mean that a corporation like the Glasgow Corporation would use its influence for the public authorities to that extent?
    Mr. Macquisten: Oh, yes, and I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate thought it was perfectly just, because the attitude of the Glasgow Corporation in those days was that anybody who served an action on the Glasgow Corporation did a public wrong, because the Glasgow Corporation was so just itself that it could never do a wrong to anybody, and I remember one time the town clerk took me to task, when I had acted in two or three cases against the corporation, and I said to him, "Here John, the only way you can prevent my being against the corporation is to take me into every case, and then I cannot be against them." I do not think I was firmly appointed, but I had most of the cases. In tram accident cases the corporation used to get particulars from the drivers and conductors and the names of the witnesses, and for years after 1868 they objected to producing them. I had a case in which I disputed that this evidence was confidential and the High Court eventually came to the conclusion that I was right. After that we always got the names and addresses of the witnesses, although they tried in every way to prevent us getting them.
    Mr. McGovern: May I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that Glasgow Corporation did not own the trams in 1868?
    Mr. Macquisten: It does not matter whether they were privately-owned. The point is that one could not get the report of an employé to his employer because it was said to be confidential. I said it was not and I got that plea upset. The result was that I was struck off the roll of the council. Then I afflicted them for years. Some time afterwards after a case I was taken back to their list of pleaders. Glasgow Corporation were a first-class corporation but they took themselves far too seriously. They took the attitude that anyone who raised an action against them was a blackmailer. There is

    1973
    another injustice in this Act in a Section which provides that if the plaintiff loses his case he can be mulcted in double expenses, that is to say expenses as between agent and client. That is a most unjust thing and it leads to the lawyer of an ordinary small man having to give the advice that as there was a risk of judgment going against him and he would have to pay heavy expenses, he should not pursue the case but accept a sum much less than he would get on a trial. We hear very much about the speculative lawyer but I think he is very much nonexistent. I have often taken a case for a poor man because I thought his case was just. I have never asked a man for money if his case was just. The speculative agent was not affected by this provision because his client did not pay anything, anyway.
    I ask the House to get back to fundamentals. Can it be just that, simply because damage is caused through negligence by a public authority, they should not be liable for the ordinary results that affect other great corporations and private individuals? Great wrongs are done every now and again because of this protection, and I maintain that if we leave this weapon in the hands of public authorities they are bound to perpetrate injustices for they are bound to use it. Conclusive evidence of that is seen in what happened in Croydon. One man got damages because his solicitor got off the mark at once, and the rest have been done down. So the corporation come to the House and ask for leave to act honestly. I believe that practically all members of public authorities are against this protection, and I am sure that if we put it to each one in his private capacity he would be ashamed of it. I do not believe that if it were put to them on a vote, with all the facts, they would support it. A corporation, however, has no body to be kicked and no soul to be damned. These authorities do in a public capacity what their members would never do in an individual capacity. If we extended this period it would not lead to more litigation, but would lead to far more settlements because nobody in his senses ever enters into litigation if he can possibly get out of it. As long as we keep this Act standing we are asking for trouble. It may be said that six years is too long, but if it were extended to two years it would greatly mitigate the
    1974
    hardships that occur again and again in many cases that we never hear of. I am sure that every one of the authorities really wants an opportunity of dealing justly towards those whom they may happen to have injured.
    8.9 p.m.
    Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) wound up his remarks by inviting the House to be suspicious of those who oppose the Amendment, because the only people who would oppose it were members of public authorities. I suppose that as I come within that category he is inviting the House to be suspicious of me. I would assure the House, however, that in opposing the Amendment, although I am a member of a local authority, I have no greater personal interest than have those who are supporting it.
    Mr. Silverman: I did not invite the House to be suspicious of those who opposed the Amendment. I said the House would be rightly suspicious of the continuance of a privilege where the only defenders of the privilege were those who profited by it.
    Mr. Silkin: And those were the public authorities. I happen to be a member of a public authority and the hon. Member must therefore be suspicious of me.
    Mr. Macquisten: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that there is a vast difference between an authority itself and the individual members? No individual member would ever dream of using this privilege himself.
    Mr. Silkin: I was under the impression that a public authority consisted of its members and that without the members there would be no public authority at all, but I do not press the point. Those who supported the Amendment have made a great point of suggesting that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, got through the House only by a sort of accident and that members did not realise what they were doing. I do not know what time of the night it went through, but when the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) was asked in what respect the previous law differed from the Public Authorities Protection Act,. 1893, he was not able to give the House a satisfactory answer.
    Mr. Foot: This matter was raised in Committee upstairs when I put this point, and the Solicitor-General informed the Committee that the Act of 1893 was wider in scope than the Act that had gone before.
    Mr. Silkin: I have carefully read the Debate which took place upstairs, and having heard the reply of the hon. Member for Dundee, I still find difficulty in understanding in what way, so far as the ordinary public are concerned, the Public Authorities' Protection Act took away any right which they had previously held. This protection which the public authorities have has continued for centuries, and I submit that what we are not debating now is whether it is right that they should continue to have it; the issue on this Amendment is, it having been conceded that they ought to have the protection, whether it should be limited to one year or two years. That is the only question before the House, and I propose to direct myself to it. It may be that hon. Members would have liked another Amendment, but they have not moved it, and although the House does sometimes wander from the proper course I am not going to wander but shall discuss the Amendment which is on the Paper. I invite the House to say whether there is any justification for extending the protection to two years instead of one. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment quite fairly admitted that only a few cases suffered under the existing limit of six months. I recognise that those cases may be serious, but he admitted that they were few in number. He quoted one case. I did not quite follow the dates he gave, but my impression was that in that case the difficulty would have been met by an extension from six months to one year. So that if the law had been what it is proposed it should be, he would not have been able to quote it in justification of his argument. The case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was one in which a person had a perfectly good cause of action, but, instead of going to a solicitor, went to a member of the council, and asked that member to intervene for him, and that councillor actually conducted negotiations with the town clerk. I submit that that is most improper procedure and that we should not defend it or justify it. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is often done."] It is none the less irregular.
    Mr. Logan: Sometimes people have more faith in the councillor than in the council.
    Mr. Silverman: The case made against this Amendment in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Marshall) was that where public authorities are concerned one need not bother with lawyers and litigation, because a committee sitting round a table was a much better jury than you would get in court, and that we ought to leave it to that kind of procedure which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is now saying is highly irregular and improper.
    Mr. Marshall: I cannot allow that to pass unchallenged. I never said anything of the kind. I never advocated that all these cases should be dealt with without lawyers. What I did was to make a statement of the facts and I said that many cases were settled without lawyers.
    Mr. Silkin: Nevertheless, I am sure the House will agree that it is highly irregular for a councillor to conduct negotiations with the town clerk on behalf of an aggrieved member of the public, and if that aggrieved member chooses to take that course instead of taking the normal course of seeking the benefit of the advice of a lawyer—
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Why is it irregular?
    Mr. Silkin: If you want me to explain I will explain. A town clerk negotiating with a member of the council is at a distinct disadvantage, because the councillor is in a position of authority over the town clerk. In certain circumstances he can influence his salary, can influence his status, can influence his position in all sorts of ways.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that there are many cases in which a lawyer is also a councillor, and in which his firm negotiates with the town clerk?
    Mr. Silkin: In the case of the authority with which I am associated it is not permitted for members of the council to act as lawyers, or in any other capacity, against the council—
    Mr. McGovern: That is not general.
    Mr. Silkin: —and I think that is a very proper procedure. But I am endeavouring to deal with an individual case which has been quoted by an hon. Member and I feel that it is not a good case in support of his argument, because the aggrieved party deliberately chose a course which was ill advised and ought to take the consequences. I submit that even the few cases which the hon. Member referred to as being hard cases would be met by the extension of the period from six months to one year.
    Mr. Foot: I also referred to a case which was before the courts a few months ago and obtained a great deal of publicity, in which the period of 12 months proved not to be long enough. It was a fatal case and the judge said he would have given the widow £2,500 damages, but because of this Act she does not get a penny.
    Mr. Silkin: That may be, but if the period were extended to two years no doubt cases would come along in which it would be possible to say that if the period had been made three years certain people would be in a better position.
    Mr. T. Smith: But with two years it would be less likely that there would be these hardships.
    Mr. Silkin: And there is less likelihood of hardships arising if the period is extended from six months to 12 months. I submit that it is a reasonable extension and would meet the large majority of cases—I am not suggesting every case—with which local authorities are concerned. Hon. Members supporting the Amendment have referred to the disadvantages of individual members of the public, but the general public have to be considered. After all, public authorities are only bodies which represent the general public, and we must not lose sight of the fact that while we may be helping individual members of the public we may be injuring the public as a whole. What this House has to do is to endeavour to hold the scales evenly between individual members of the public and the public as a whole. It seems to me that by extending the period from six months to 12 months a reasonable attempt has been made to hold the scales fairly, because while we shall not be causing public authorities to suffer to any great extent individual members of the public will have
    1978
    a better opportunity of making their case than they had before.
    It is as difficult to say that one year is right as to say that two years are wrong, but at any rate I have the authority of the Law Revision Committee, which considered this very carefully indeed, for the view I am taking. Hon. Members have quoted various portions of that report to suit their case, and I could quote other portions to suit my case, but all I want to do is to quote their conclusion. It was a conclusion which these eminent lawyers—for they are eminent—arrived at after very careful consideration of all the circumstances. From the quotations given by the hon. Member for Dundee we realise that they were very much alive to the problem which he is putting before the House, and at the end of their report they stated in specific terms, after having given the matter every consideration, that the case would be met by extending the period from six months to 12 months. I think the House would be well advised to accept the conclusions of that Committee.
    Hon. Members who support the Amendment have endeavoured to make a lot of the special and peculiar difficulties which public authorities suffer from in connection with actions which are brought against them. I do not think that they are particularly alarmed by the speculative solicitor. He is not necessarily their worst enemy. I quite agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that the speculative solicitor can look after himself every time and that he will undoubtedly take action within the proper time, whether it is six months or 12 months.
    The difficulty of the local authorities is in obtaining evidence to repudiate improper claims after too long a period. Anyone who is associated with a large public authority will agree that that is a real difficulty. I have been endeavouring to enumerate the duties of a large local authority in respect of which claims might be brought. I got as far as 15 when you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, called upon me to address the House. There is undoubtedly a considerable number more, but in respect of any one of those duties

    1979
    the local authority is likely to be shot at. When a person claims damages from a local authority he is not required to give notice of his claim and under the law, even as it is proposed to be amended, the first intimation that a local authority would have would be the writ issued against them, perhaps 11 months after.
    Mr. Silverman: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. He is himself a lawyer and he has probably read the Public Authorities Protection Act which clearly lays down that unless a plaintiff against a local authority gives the local authority an opportunity to treat and tender amends before his action, he cannot recover in that action. The issue of the writ cannot therefore be the first intimation that the local authority gets, and with that position nobody is proposing in any way to interfere.
    Mr. Silkin: The real point is that a long time may elapse, practically the greater part of the 12 months, before the local authority even hears of the claim. A claimant may easily come within the law if he has waited for nearly nine months and then has given notice of his claim and issued his writ within the two years—if the period is extended to two years as is proposed. I submit that a local authority is very greatly handicapped in meeting such claims, which may be made a long time after the event.
    Major Milner: Why is a local authority more greatly handicapped than an individual or a firm?
    Mr. Silkin: I can give the answer, which may not please my hon. and gallant Friend. It is that a large variety of different kinds of claim may be made against the local authority and that the authority operates on so much larger a scale that the difficulties are increased.
    Major Milner: And because of that the individual has to suffer?
    Mr. Silkin: It means that the local authority has to be specially protected. With that principle I think nobody in this House is in dispute, because there is no question of giving to local authorities a period extending to six years. The difference is between one year or two
    1980
    years, and I cannot too strongly emphasise that the principle is thereby conceded that public authorities are entitled to special protection by reason of their special difficulties. I submit that they have special difficulties and are entitled to this special protection. Having regard to the existing period of six months, which it is proposed to extend to 12 months, I submit that no substantial hardship will be caused to members of the public. The protection to which I refer is reasonable and necessary in order to safeguard the interests of a wider public who, after all, are entitled to be considered at least as much as any individual member of the public. For the reasons I have given I shall oppose the Amendment and accept the Clause as it stands.
    8.31 p.m.
    Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: The House must approach this subject with due regard to the limitation under which we work, namely, that we are not considering the matter of principle as to whether local authorities should have the same period of limitation. We are considering the very limited question indeed as to whether the proper period is 12 months or two years. I cannot pass one of the interruptions of the last speaker without a meed of correction. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said that if the plaintiff against a local authority did not give an opportunity to the local authority to make amends, he lost his cause of action; in fact, he is penalised only in costs. That was a slip on the part of the hon. Member, and I am sure that he will be glad to see it corrected.
    Mr. Silverman: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I do see that it was a slip to say that the plaintiff would lose his cause of action altogether. What is the case, especially when so much has been said about speculative solicitors, is that unless that opportunity of amends is given before the action commences, the plaintiff, even though he win his case, cannot recover any costs.
    Mr. Silkin: The point I was putting was that a local authority might not hear of a case until the very last moment before the time-limit expired.
    Mr. Fyfe: The point is, of course, quite good. The first question to which we have to give consideration is whether there is

    1981
    anything magical at all in any period of limitation in the law of this country. As I understand the position, there is nothing magical in the period of six years, except that it has existed for some 300 years. I cannot imagine anyone who supports the Amendment being particularly enamoured with that argument for the basis of the period. We have to consider one general question: Is this period that we now suggest going to avert injustice? There is no injustice in it being a different period from that of the private individual, if there is any basis, in principle, in the period which the private individual enjoys.
    With regard to the period of 12 months, I ask hon. Gentlemen who have considered it at all from the point of view of legal practice, or of the approach of the ordinary citizen to the problem, in how many cases is it going to be difficult to decide in 12 months whether you should issue a. writ or not? The case that springs to our mind is where the plaintiff is very badly injured and is still in hospital. Obviously he would have a writ issued and would stake out his claim, but the fact that he is in hospital does not put a difficulty in his way, as every hon. Member knows. The authorities in the hospital are always ready to place before him the position in which he is situated, and the necessity for staking out his claim in the field of litigation. As far as the solicitor is concerned, I cannot imagine a case, and I speak with absolute sincerity, in which a solicitor cannot decide, within 12 months of an accident or of some claim of a different kind, whether he should issue a writ. In what difficulty is he or his client placed by the issue of a writ? It costs, if my recollection is right, about 30s., and it is not going to prejudice the position of the client or make the position of the solicitor more difficult. Therefore, when we come to consider the actualities of the case, we are not seeking to perpetuate an injustice, but are providing the litigant with a reasonable opportunity for presenting his case and a reasonable time in which to make up his mind. The only remnant of argument to which the Mover of the Amendment can then cling is, why should there be a difference at all between a private individual and a local authority?
    Mr. Foot: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to interrupt him,
    1982
    he has not met a very important part of the case which we sought to put before the House, and that is that it sometimes happens that the plaintiff does not discover within the limited time that he has a claim against a public authority. There are other cases, as the hon. and learned Member knows, in which the plaintiff is under a misapprehension and brings an action against some other defendant, only finding out when it is too late that the real defendant is a public authority.
    Mr. Fyfe: The position in which the plaintiff does not know that the defendant is a public authority arose in a well-known case against the London Passenger Transport Board, and the matter had to be litigated before the point was cleared up. But I would ask the hon. Member to try to envisage any similar case in the future where that difficulty is likely to recur.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member knows, I think, of a case in Liverpool where that precise position arose. I do not want to go into details, but it was a case in connection with a school.
    Mr. Fyfe: Unfortunately, the hon. Member has chosen a case in one portion of which I appeared as counsel. I would only say that, if at every stage of that case the plaintiff had taken the precaution of joining the local authority, as in fact the solicitor for whom I appeared had done, that difficulty would not have arisen; and if those who prepared the case had considered it necessary to join all the parties, no difficulty would have arisen at all. There must be cases where people choose the wrong parties. That must arise sometimes, and they must be penalised for it. The mistakes of lawyers must be penalised, just as the mistakes of everyone else are penalised. These cases are bound to arise. I am sorry that I cannot remember for the moment the second point that the hon. Member put to me; perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat it.
    Mr. Foot: It sometimes happens—it happened quite recently—that the plaintiff sues the wrong defendant. In a recent case the plaintiff sued contractors, who, he thought, were in charge of a building at the material time, but, when he brought his action more than 12 months afterwards, he found that the

    1983
    building had in fact passed into the occupation of a public authority. That is an actual case which arose in the courts a few months ago.
    Mr. Fyfe: There again I would ask the House closely to examine the facts. At a point of time the building passed from the contractor to the local authority, and, somewhere about that point of time, injury was occasioned to someone by the works, or as a result of the works. Does the House seriously think that an ordinary wide-awake plaintiff and wide-awake solicitor cannot discover within 12 months whether the contractor or the corporation was then in charge of the building?
    Mr. Foot: In the case I have in mind the solicitors communicated with the local authority in order to find out who was in occupation of the building, and the local authority informed them that the contractor was in occupation, but actually it turned out that the local authority themselves were in occupation. I do not say that they meant to mislead, but in fact they did mislead, the plaintiff, and, as a result, he lost his right of action.
    Mr. Fyfe: The hon. Member has certainly quoted a very extreme case where a local authority does not know whether it is in occupation or not, but I would remind him of the provisions of the Rules of Court by which anyone can, when there is any doubt at all, join parties and is safeguarded in costs. The hon. Member will recollect that the test is not whether he succeeds against the parties joined, but whether it is reasonable in the circumstances to join them. I submit that there is an answer to both the points which the hon. Member put to me, and I have endeavoured to give it in what I hope is a detached and fair way.
    I should like to follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on the wider aspect of this matter as it affects local authorities. We are too apt to consider the local authorities simply from the point of view of their trading powers—from the point of view, for example, of their running tramways or omnibus services, or carrying on similar activities. I would, however, ask the House to look at other aspects of the matter. Take, for example, the watch committee of a local authority,
    1984
    who have to deal, among other matters, with appeals of police constables from the decision of the chief constable under the various Acts which govern our police forces. That is one case in which members of local authorities have to sit and act in a quasi-judicial and quasi-administrative capacity. In other capacities they have to take administrative decisions of great difficulty, which may have far-reaching results. Not only does the constitution of the council change with each November election, but every member of the old and of the new council has a host of new duties, and I think there is a great hardship on members of these bodies who are challenged with delayed actions a long time later. Their case is different from that of the individual, who is concerned with actions connected with the affairs of his own life which are well in his own mind. The members of a committee of a local authority, on the other hand, are dealing with the affairs of countless numbers of their fellow-citizens, and, in view of their duties, which are not trading duties or anything of that kind, I think they are entitled to the consideration which we are suggesting.
    As regards the period of 12 months, if we were perpetrating an injustice we should be ready to change it, but when the question is examined from that point of view, and it is found that no injustice or difficulty is caused to the litigant and his solicitor, and when we consider that public authorities are concerned with the welfare of their fellow-citizens in innumerable aspects I think we should maintain something that has existed since 1893, but something which goes back for nearly 100 years beyond that—to the time when public opinion recognised that there was a difference between the acts of persons acting merely on their own behalf and the acts which they might perform when they were acting either for the community or for large bodies of their fellow-citizens. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject this Amendment.
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: I desire to support the Amendment. I regard two years as a very moderate limit to impose. I have listened to the Debate as a layman, with no legal knowledge, and I have learned—as I often do from Debates in this House—many things that it is good for me, as a public representative, to know.

    1985
    But I hear from time to time of the difficulties of people who may be the victims of accidents in consequence of which they have claims against local authorities. Considering the arguments which have been advanced in the light of my own experience, I am compelled to vote for the Amendment. Has the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe) ever known of cases in which after an accident it took a certain time for the effect to be felt? I know of a case in Glasgow where a man died one year and eight months after the accident. He had injured his back and spine, but he decided to take no action, because he thought that it was only a matter of bruising and that the effects would disappear. Thirteen months after the accident grievous consequences developed, but he was debarred from taking action. His friends came to me and I endeavoured to get something done, but it was too late; and one year and eight months after the accident the man died, as a result of the accident. I have known cases in Glasgow where people have suffered from the effects of accidents and have not taken action for a certain time, and then have gone to a solicitor. The solicitor has been negligent and has failed to take action within a reasonable time, and his clients have been debarred from obtaining compensation as a result of his negligence.
    The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) maintained that it was most irregular for a councillor to have to negotiate with the town clerk in order to get a settlement for people whom he represented. I asked him whether he was aware that there are members of councils who are solicitors and who themselves negotiate settlements. I had an example only this morning of a case against the Glasgow Corporation, in which the agent, who was a solicitor, was the convenor of the police committee, and was actually in charge of a case against the police committee for a policeman who, it was claimed, died as the result of an accident. I am not saying that it is improper—because I do not believe that it is improper—but if it is not improper for a solicitor who is a councillor to negotiate a settlement for a client with the town clerk, surely a layman who is a councillor is as much entitled to do so. But I understand that on the legal side there is always an objection to a councillor or a
    1986
    Member of Parliament negotiating a settlement, because if he does so he is doing the solicitor out of a job.
    Mr. Silkin: My contention is that in both cases it is wrong: that a member of a council has an undue influence over a town clerk, and is in a position to extort a better settlement than might be the case if the other was a free agent.
    Mr. McGovern: In most cases, what happens is that the town clerk comes to the appropriate committee, reports the claim and intimates that an action is proposed; and he puts before the committee the question as to whether a settlement should be made. The town clerk is not the person who completes the settlement, but very often the members of the committee themselves appoint a sub-committee to meet the other person's agent and come to a conclusion. I am just as much alive as any person in this House to any avenues of impropriety in regard to public authorities, but I do not look at this as the hon. Member for Peckham looks at it. I look at it from the point of view of an ordinary layman who has the right to expect justice and decent treatment if he or she suffers from the negligence of a public authority. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) says that you have the right to sue an ordinary individual or private firm during a period of six years. I can conceive that some people might say that that is too long a period. If there had been a suggestion that there should be a three years' period to apply all round I could have seen the force of that. No one could deny that 12 months is better than six months, but two years would be very much better indeed.
    The case stated by the hon. Member for Dundee was an extreme case, and surely we are entitled to deal with extreme cases and to make the law sufficiently elastic so to give an opportunity for action by those who may at present be debarred on account of being extreme cases. The hon. Member mentioned that the judge said that he would have awarded £2,500, which means that that family were denied the redress that they ought to have had if there had been the two years' limitation in this case. The hon. Member for Dundee dealt with one or two such cases, but there are cases all over the country that never come to light. They come before private individuals. Last night there was a suggestion that we were overdoing the question of the

    1987
    10s. payment to old age pensioners when we were considering putting taxation on motor bicycles, but surely we are entitled to argue, for example, that the case of the poor woman whose husband may have died as the result of an accident, and who may have to go through life without receiving the compensation which, but for this limitation, would have been taken into account. If it only means a few cases, there is all the greater reason for elasticity.
    I would like to hear the argument—I have not heard it yet—on the justification for the difference of six years in respect of a private firm and of six months in respect of a public authority. The hon. Member argued that the public authority ought to have protection. Public authorities can protect themselves; at least that is my experience. I recognise the dangers to ordinary individuals. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has become the custodian of a public authority. I do not object to his defending the interests of the public authority, but I am entitled to ask that the people who sent him to the public authority should receive some consideration also. I am keeping in mind both the public authority and the people who send me to express their difficulties on the Floor of this House. I try to keep that in view, and that is why my Socialism is sometimes more prominent than that of hon. Members above the Gangway. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not apologise."] I do not need to apologise. I do not require to assure anybody of my Socialism. When a man has to go on to the platform and assure people that he is a Socialist, it is a sign that he is not a Socialist.
    In dealing with this matter purely from the point of view of the ordinary layman and taking all the difficulties into account, my experience leads me along the avenue of attempting to protect these extreme cases. If it was only a question of half a dozen cases being protected, I should still consider the Amendment justified. Therefore, looking at these difficulties, having had experience of a number of such cases in the past, knowing that they can be multiplied all over the country, and that solicitors may sometimes fail in their duty, I am in favour of this two years' protection. I support it, because there is justifiable reason behind it.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Marshall: I said on the Second Reading that there was a remarkable unanimity on the part of the lawyers on this particular matter. It has not been quite as evident to-night. I think that the legal gentlemen who have spoken are about evenly divided, and that fact constitutes a reason why I should stick to the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) went to some pains to-night to prove that he was not making an attack upon local authorities, and he was supported in that argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). However, it appeared to me to be an attack, or an endeavour to render local authorities liable to extensive litigation to which they have not hitherto been subjected. The hon. Gentleman is in very bad company. He quoted me on the Committee stage of the Bill, and as I happen to have a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee, I want to quote part of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). The hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about the local authorities and said:
    "They want to escape the law courts. They do not want the light of day to enter upon them. That is the one thing they want to avoid. All this talk about speculative actions is 'bunkum,' for no man raises an action unless he has a prima facie case. Any public authority rejoices in litigation."
    In the first place, hon. Members will notice that they want to avoid the law courts, and in the second place that they rejoice in litigation.
    "Why should they not? They arc not litigating with their own money. It is the ratepayers' money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 21st February, 1939; col. 21.]
    If that does not constitute an attack upon local authorities I have never heard one, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne on the company they are keeping to-night. I had to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire in Committee that when we on this side of the House had submitted a Bill or Bills to improve the law with regard to Workmen's Compensation and to do away with some of the anomalies in the Act, we always found the hon. and learned Gentleman in the other lobby. I am amazed at the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. Member for

    1989
    Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), and I am going to challenge him to tell the House whether there has been any demand for this drastic alteration in the law as it relates to local authorities? He may have had some experience, and, at any rate, I can say that I have had 19 years' experience of a local authority and have never yet known one case where a person has come forward and told the council or any councillors or aldermen that he has suffered any hardship as a consequence of the Public Authorities' Protection Act.
    Mr. Foot: Let us get this perfectly clear. The hon. Member says that he has been 19 years on one local authority. Has that local authority pleaded the defence of the Public Authorities' Protection Act, or has it not?
    Mr. Marshall: I have never heard of it pleading that Act. As a matter of fact, had the town clerk attempted to plead that Act, the council would have taken exception to it.
    Major Milner: Why object to it then?
    Mr. Marshall: I stated in Committee that I know of no demand for this proposal and of no cases of hardship in consequence of it. This appears to me to be a try-on by the lawyers in order to widen the area for the exploitation of local authorities.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) and I myself, as well as other hon. Members in Committee upstairs, have given definite instances of hardships that have actually occurred. Does the hon. Gentleman say that there is no foundation for the examples that we have given?
    Mr. Marshall: It seems to me that I am interrupting somebody else's speech. The case which the hon. Member quoted would have been dealt with under the proposed amendment of the law. The case which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) quoted is a most peculiar one. It almost reads like a fairy story, from some points of view. That case needed, first of all, a fool for a councilor—and they appear to have found one—and a knave for a town clerk, and these two people apparently were in an atmosphere of ignorance. That case could not have been consummated unless you had those
    1990
    elements present. For my part, I should want to know a good deal more about the cases that have been quoted.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that he had been nine years on a local authority. He did not, however, bring forward one case in which, during that period, hardship had occurred through the operation of the Local Authorities Protection Act. He seemed to have an entirely wrong idea of what a local authority is. He seemed to have the idea that a local authority is something apart altogether from the citizens of the community. This protection is not for a few councillors or aldermen, the town clerk or the lord mayor. It is protection given to the citizens of Glasgow, Sheffield, London and other communities. What I do not like about the legal profession in this matter is that they seem to think that the Parliamentary and Law Committee of a public authority, which may be comprised of 21 individuals, are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive injured parties of their rights. That is not only incorrect but it is a vicious travesty of the position. It is an insult to the honesty, decency and intelligence of members of local authorities.
    I have already spoken about the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, and I say that the charge that he makes against local authorities, that they are always wanting to enter into liquidation and then they try to avoid it, is a charge that is not only untrue but unworthy. It only shows how a mind can become warped when it misunderstands people who are doing a really important job. This protection has been given to local authorities in one form for the last 300 years. It is true that the hon. Member for Dundee questioned that in Committee, but I think it is agreed that this protection was given in some degree for 300 years. It has not been given without some good cause. I do not profess to be a lawyer, thank goodness, but I do not imagine that something has been given to these great public bodies for 300 years without good cause.
    My second point is that the local authorities have considered this matter very carefully and seriously, and they tell us honestly and frankly that if this matter is extended to a point any further than the Bill proposes to extend it, it will open them to a vast area of litigation that is

    1991
    not open to them to-day, unfair litigation, and it will place them in a very parlous condition. My third point is that this is a consolidation Bill, and if we are to use Bills of this character to introduce far-reaching changes into the law which will open up these vast new fields of litigation to local authorities, those authorities will have to look at the matter very seriously. I say again that there has been no general demand for this change.
    Hon. Members seem to suggest that local authorities are in the same position as private individuals. They are not. The local authority has many administrative acts to perform. It literally looks after the individual from the cradle to the grave, in some form of administrative compulsion or other, and I contend, and I think the House will contend, that in that capacity local authorities ought to be protected. I know of certain hospitals where the local authorities are practically performing modern miracles. They are taking the limbs of crippled little children and straightening them. They are taking feet which have turned backwards and turning them into the proper position. They are curing curvature of the spine. It is possible that here and there mistakes are made. It would be almost a miracle if that was not the case. You cannot find individuals who are doing this work in the same sense as our local authorities, or who are compelled to do it. Nearly every person who does it, other than a local authority, is doing it for profit.
    There is a vast difference between local authorities and private individuals. Take the case of the fever hospitals. They are compelled to do their work, they have no option, and I am sure the House will feel that while local authorities are performing these great administrative acts they are entitled to special protection. That is why protection has been given. The local authorities have agreed to the period of limitation being doubled and to certain modifications in a later Clause. I sincerely hope the Attorney-General will stand firm and will protect these great public institutions, which are doing enormous work, possibly even more precious work than this House is doing. I ask the Attorney-General to protect the local authorities from the speculative lawyer and from the new area of litigation that will place upon them dangers that they have not hitherto had to face.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: With great respect to the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, with such vigour, I rise to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I cannot follow the arguments that have been put forward against it. The principal point which was raised by those who spoke against the Amendment appeared to be that the House was not concerned with any general objection to privileges given to local authorities and, therefore, certain hon. Members appeared to attach weight to that point. It was a good debating point, but I submit that there is not the smallest substance in it. The House will ask itself three questions: (1) Has there been injustice under the existing law; (2) under the law as it is proposed, without the Amendment, is it possible or likely that injustice will continue to any degree; and (3) if the answers to the first two questions are, as I believe, in the affirmative, does the proposed Amendment do anything to alleviate the injustice which would otherwise be caused? When hon. Members, in supporting the Amendment, say that they are convinced that the local authority ought not to be given any privilege at all, then, in my submission, they are justified in doing so and in asking the House to support the Amendment, because they are satisfied that the Amendment, inadequate as it may be, will reduce the amount of injustice which they have proved to exist in existing practice, and under the law as it is proposed in the Bill as it stands.
    Why are we asked to reject the Amendment? We are asked to do so, first of all, by the hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Marshall) on the ground that no injustice has been caused under the existing law. He asks us to reject the Amendment because he says that in his large experience as a member of a local authority no injustice has been caused. If that is so, why has this Bill been introduced? Why has the six months' period been extended to a year? There is not a barrister practising at the Common Law Bar who does not realise that grievous injustice has been caused to litigants, and to poor litigants who cannot afford a good solicitor by the existing law. We have been asked by an hon. Member to reject the Amendment on the ground that the injustices

    1993
    will be few. I cannot follow that argument at all. Why should any injustice be caused by law unless it can be justified on the grounds of absolute necessity? No such justification has been suggested. Why are we to be comforted by the thought that injustice will be caused only in a relatively small proportion of cases, unless it can be shown that it is absolutely justified?
    Mr. H. Morrison: This is a new doctrine from a Tory.
    Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing with what I have said on the subject.
    Mr. Morrison: No, I am not.
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure, having heard what has been said in support of the Amendment, he will support it as being in accordance with true Socialist principles. Has any necessity been shown why these injustices should continue? In my submission no such necessity has been put forward at all. Hon. Members who have opposed the Amendment have, without exception, spoken as if the only type of authority which is covered by the Public Authorities' Protection Act is a local authority. That is not the case. We are concerned here just as much with the Departments of State. I can speak out of my own experience—it was not a case in which I was personally concerned, but it occurred in the Chambers which I occupy—of a case where one of the great Departments of State deliberately led the litigants in negotiations until the period of protection had expired and then proceeded to put forward the Public Authorities' Protection Act as a bar to the claim. The member of the Bar who was concerned in that case, with very great courage indeed, and, I think, with technical impropriety, put forward the plea of fraud on the record, and the result was that the Department of State immediately compromised and paid a sum of, I think £2,000 by way of damages. It is absurd to talk as if an attack is being made on local authorities alone. It is inevitable that the official mind should make every use it can of official privilege, and official privilege is a thing which this House has always very jealously regarded. If it can be shown, as it has been, that it has been abused in the past, then surely it is right to limit its use for the future.
    1994
    It has been suggested by hon. and learned Members that litigants have only themselves or their solicitors to blame if they do not issue their writs in proper time. I confess that again I fail to see the force of that argument. It is, as I conceive it, the purpose of good legislation to limit the scope of negligence in lawyers and the public, not to extend it, and if it can be shown that the law is already so complicated and difficult that members of the legal profesion habitually make mistakes in not issuing writs in proper time, then I submit that the hon. Member has made out his case for a simplification of the law and for approximation to a general standard. An hon. Member has also suggested that the difference in principle between a local authority and a private litigant lies in the fact that the constitution of a local authority changes from time to time in accordance with democratic practice. The answer to that is that a local authority has a very efficient permanent staff, and that one of the duties of that permanent staff lies in the investigation and settlement of claims made by parties who are aggrieved by the action of the local authority. I fail to see why that permanent staff is there at all if it is not there in order to inform the changing members of the council of the state of affairs which exists.
    Two hon. Members have said that the general public have an interest, and that these priviliges are put in for the purpose of protecting members of the general public. I have not understood, and I still fail to understand, what possible interest the general public can have in inflicting injustice on its individual members, and I fail to understand why the general public should be supposed to desire to bar poor litigants, who for one reason or another have allowed six months or a year to elapse before issuing their writs, from getting the justice which they would otherwise obtain. That is another of the objections to the Amendment which has no substance in it at all. It is said that local authorities experience difficulty in getting evidence to rebut claims. Where is the reason for supposing that local authorities find it more difficult to obtain evidence than an ordinary litigant? On the contrary. My experience has been that a local authority, as soon as an accident takes place, prepares a very careful and

    1995
    adequate report showing all the names of possible witnesses, with the fullest report from their own servants, which is filed against a future contingency, whereas a private litigant has no such system at his disposal, no such experience of previous cases and, in fact, is very much more embarrassed than a public authority in obtaining the evidence necessary to resist a claim.
    I have taken note, I think, of every single objection which has been put forward in the course of the Debate to the Amendment. I have attempted to deal with each one of them. I have not the slightest prejudice against local authorities. I have no great desire, as the hon. Member for the Brightside Division seems to think, as a lawyer to extend the number of cases for litigation, because in the last resort—I hope he will accept it from me—members of the legal profession, whether they belong to that branch graced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) or that to which I myself belong, have one great object at heart, and that is justice. They have learned to study justice and to love it. In this matter it is love of justice and a desire for justice which leads me to support an Amendment, which has been moved by hon. Members who do not support the party to which I belong. I hope the House will accept it. I ask the House to answer the three questions I have put in the affirmative, and if they do so, then the Amendment will be passed by an overwhelming majority.
    9.25 p.m.
    Major Milner: I think it would be desirable to clear away one or two preliminary points. May I say, with due modesty, that I do not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) in my support, after a good many years' experience, of local authorities and their work. I had the honour to be vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations for many years. I made my first speech in this House in support of the extension of the powers of local authorities, and I do not think that I have on any previous occasion found it necessary or desirable to oppose anything which was considered to be in their interest. Therefore, I start off with, if anything, a prejudice in favour of local authorities.
    1996
    A good deal has been said about lawyers. I ask my hon. Friends to believe that lawyers in this matter are personally disinterested. To-day the only safeguard for the individual who suffers injury by the neglect of a local authority or its servants, is to go at once to a lawyer and to have his interests protected, whereas, if this period is extended, it will be possible for the claimant to have greater opportunities of arriving at a settlement with the local authority, without the intervention of a lawyer. Thus, if anything, the prolongation of the period would be contrary to the interests of the legal profession as far as employment and remuneration are concerned. But our interest in this matter arises from the fact that we know that great hardships are suffered as a result of the law as it stands. I would like to put this point to my hon. Friends on these benches. When miners' representatives bring forward questions affecting the interests of miners, on which I cannot claim the same knowledge as some of my hon. Friends possess, or when my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside brings forward something affecting the general workers, for whom he can speak with greater knowledge than I possess, I willingly accept and support the views thus expressed. On this matter of claims, mostly in respect of accidents against local authorities, I submit that members of the legal profession have greater knowledge of the hardships caused by the existing law than hon. Gentlemen who are not lawyers can have. I assure my hon. Friends that it is not a matter of one or two cases but of hundred of cases in a year in which hardships are suffered and people are penalised for life by a law which discriminates between the rights of local authorities and the rights of private individuals.
    Frankly, I should like equality before the law. I should like the six-year period of limitation to apply to local authorities as to individuals. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) suggests a two-year period which would be a great improvement on the present period of six months or the proposed period of 12 months. As I think his proposal affords a greater likelihood of justice than the proposal in the Bill, in the circumstances I accept it and support it, though, as I say, I would like local authorities to be put in the same position as private individuals. Perhaps the Attorney-

    1997
    General will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the period of one year was recommended by the Law Revision Committee, not because they thought it was the right period—they point out that there are no real grounds for discrimination—but because they were making recommendations for a Consolidation Measure, and we know how desirable it is, not to make any greater alterations than are absolutely necessary in a Consolidation Bill, so as to avoid controversy and expenditure of time in this House.
    I also believe that the period of one year was suggested because the local authorities agreed to it. There is, however, no special virtue in it, and the House is competent to increase it to two years or even six years, if the House so desires. It is a curious thing that neither the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) nor the hon. Member for Brightside, thought fit to tell the House whether their respective local authorities turned down one claim, or 10 claims or 100 claims in a year on the ground that they had not been brought within the requisite period. I venture to suggest that if they asked their local authorities how many times a year the Public Authorities Protection Act was pleaded, they would find that it was pleaded very frequently. When I say "frequently," I speak in a comparative sense.
    Mr. Marshall: I did say that in my 19 years' experience on a local authority I knew of no case in which that Act had been pleaded.
    Major Milner: If that be so, then the extension for which we ask should make no difficulty whatever for, and cast no additional burden on, the local authorities. To speak of exploitation as the hon. Member did is, in those circumstances, a misuse of language.
    Mr. Marshall: Why do you want the extension, then?
    Major Milner: Because I assert that there are many cases in which hardship is suffered at present. My hon. Friend speaks for a local authority which has for many years been under Labour control, and is no doubt at least as generous in its view of these things as any other authority. It may be that the Sheffield Corporation make payments in these cases, but that is not so with the great
    1998
    majority of other bodies, and we are dealing here with urban and rural district councils as well, and not with the great municipalities alone. It is, therefore, a striking fact that no figures have been brought forward on behalf of the local authorities and I wonder whether my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest personal regard and who is president of a very important trade union, has asked the legal advisers of that union how many cases of that sort have had to be dealt with by them. The fact is that my hon. Friend is working on a brief which has been supplied to him by one of the local authorities' associations and has made no independent investigation of any kind. He has asked neither his local authority nor his union about these facts, and I venture to assert that, if he made those inquiries, he would have come here in a rather more chastened spirit than he has shown.
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. and gallant Member is saying something to which I must take exception when he suggests that I am merely working on a brief supplied by the local authorities. I have tried to put forward a proposition which, from 19 years' experience, I believe to be commonsense.
    Major Milner: But the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us whether his local authority has pleaded the Public Authorities Protection Act once or a hundred times, although he has been a member of that authority for 19 years. There is another important point which has not yet been mentioned. Many local authorities insure themselves with insurance companies. What the Act has done in the past—and what it will continue to do if the period is not extended—has been simply to free the insurance companies of their responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who is not now in his place, told me before he left the Chamber of an accident which occurred in a laundry belonging to the Tottenham Corporation. The accident resulted in a serious and permanent injury to a person's foot. My hon. Friend told me that it would have justified a claim for £500 or £1,000, but for some reason or other, the period of six months was allowed to elapse, and afterwards no claim could be made, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that it was possible to

    1999
    obtain an ex gratia payment of £150 from the insurance company which insured the local authority. That individual, according to my hon. Friend, was entitled to receive £500 or £1,000, but had to be content with £150. The insurance company had received premiums which made them responsible for paying whatever sum might be legally adjudicated, but the company was able to get away with it and need not have paid anything in law; but, as my hon. Friend said, it was a very reputable insurance company and made an ex gratia payment of about one-seventh of what the person might have received had a claim been made in time.
    Mr. Fleming: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman why no writ was issued within the proper period in that case?
    Major Milner: I cannot answer that question. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the position. It is something which we come across almost every day in the case of constituents who have accidents.
    Mr. Fleming: The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted one particular case, and I asked him a simple question in connection with that case. Why was not a writ issued in time?
    Major Milner: Frankly, I cannot answer that question, although I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham could answer it. The fact is that people do not know the law. They do what is the reasonable thing. They go to hospital. If it is a case of an accident to a child, the parents do their best to look after the child and to repair the injury if possible, and the question of making a claim is a secondary and later consideration; but eventually it arises, and when it does arise, frequently the period has elapsed and the child, although perhaps maimed for life, has no claim of any kind. I submit that this question of relieving the insurance companies from a liability which they would otherwise have is a very important one.
    It seems to me that no justification has been made for any differentiation between a local authority and an individual in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside spoke about the
    2000
    multiplicity of departments in a local authority, and said that for that reason the local authority is entitled to special protection. But the railways have a multiplicity of departments; Imperial Chemical Industries and the Yorkshire Electric Power Company, a great public utility corporation employing many thousands of men, have a multiplicity of departments. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the London Passenger Transport Board?"] By Act of Parliament, the London Passenger Transport Board was made a public authority for this purpose, although in fact it pays dividends to private individuals and is not, in the real sense of the term, a public authority as we are discussing them to-night. Why should there be any differentiation on grounds of complexity or multiplicity of duties between local authorities and the great railway companies, the Yorkshire Electric Power Company or Imperial Chemical Industries? My hon. Friends and I stand for an extension of municipal enterprise. Little by little the position is becoming more and more difficult. The local authorities are taking on fresh duties and responsibilities—with which I entirely agree—and more and more this Act is becoming important, and it is being increasingly brought to the notice of the public that it causes hardships.
    When the Act was brought in 300 years ago, it was brought in for entirely different reasons. In 1623, it was introduced for the purpose of preventing actions concerning estates and so on from being carried on ad infinitum, for scores of years, if not for hundreds of years. In those days, it had no application to the cases for which we are pleading to-day. Therefore, it is quite beside the point to say that the Act has been in existence for 300 years. I submit to the House that at the present time it causes great hardship to a constantly increasing number of our constituents. I am sure that if any of us were consulted, as ordinary members of the public, as to whether it would not be a great hardship if our son or daughter or some relative were involved in an accident as a result of the negligence of a local authority or its servant and was unable to make a claim—as would be the case if the accident had been caused by a private individual—by reason of this Act of Parliament, we should agree that there was reason to complain of such a state of

    2001
    affairs. Is there a single member of the general public who would object to a claim being brought against a local authority? We are merely asking for the ordinary law, as it affects the ordinary individual, to be applied to local authorities, and even if the Amendment were accepted, there would be in the case of a local authority a period of only two years, whereas in the case of an ordinary individual the period is one of six years. I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Amendment, which at any rate would give a greater likelihood of justice and go a long way in removing hardships.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me why, in the case of the accident to which he referred, no writ was served within a period of 12 months?
    Major Milner: It is not everybody who consults a solicitor to begin with. A great many of the people who have accidents consult their friends, their councillors or their Members of Parliament, or they consult no one. If they consulted a solicitor, in a great majority of cases the matter would be in order, but I have been speaking for those who do not do so, either because of a lack of funds or a lack of knowledge.
    Mr. Macquisten: If a man is badly injured, he may not get better until after 12 months.
    Major Milner: As the hon. and learned Member says, there are many cases where the injury continues over a period of 12 months, or even does not become apparent until after 12 months have elapsed. It is essential that the longest possible period should be given. A solicitor is consulted, and the only safeguard, with the law as it is, is that a writ should be issued, but a writ costs money. It is not every poor man who has even the 30s. which it costs to issue a writ. But the real reason for this Amendment is that the majority of people do not consult a lawyer early enough, and do not know their rights, and in some cases an injury is not apparent until after the 12 months. I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Amendment.
    9.46 p.m.
    Sir George Jones: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The only
    2002
    complaint I have to make is that it does not go far enough. The Sub-section says:
    "No action shall be brought against any person for any act done in pursuance, of execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any public authority, or in respect of any neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, duty or authority, unless it is commenced before the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued."
    The result of that is that anyone affected in a variety of ways is entitled to the protection of this Act, and this ought to be borne in mind, that we are getting an ever-increasing number of services performed by statutory bodies, of which, of course, there was no idea when the Act of 1893 was passed. For instance, in London the omnibuses formerly were owned by private companies, now they are owned by the London Passenger Transport Board, and in their case only six months is allowed for the commencement of an action. I have never heard it suggested that the old companies suffered because they were subject to a six years' limitation. The old companies managed quite well, and I quite agree with the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) that if there is one class, body, or institution that is able to look after itself in litigation it is the public authority. Unlike the private citizens, local authorities can investigate a claim immediately, they tabulate the evidence, and they have the advice of their lawyers. If there should be any differentiation it is the private citizen who needs the longer period.
    I have listened to most of this Debate and I have not heard a single argument why a private person should be subjected to a six years' limitation and public authorities are to have only six months or 12 months. If the private person should be liable for six years, it is surely right that the public authorities, who are much better able to look after themselves, should have a similar limit. Several speakers have said that if this Amendment is passed, there will be all sorts of actions sprung upon the public authorities, which will place them at a great disadvantage. I venture to suggest that that is quite imaginary. There will be some cases, but not many, and they will be cases which will not be taken up unless there is a really good cause of action, because it generally means in

    2003
    those cases that the plaintiff has no money. Somebody has to find it, or take a risk, and that is not done unless there is a belief in the genuineness of the case.
    I heard an hon. Gentleman ask my hon. Friend who spoke last why a writ was not issued in the particular case he was referring to. A very frequent reason why a writ is not issued is this: Negotiations are opened with a view to a settlement, the correspondence goes on and on, and it is when the correspondence ceases that the public authority says, "We plead the Act." The first case under the 1893 Act was a London County Council case, and the facts were these: There was correspondence as to the amount of compensation, six months elapsed, and then the London County Council pleaded the Act. It was held they were entitled to it. I think the learned judge saw them afterwards and there was some sort of compromise. There was a London County Council case in which three claims were entered. In two cases there was no dispute and payment was made. In the third case only the amount was in dispute. One doctor said one thing and another doctor said something else. The parents agreed with the London County Council that they would wait for some months, when it would be possible to say which of the doctors was right and then there should be a certain amount paid. In that particular case the insurance companies later pleaded the Act. They went down on another legal point but that was not their fault; it was their misfortune.
    If a person has a good case for action he ought not to be barred by this sort of technicality. The person who can afford legal advice is in no danger, but there are persons who do not know about the Poor Persons' Defence Act. There is another class of person, often overlooked, who ought to be considered. That is the person who is too well off to take advantage of the Poor Persons' Defence Rules a man with means over £50 or an income of £2 a week. If he is over that limit he cannot get free defence, and perhaps cannot afford to obtain legal advice. He muddles on, having correspondence, and the six months expires, and the public authorities set up the Act.
    2004
    Hon. Members say, in how many cases is this defence pleaded? That is not the point. In how many cases are claims never started, because directly people go to a solicitor they are told "It is too late, nothing can be done"? We are getting legislation ever more complicated because of the multiplicity of authorities, and it is almost impossible in many cases to find out the right defendant. If you happen to pick the wrong one you are too late to find out the truth. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Liverpool said "But you can join the various people to the action." Of course you can, if you have a solicitor to advise you, and if you do not mind spending a lot of money. If a man is injured he ought not to be deprived of a remedy which he would have against a private person simply because the body responsible comes within the definition of this Act. I venture to hope that the House will do something to restore some measure of justice to a class of litigants who have been deprived of their rights far too long through this antiquated provision.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. R. Gibson: One cannot help thinking that if there had been this Debate before the Public Authorities Protection Act was passed in 1893, there would have been no such Act passed at all. It must be evident to Members on both sides of the House that Members from Scotland have taken a deep interest in this Bill. It is a Bill designed to apply, not to Scotland or to Northern Ireland, yet in Clause 21, which is intended to extend only to England, an Act of Parliament which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom is sought to be amended, and one asks what will happen in Scotland if this Bill is passed. There will be a diversity of the law as affecting public authorities in England from what will appertain in Scotland. Accordingly, it seems to me that there has been a lamentable lack of departmental co-ordination in the framing of the Bill, and the result will be that the legislative machinery in Westminster will produce an unfortunate diversity and confusion in this branch of law as between Scotland and England. It may be that there is to be introduced another Bill affecting Scotland, and I hope that if such a Bill does come before the House, Members from England will attend and give us the benefit of their

    2005
    assistance. On the other hand, one result may be that this diversity of the law as between the two countries may give a great impetus to the movement that is strong in Scotland for a separate Legislature in Edinburgh to look after our own Scottish legislative affairs.
    It may interest Members representing English constituencies to know that it sounds strange in the ears of a lawyer coming from Scotland to hear of a six years' limitation in connection with an action grounded on negligence against an individual. There is no such limitation in Scotland, where the only defence, in regard to time, to an action of this sort is the defence of Mora, taciturnity and acquiescence. There is no time limitation. The hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) was speaking about a case in his chambers in which negotiations were carried beyond the time limit, and another example was given from his own practice by the last speaker. In my own experience, I remember a case that was closely akin to these, but the facts of the case were so very unfortunate that I have never forgotten them. The injured person was a lady, a graduate of a Scottish university, and was seriously injured. The liability of the public authority was clear, but the local authority's solicitor, who was in the town clerk's department, asked the pursuer's solicitors—I use the Scottish term—not to serve the summons because he wanted an examination of the lady who was injured by a medical specialist on behalf of the authority. There was one examination, and there was another, and then deliberately, apparently, there was a still further examination, arranged for a date beyond the six months' limitation. In view of the previous correspondence, the summons in the action was not served, and that examination of the injured lady by the medical specialist, instructed on behalf of the local authority, took place. Then the summons was served, and immediately the Public Authorities Protection Act was pleaded, and it was impossible to get over that plea. The action was thrown out, because of the six months' limitation. I know of other cases too.
    Some hon. Members on this side seem to be under the impression that a local authority may at its own hand waive the protection that is provided by this Act, but I do not see how they can do that at all, and in practice they do not do it.
    2006
    Suppose the six months had passed, and it was sought to settle an action, what would happen if the accounts of the local authority were carefully scrutinised by the auditor? He would be bound to look into that payment and to say, "Why was it made?" There is in the Public Authorities Act a right given to a public authority, and that right following the rule of the Bishop of Oxford's case must be exercised. The auditor is bound to look into the matter; and if a sum is paid, I cannot understand how he would not have the public authority surcharged for that payment made without legal justification and in the face of the provisions of the Act.
    I do not want to repeat what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) with regard to insurance companies. We know that with regard to most local authorities the risk in this connection is taken up by an insurance company, but the Act goes far beyond local authorities, as the last speaker pointed out. In Scotland the Public Authorities' Protection Act applies to an officer in the Army who is in the execution of his public duty, and he may plead the Act. The Amendment before us is to extend the period of one year which appears in the Bill. That period of one year is a certain relaxation as against the restrictions of the Act, which in itself fixes the time limitation at six months. A year is not long enough, and two years is better than one year, though two years is not, I submit, enough. In so far as the issue in this Amendment is two years as against one year, I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. Arthur Henderson: The House will have realised that the subject which we are discussing cuts across party divisions, and consequently hon. Members who are sitting behind me will be taking their own line and will vote according to their own particular point of view. Anything that I say will represent my own point of view and will certainly not bind my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and others who take his point of view. At the same time, although I propose to vote for the Amendment, I disagree with a great deal that has been said by some of those who have spoken in its support. I strongly

    2007
    disagree with the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), that there is no case for differentiation between local authorities and individual citizens. I should have thought that, in so far as administration is concerned, in a case where the members of a local authority were not acting on their own behalf but were acting in their official capacity and controlling the affairs of their particular locality, they were definitely in a different position from that of the individual who was, for example, looking after his own business.
    That being so, it does seem that in the case of personal injury a different consideration might arise. When this Act was first passed in 1893 local authorities were not responsible for the great concerns which come under their care to-day, and the great transport undertakings which are being operated by them to-day were then on a much smaller scale. Therefore, the background has changed, and I think there is a case for suggesting that where private citizens have suffered personal injury as the result of the negligence of a servant of a local authority the protection of the Act should operate. What we are discussing to-night is not a question of principle. There has been a good deal of heat engendered by some of the speakers, but I do not understand why that should be so. The question we are discussing on this Amendment is simply whether local authorities should be given 12 months' protection or whether that protection should be for two years. The fundamental question does not arise on this Amendment. I would go further and say that I believe this increase from six to 12 months is an improvement and an extension of time which is to be welcomed. I believe that the extra six months provided for by the Bill will be out of all proportion to the apparent face value of the extension, and that a great number of cases which were prejudiced by the existence of the six months limit will be brought within the purview of legal remedy as the result of the extension to 12 months.
    There, again, however, I cannot understand why there should be any real violent opposition to the extension from 12 months to two years. One might argue, why not extend it to three of four years, but from the practical point of view I
    2008
    think it almost beyond expectation that any case would operate as to necessitate action being taken in the third, fourth or fifth year after an accident. There are, however, many cases where it might operate so that action could not be taken until the second year, and there is a practical reason for extending the period from 12 months to two years which would not necessarily operate if the proposal were to extend it to three or four years. Therefore, I suggest, apart from the fact that the local authorities themselves have agreed to increase the period from six months to 12 months, that in view of the fact that there is a limited number of cases which would still be barred by restricting the period to 12 months, there is a case for asking the Government to accept the Amendment and extend the period from 12 months to two years.
    10.9 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: We have had an interesting discussion, which has gone on for three hours and more. It has shown some variety of view in various quarters of the House. As the hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) said, what we are discussing is whether one year or two years is the appropriate time limit. Of course, it is obvious that whether we are discussing whether one or two years is the appropriate period, either for a limitation of action or for some other purposes, arguments can be produced for a shorter or for a longer period. I should like to make one or two observations on the principle that lies behind a special period of protection for local authorities. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, did not, I think, do justice to the Liberal Government of 1893 or to the Parliament which passed that Act.
    Mr. Foot: We took it over from a Conservative Government.
    The Attorney-General: I know, but a Government that takes over a Bill from another Government takes the responsibility for telling the House what it does. If a Conservative Government had remained, there would no doubt have been a fuller and more lucid explanation. The position before that was that in public health matters there was a general legal limitation, applying to all local authorities, of six months. Other activities of public authorities were dealt with by a series of Statutes, nearly 100 in number,

    2009
    some of them public and some of them private, but in all of them Parliament had put a short period of limitation on all statutory undertakings performing a statutory duty. This is not something that went through the House inadvertently, for there was a large number of separate Acts.
    Mr. Macquisten: It was not discussed in the House at the time.
    The Attorney-General: I am not talking about the Act of 1893. That Act consolidated the principle involved in 100 Statutes, and I have a greater respect for my predecessors than to suppose that 100 Statutes went through without anybody noticing that they involved this particular principle. The principle is that the bodies which might be made liable for actions were being placed under a duty by this House. The principle may be a good one or a bad one, but there was an obvious duty. If I am driving my motor car for pleasure in the country or driving it as a private individual, earning my living, and I injure someone, I am in a different position from somebody on whom Parliament has placed a duty. There may or may not be a good reason for making the differentiation—
    Sir P. Harris: There is no difference for the person who is run over.
    The Attorney-General: I do not say it is a logical differentiation, but it is a principle which has been kept on by this House in a 100 cases and in the Statute of 1893. Without exaggerating the effect of that, I thought it was worth pointing it out as what seems to me a reason for the distinction. There is another point, and I do not want to exaggerate it or any other point. It is in the interest of justice that claims should be brought promptly. It is, of course, in the interest of justice that a reasonable time should be allowed for claims to be brought, but it is also in the interest of justice that claims should be brought promptly. The necessity for bringing claims promptly will occasionally involve exceptionally hard cases of claims being cut out by a period of limitation.
    Earlier in the Debate somebody quoted a case in which it was alleged that an accident was due to the improper state of some tram lines. The lines were not level with the road, as they should have been, or there was some other defect which
    2010
    caused the accident. Obviously, it is in the interests of justice that in such a case the claim should be brought promptly, while the tram lines can, if necessary, be looked at, while those who have driven the trams are available, and the full facts can be investigated. Some Members seemed to suggest that unless a longer period was allowed all the injustices would be on one side, but they do not, I think, sufficiently recognise the importance of claims being brought promptly in the interests of justice as a whole. Then we come down to the actual provisions of the Bill. The Law Revision Committee were faced with the fact that the special period of limitation in the case of public authorities had been on the Statute Book for 50 years, and, in the form which I tried to describe, had been in existence for at least 100 years. I do not go back to the time of Queen Elizabeth. I think that may be rather far.
    Mr. Macquisten: Does that apply to private tramway companies?
    The Attorney-General: Broadly speaking the public authorities were those defined in the Public Authorities Act, 1893, but before that Act they had, under their own special Acts, a limited period of protection, which was usually six months, and that special protection had been sanctioned by this House for a great many years. The Law Revision Committee came to the conclusion that six months was too short and recommended an extension to a year. They also recommended, what I do not think has been referred to, that the disability period during which time does not run should apply to actions against local authorities, whereas it had not applied under the Public Authorities' Protection Act.
    Mr. Foot: But you are not carrying out that recommendation in this Bill.
    The Attorney-General: I do not agree. If the hon. Member will look at Clause 22 he will see that, broadly speaking, it applies the disability period to public authorities, and it draws no distinction. In paragraph (d) it applies it to everybody.
    Mr. Foot: But the Attorney-General will surely agree that paragraph (d) was not recommended in any way by the Law Revision Committee.
    The Attorney-General: No, what I was saying they recommended, and what is carried out by this Bill, is that the disability period which applies to private persons should also apply to local authorities, and that is carried out by this Bill. I agree that there is an alteration which we may or may not discuss, but the principle that the disability period should apply to public authorities as to private persons is in the Bill. I agree very much with the hon. and learned Member for Kingswinford—although he is going to vote for the Amendment and I shall vote against it and also recommend the House to do so—that six months is really a much larger extension than would appear on its face value. For this purpose 12 months is really a great deal more than twice six months. It is the early weeks which go by so very easily without people realising that they have passed, and I suggest to the House that a year is a fair and reasonable period for claims of this kind which have enjoyed in the past this special protection.
    It may be said, "Why do you have the much longer period of six years for private persons?" This is a Bill, not simply to codify, but to codify with minor Amendments, the law as it was found on the Statute Book, so that we should have the great convenience of finding the whole of this law in one Act. I think there is a lot to be said for the view that six years is an unnecessarily long period, but it has been sanctioned for many hundreds of years—going back to the seventeenth century—and the Law Revision Committee did not feel there was sufficient evidence of grievances arising from that long period to justify an alteration in a Bill of this kind. They might have taken the same line with regard to public authorities, but although they came to the conclusion that six months was too short they felt that an extension to one year, coupled with other provisions, was a reasonable compromise.
    Major Milner: Was the matter not one of a bargain with the local authorities?
    The Attorney-General: No, I do not know that it was a bargain. A committee could not make a bargain to bind anybody.
    Major Milner: A Government bargain?
    The Attorney-General: No.
    Mr. McGovern: The Government do not make any bargains.
    The Attorney-General: There is no mystery concealed about this. As I understand it, those who represent the local authorities' organisation and the associations of municipal authorities and others agree that the recommendation of the Committee was a reasonable one. There is no controversy about these extensions. In a Bill of this kind one sets out to avoid controversy and to put the law into a convenient form.
    Mr. R. Gibson: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinguish between that agreement and a bargain?
    The Attorney-General: I have not referred to any agreement. I said that I understood that those representing local authorities agree that this is a reasonable proposal. That is not a bargain.
    Mr. Gibson: With whom do they agree?
    Th Attorney-General: They agree with themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing himself justice. If I say that I am agreeing with something that he said in his speech just now I am not making a bargain. The public authorities who agree with a proposal before this House are not making a bargain but are expressing an opinion.
    Mr. Silverman: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they agreed I take it that he means that at some time or other and with somebody or other they stated their agreement. I am wondering whether anyone else whose interest was not in the preservation of this period was asked for his agreement or stated his agreement?
    The Attorney-General: That was the object of this Debate as of other Debates in this House. When proposals are put before the House of Commons everybody can state his views and say whether he agrees or disagrees with the proposals brought forward, and he can vote accordingly.
    Mr. Pritt: Except when the Whips tell them what to do.
    The Attorney-General: The alteration of the law embodied in the Bill is a reasonable one. I believe it will meet the vast majority, if not all, of the hard cases. I also say that, however hon.

    2013
    Members may vote, this discussion and the publicity which has arisen from it will play a very useful purpose in making the public realise the existence of this limitation, and will make local authorities realise that if, with this extended period of time, there are still cases of injustice, this House will jealously watch and see that under the new provisions injustice such as has occurred in the past will not occur again.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. Pritt: With regard to the Attorney-General's repudiation of the idea of a bargain, I would point out that, while no bargain can bind this House, it is well known that interests, quite legitimately, often talk over matters with the Government, the interest agrees with itself, say, that a year would be a reasonable compromise, the Government agrees with itself that possibly a year would be all right, by some means each of them knows that the other has agreed with itself, and the Whips are put on. To pretend that such things do not happen really qualifies the Attorney-General to answer questions on foreign policy. I invite him to prove that there is no bargain in the simplest possible way, by saying that there shall be a free vote on this not wholly unimportant matter. On the merits of the matter I heartily support the Amendment, for reasons which have been given from both sides of the House. Experience, though it is true that it only applies to the period of six months, has shown in case after case that such a short period of limitation has worked the gravest injustice, and, although I agree that 12 months is three or four times as good, it is not enough.
    The Attorney-General put forward two or three specific arguments with which I should like to deal. The first was that in a good many cases public authorities figuring as defendants are in that position because Parliament has compelled them to carry on the activity which has led to the litigation. That undoubtedly is an important point, but we are not discussing, as the Attorney-General himself pointed out, a proposal to put public authorities on the same basis as ordinary defendants. If the Amendment is carried, they will be, so to speak, three or four times as well off as ordinary defendants. It is not a question of theory, but of practical common sense, and I am
    2014
    sure the Attorney-General would agree that, even against a public authority, plaintiffs ought to have a reasonable and proper chance to sue. We all know that many potential litigants are poor and bewildered and ignorant, and that many will not come forward with their claims.
    The second argument will be seen, on examination, to be utterly irrelevant. The Attorney-General said that claims ought to be promptly brought, in the general interests of litigation, and at the same time he said that litigants must have given a reasonable time to sue. Everyone agrees with that, but the argument that claims should be promptly brought is an argument for reducing the general level of limitation. We are dealing with a specific limitation to one year in place of a general limitation to six years, and, if claims should be promptly brought, every claim should be given a limitation of about three or four years. That point is utterly irrelevant to the question whether this particular and very short limitation should be made a little less short. The Attorney-General's illustration is very useful to show how completely inapposite that point is. He said that surely, if a local authority is old-fashioned enough to have a tramline, and is unfortunate enough to have one that is out of order and is sued for an accident arising out of the defective tramline, it is vital that the action should be brought pretty early by people who can really gather evidence about the condition of the tramline. Exactly the same thing happens if you get a defective railway line; and yet in the one case the period is to be six years, and in the other case one year. That shows, in my submission, that that point is really not relevant to this Amendment.
    Cases are not exceptional which will be cut out by even the 12 months' limitation, especially when one remembers, for example, that the Poor Persons' Department, when people get to it, often keeps them waiting 12 months, because it is so congested with work, before it can tell them that they can issue a writ under its aegis. They are, perhaps, not the great mass of the general run of cases, but they are fairly numerous; and this House ought not lightly to deprive anyone of the chance of bringing an action within a reasonable time. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the committee said that a reasonable time to bring an action is six years. There is a general view in the

    2015
    legal profession that four years is enough for anyone, but the same committee that advanced that opinion is referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in support of his case on this point. I do not want to keep the House any longer on a matter which has been fully discussed, but I urge that the Whips should be taken off and a free vote allowed.
    10.32 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have listened to the whole of this Debate, and I remembered quite early in the Debate that when I was a youngster my mother suggested to me, speaking from experience, that I should have as little as possible to do with the law. I never dreamed at that time that I should be taking part in a Debate of this kind so many years later. The principal argument I have heard put forward has been concerned with solicitors' expenses. All the arguments used by hon. and learned Gentlemen have convinced me that the principal reason for this extension which is proposed from one year to two years, is that there would be more time for them to get going. If there is to be an amendment of the law every time lawyers want an increase in their fees, this House will always be discussing Limitation Bills. We heard of the experiences of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) with local authorities. They were interesting, no doubt. He convinced the House that in his young days it was the custom for the local authorities to throw sprats to catch mackerel, and that he and his professional colleagues intended to be mackerel and not sprats—although they developed into sharks afterwards; because he admitted that the local authorities engaged him on every occasion, to prevent him from being on the other side.
    He suggested that no argument had been put up for this limitation; but three or four hon. and learned Members, after saying that no argument had been put up for it, proceeded to deal with the arguments that had been put up for it. They said it was no more difficult for a local authority to bring evidence than for an individual. I submit that it is, and it will be, particularly if this time is extended. An ordinary individual may be interested in a particular branch of business and may spend more of his time dealing with
    2016
    a particular subject than he devotes to any other subjects, but a local authority, in spite of the fact that it has been pooh-poohed, has a multiplicity of interests, and, therefore, a multiplicity of liabilities. If a case is allowed to be brought under the Amendment many months after the local authority has learned of it for the first time, it may be impossible for the local authority to gather any evidence to rebut it. I am not prepared to accept the estimate of the honesty and high purpose of the legal profession to which testimony has been given in this House. That is not the opinion held by the common people in the country. There are many members of the profession for whom I have the greatest respect, but as regards the profession as a profession, I believe that my mother's advice was good. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) was not right when he suggested that, even if that was not the motive, it would extend the period during which exploitation could take place for another 12 months.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway opposite put his finger on the pulse of this question when he suggested that the only cases which were not brought were those of poor people. There is no difficulty concerning the people who have money. They always make their claim within the first six months, he said. That is true. They know the ropes, and the poor people do not. That is the best argument of which I know for making the law available to the poorer people in a shorter time, and not for extending the period during which claims could be brought. If poverty is the reason why they do not come within six months, will not that poverty exclude them from coming in 20 months? That is an argument which shows conclusively that it is simply extending the period of exploitation.
    Mr. Macquisten: There is a poor persons' committee in existence in connection with which solicitors take cases on behalf of the poor without any fee or charge, and they are crowded out with cases just now, and that causes delay.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The interruption of the hon. and learned Member reinforces my argument. If poor persons' solicitors are crowded out with cases, we do not want an extension of the period to two years,

    2017
    but an increase in the number of people who will take cases for nothing. They will all come in the first six months if you do that. The experience of members of local authorities is just as valuable on a question of this kind as the experience of solicitors in the courts themselves. Where is this mythical army about which we have heard so much this evening? Hon. and learned Gentlemen have spoken of numerous cases of which they know. We have been given illustrations of three cases, all of which would have come under the 12 months had the period been 12 months at the present time. One case was mentioned—I do not know whether it was a real or a hypothetical case—where a man could be knocked out for 12 months. The assumption was that an individual who was knocked out by an accident might have no relatives, friends or anybody to take any action for him, and that if it were 12 months before he came round, the period would have expired. Are you going to legislate for cases of that kind?
    Mr. Foot: I gave an actual case which occurred in the courts where the 12-month period was not enough and the widow was penalised and deprived of the compensation which she and her children would have otherwise received. Does the hon. Member think that that is a small matter which should not be altered by this House?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No. I do not think it is a small matter. That was a case where if the widow had not been left poor and if her husband had been in such a position that she could pay for legal advice, the probabilities are that the case would have been met earlier. Without knowing the case I feel that I can make that statement. I cannot understand an accident taking place and having that effect and anything other than poverty preventing the case being taken. I said that the experience of those on local authorities were worth something. I am only a young man, but I have spent 28 years in connection with three local authorities, one small, one fairly large and one very large. If these cases to which hon. Members have referred are happening constantly and local authorities are pleading this Limitation Act, surely one would have heard disgruntled people in these areas saying something about it. During the whole of my 28 years' experience I have not come across a single case in connection with the local authorities with which I have been associated. I hope that the 12 months will remain, in order that justice may be done, as I believe justice will be done.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 58.

    Division No. 93.]

    AYES.

    [10.43 p.m.

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

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Eckersley, P. T.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Channon, H.

    Ede, J. C.

    Adamson, W. M.

    Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

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

    Chater, D.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Ammon, C. G,

    Cluse, W. S.

    Ellis, Sir G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

    Elliston, Capt. G. S.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Emery, J. F.

    Aske, Sir R. W.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Colville, Rt. Hon. John

    Entwistle, Sir C. F.

    Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

    Conant, Captain R. J. E.

    Errington, E.

    Balfour, G. (Hampstead)

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

    Everard, Sir William Lindsay

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

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

    Fleming, E. L.

    Barnes, A. J.

    Craven-Ellis, W.

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

    Barr, J.

    Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

    Fox, Sir G. W. G.

    Beaumont, H. (Batley)

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

    Frankel, D.

    Bernays, R. H.

    Cross, R. H.

    Furness, S. N.

    Clair, Sir R.

    Crowder, J. F. E.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Beyce, H. Leslie

    Cruddas, Col. B.

    Gardner, B. W.

    Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)

    Culverwell, C. T.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

    Daggar, G.

    Gledhill, G.

    Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Gluckstein, L. H.

    Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Gower, Sir R. V.

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

    De Chair, S. S.

    Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

    Bull, B. B.

    Dodd, J. S.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

    Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

    Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

    Burke, W. A.

    Dugdale, Captain T. L.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Duncan, J. A. L.

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Grimston, R. V.

    Cary, R. A.

    Eastwood, J. F.

    Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

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

    Markham, S. F.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Guinness, T. L. E. B.

    Marshall, F.

    Somerset, T.

    Hall, G. H. (Abardare)

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

    Hannah, I. C.

    Medlicott, F.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Hannon, Sir P. J. H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Harbord, A.

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

    Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

    Hayday, A.

    Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

    Spens, W. P.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

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

    Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

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

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

    Hepworth, J.

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

    Storey, S.

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

    Muff, G.

    Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.

    Higgs, W. F.

    Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

    Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

    Hills, A. (Pontefract)

    Munro, P.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Holmes, J. S.

    Nall, Sir J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

    Sutcliffe, H.

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

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Hunloke, H. P.

    Paling, W.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Hunter, T.

    Parkinson, J. A.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Jagger, J.

    Pearson, A.

    Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

    James, Wing-Commandar A. W. H.

    Petherick, M.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Jarvis, Sir J. J.

    Pilkington, R.

    Tomlinson, G.

    Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Touche, G. C.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

    Porritt, R. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

    Price, M. P.

    Wakefield, W. W.

    Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

    Procter, Major H. A.

    Walker-Smith, Sir J.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

    Quibell, D. J. K

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

    Kimball, L.

    Radford, E. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Watson, W. McL.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Rankin, Sir R.

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

    Lathan, G.

    Reid, J. S. G. (Hillhead)

    Wedderburn, H. J. S.

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

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Westwood, J.

    Leach, W.

    Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

    Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

    Wilkinson, Ellen

    Leslie, J. R.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Liddall, W. S.

    Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

    Williams, T. (Don Valley)

    Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

    Salt, E. W.

    Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

    Loftus, P. C.

    Samuel, M. R. A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel G.

    Lunn, W.

    Schuster, Sir G. E.

    Womersley, Sir W. J.

    M'Connell, Sir J.

    Scott, Lord William

    Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Selley, H. R.

    Wragg, H.

    McKie, J. H.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    York, C.

    Maclean, N.

    Silkin, L.

    Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

    Macmillan, H, (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Simpson, F. B.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

    Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

    Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-

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

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Colonel Kerr.

    NOES.

    Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Batey, J.

    Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

    Richards, R. (Wrexham)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

    Holdsworth, H.

    Ritson, J.

    Bevan, A.

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

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bremfield, W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

    Leonard, W.

    Rothschild, J. A. de

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Seely, Sir H. M.

    Cove, W. G.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sexton, T. M.

    Day, H.

    McGovern, J.

    Sloan, A.

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

    MacLaren, A.

    Smith, E. (Stoke)

    Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Gallacher, W.

    Mathers, G.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Milner, Major J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gibson, R. (Greenock)

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

    White, H. Graham

    Green, W. H. (Deptford)

    Nathan, Colonel H. L.

    Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Harris, Sir P. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univs.)

    Parker, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Foot and Mr. Silverman.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: In regard to the Amendment in my name—in page 12, line 39, after "default," to insert "or the damage thereby occasioned"—I am in this difficulty, that those words ought, in order to effect the purpose intended, to be inserted after the word "default," in line 36, as well as after the word "de-
    2020
    fault," in line 39, so that if the Amendment were carried a consequential Amendment would be necessary.
    Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member move the Amendment in line 36?
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 12, line 36, after "default," to insert "or the damage thereby occasioned."

    2021
    If the Amendment is carried the same words will have to be inserted after "default," in line 39. The purpose of the Amendment is quite simple. It is intended to overcome a difficulty to which attention was frequently called during the Debate which has just concluded, where an injury turned out later to be more serious than was at first supposed. There are a number of cases where no action is brought and no action is threatened because the injury appears to be a trivial one, then it turns out later to be more serious than was at first thought, and perhaps the person suffers by reason of his own good feeling in not having brought his case earlier when the injury was hardly worth while making a claim for at all. A great deal of the injustice to which reference has been made during the Debate would be reduced, and some of it would disappear altogether, if the period of limitation, whatever it might be, did not begin to run while the injury caused by the default continued to exist. There was a time in the early history of litigation under the 1893 Act when it was thought that this was the case, but the matter went before the court, and, most unfortunately, in the opinion of many people—and, I think, in the opinion of the committee on whose report this legislation is founded—the court did not decide that the words of the 1893 Act were capable of the interpretation which, by this Amendment, I am now seeking to place upon them. All that is suggested in the Amendment is that while the damage continues the period of limitation shall not begin to run.
    Major Milner: I beg to second the Amendment.
    10.56 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), in moving to insert these words at an earlier place in the Clause, has made clearer to me what his purpose is; but I am bound to say that I think it would be impossible to insert these words. There are, unhappily, many cases in which the damage thereby occasioned is permanent, and if the time of the limitation is to begin when the damage or injury has ceased, then it will never begin.
    Mr. Silverman: It may be that my Amendment is so badly drafted that it would have that consequence, but that is not what I intend. What is intended
    2022
    is that the special period of limitation shall not begin to run, so that if the damage continues the action can be brought while the damage is continuing, but with the over-riding period of six years in any case. It is not pretended to go beyond that.
    The Attorney-General: I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill is now in the last stage in the second House, and therefore, it would be difficult to reconsider words which would certainly require very drastic redrafting to effect the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. Everybody appreciates the case to which the hon. Member has referred, but I think these words would produce an impossible situation. The case he has in mind is one which it would be extremely difficult to cover by any form of words of which I can think. The hon. Member wants to provide for a case in which an injury becomes serious only some time after the accident. I do not think he wants to give a person a year from the time when the injury has ceased. What would be reasonable, if it could be defined, would be to give a period from the time when the injury became sufficiently serious to make it obvious that a claim should be made if it was thought that there would be a liability. It would be extremely difficult to find words to cover that, and at this last stage of the Bill, it is no good my attempting to look into the matter, because we should have no chance of inserting the words.
    Mr. Silverman: Having regard to the difficulties which the Attorney-General has mentioned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. R. Gibson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided also that this section shall not apply in the case of any act, neglect, or default unless the person entering a claim in respect of such act, neglect, or default is notified that the claim will be invalid if action is not taken within the period prescribed in this Section."
    The object of this Amendment is to secure that the protection provided by this time limitation shall be available to a public authority only if that public authority when the claim has been intimated, notifies the person concerned of the privilege, namely, that an action to enforce the claim will only be good if

    2023
    it is laid within the time mentioned in Clause 21.
    I think it has been made clear in the Debate this evening that even South of the Border, this is an unusual privilege. The act or default giving rise to the action will, in general, be the act or default of some individual and the public authority will be liable in a vicarious fashion. So far as the particular act or default is concerned, there may be no difference between the person who is injured and the person who is guilty of the default or negligence causing the injury. Accordingly the ordinary law would appear to apply. The object of the Amendment is to secure that when the claim is intimated the protection will only be granted to the public authority or to the person who is protected by the Clause if the person intimating the claim is notified of the privilege provided in the Clause. In view of the argument which has taken place this is, I submit, a very necessary safeguard as the two parties are not on equal terms. If the person injured and the individual are subject to the ordinary law in Scotland the person might bring the action at any time at all. South of the Border apparently, there is a time limitation of six years, but the person who is injured, finding himself against a public authority, should have this privilege of the public authority brought specifically to his notice, in order that he may not thereby lose his right of action.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment.
    11.4 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: As far as the Amendment seeks to emphasise the desirability of members of the public realising that this period of limitation exists, everybody will sympathise with it and everybody will reprobate cases such as, it is suggested, have occurred occasionally, in which there has been a deliberate or semi-deliberate concealment of the existence of the period of limitation with a view to preventing an action being taken. But I feel that there are the same difficulties about this Amendment, as there were in the case of the last Amendment. In the first place, the local authority may take the line that they are not in any way liable. I agree that it might be possible to devise a form of words to the
    2024
    effect that the notification should not take the form of appearing to admit that the claim was valid, but that it should be some sort of general notification that, if any claims were made, they had to be made within a certain period. But then there would be this difficulty, that you would have to define what constituted a claim which the local authority should notify within a certain period. For instance, a local authority notified on the 364th day of the year would fulfil what is in this Amendment, but that would be futile, because it would only reach the claimant half an hour or half a day before the time expired. It would want a rather elaborate provision specifying how there was to be this general notification, and while I am in much sympathy with the idea of the Amendment, I am afraid I cannot recommend the House to adopt it as a workable scheme. I feel what is behind the Amendment, and I sincerely hope that this discussion, and the publicity that has been given to it, and the fact that it has turned our minds to the matter, may serve a useful purpose in making more generally known the existence of this period of limitation.
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. Gibson: In view of what the right hon. and learned Member has said, I look forward to his supporting a properly drafted Amendment to the Scottish Bill when it appears, but I now beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "or to any action in which the act, neglect, or default complained of is not, in the opinion of the court, of an important administrative character."
    I realise that the House has had a very full discussion on the first Amendment on the principle involved in this legislation, and although I am tempted to deal with what I consider to be the fallacious defences of this privilege that have been put forward, perhaps the House will forgive me if I refrain. Still, I cannot resist the temptation to say that this Amendment ought really, on the arguments that have been presented in this Debate, to receive universal approval, and I invite the Government to accept it. It satisfies every one of the arguments put forward in defence of the special

    2025
    privilege of the authority, it is completely in line with the report, an extract from which was read by the hon. Member who moved the first Amendment, it protects local authorities absolutely in all those activities in which those best qualified to judge have ever claimed that they ought to be protected, and it protects the public in all others.
    The only possible objection that I can anticipate, though I dare say I shall find that I am not so fertile as the Attorney-General is, that he will say that the words are so vague and so general and so difficult to define. I am seeking to say that this special protection shall not apply to any action in which the act, neglect, or default complained of is not, in the opinion of the court, of an important administrative character. If I were asked to give a list of actions of that character, I dare say I could do it in a very long time, but I do not think it is necessary to do that, and I do not think there is any great force in the objection that the words are wide and general. The Amendment leaves the decision of the point to the court, and I do not think anyone will seriously contend that the High Court would be in any serious difficulty in determining whether the act complained of was or was not an important administrative act. It may not be easy to define, but it is extremely easy to recognise. On this matter the report said:
    "It may well be that such a policy is justifiable in the case of important administrative acts and that serious consequences might ensue if such acts can be impugned after a long lapse of time."
    It goes on to say that the vast majority of cases are not of that kind. It was said during the Debate that the public authorities upon whom this House imposes a statutory duty is entitled to a special position in the courts in the performance of that duty. I want my hon. Friends on these benches to consider this, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall). He is president of a powerful trade union, which, like many other unions and this party as a whole, would like to see nationalised a number of activities which are now carried on by private enterprise. We would like to see the mines and the railways nationalised. That can only be done by an act of Parliament and a statutory duty would be placed on certain people to run them. Suppose there
    2026
    was a railway or mine accident. Does my hon. Friend suggest that it is one of the advantages to be claimed for nationalisation that in that case anyone who is injured would have his right of action limited? Surely not, but that is one of the arguments put forward tonight. I am suggesting that where an important administrative duty is being performed by the authority of Parliament that should be exempted, but that when it comes to things like driving motor buses or tramcars and doing other simple ordinary, everyday acts of that kind, no case has been sought to be made out for this privilege. My Amendment draws a distinction between these two cases as it was drawn by the report on which this Bill is based. I claim in support of it the arguments which have been brought against the Amendment with which we have just dealt.
    Major Milner: I beg to second the Amendment.
    11.14 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: There are two objections to this Amendment. The first is that it would be inconsistent with the decision to which the House came a short time ago. The House approved the priniciple of the Public Authorities Protection Act, and by far the larger number of cases covered by it are the kind of cases which this Amendment would exclude. The other, and I think fatal, objection to it from any point of view is the vagueness of the terms used. It is lucky for the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) is not here, because he really might have some ground for the suggestion that this Amendment was put down to encourage litigation. It would have the most unfortunate result that in border line cases a man would not know whether he had a right of action until the case had come into court. The court would have to determine whether the act complained of was of an important administrative character. Words of this character would lead to the creation of a large number of border line cases in which there would be complete uncertainty if it was desired to bring a case after 12 months had elapsed, and there would be no way of settling the point other than by taking proceedings in court. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Silverman: Was it not made perfectly clear by the language used in the report that the vast majority—I think those were the words used—of cases would not arise out of "important administrative" acts, and would not my Amendment, therefore, protect the vast majority of cases, even allowing that there would be border-line cases?
    The Attorney-General: It is because the Committee said that the vast majority of cases covered by the Act were not of an important administrative character that I suggested that to accept the Amendment would be completely inconsistent with the vote which the House gave 20 minutes ago.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Extension of limitation period in case of disability.)
    11.18 p.m.
    Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 13, line 39, to leave out paragraph (d)
    The main purpose of this Clause is to deal with persons under a disability, that is, those who are infants or lunatics. It is proper that time shall not run against them until the disability comes to an end; that is to say that if a person is an infant and has a cause of action the period of limitation shall not be taken to run until he reaches the age of 21, or if he is of unsound mind shall not begin to run until he recovers his sanity. That is an obviously necessary provision, but there is this unfortunate exception in paragraph (d):
    "this Section, so far as it relates to the disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind, shall not apply to any action to which the last foregoing Section applies"—
    that is to say an action against a public authority—
    "unless the plaintiff proves that the person under a disability was not, at the time when the right of action accrued to him in the custody of a parent."
    That seems to be a monstrous provision. It means that if a child receives some injury at the hands of a servant of a public authority, and if its parents, being perhaps ignorant people, and not understanding its rights, do not bring an action on the child's behalf, the child will lose its rights. When he reaches the age of 21, he may possibly be injured for life, but nevertheless he will not be able to bring an action. In any other case, if the
    2028
    defendant were a private firm or a private person, he would be able to bring his action on reaching the age of 21.
    Answering the first Amendment this afternoon, the Attorney-General based himself almost entirely upon the report of the Statutory Law Revision Committee, and he told us how carefully the matter had been considered and how the Committee had arrived at a very reasonable recommendation. As he knows, this particular matter does not appear in any way in the recommendations of the Committee. It is fair to say that the Committee would never have recommended anything of the kind. When the Bill was first introduced last Session, this paragraph was put in at the instance, I believe, of some public authorities. It seems extraordinarily unjust that we should deprive a small class of people of their rights in this way.
    Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to second the Amendment.
    11.22 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I would ask the Attorney-General what this Sub-section means. I have had considerable difficulty in understanding it. Is a child who is at school or in hospital in the custody of the parent or in the custody of the hospital or school? The Sub-section provides that it shall not apply when the right of action occurs, that is to say, at the moment when the act of negligence occurs—if it is that—and the child was not in the custody of the parent. The very reason why the exception was recommended by the local authorities was that so many children attended the schools. I thought that was one reason put forward by the defence. How is this provision to be interpreted? If there was an act of negligence in the school during school hours and the child suffered, that was the moment when the right of action occurred. At that moment was the child in the custody of the parent or of the school?
    11.24 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: In such a case the child is in the custody of the parent. The paragraph which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) proposes to delete was not recommended by the Statutory Law Revision Committee. The point which this Sub-section was designed to meet seems to be one of substance. There are these education authorities and estab-

    2029
    lishments and local authorities carrying out their duties, and no doubt there are possibilities which materialise from time to time of accidents which may or may not be negligent as alleged. If you say that here is a limitation which shall in no case begin to run until the child has attained the age of 21, you are giving to that class of case, which is an important one, a period of limitation which in fact will probably extend to 18 or 20 years. I agree that a proposal of this kind can be criticised, but it seems to me to afford a good rough-and-ready solution which does substantial justice and which, I think, is unlikely to do any injustice. It seems to me that, if a child is living with its parents and has an accident, one may reasonably assume that the parents will take the necessary steps to see that damages are recovered if damages are recoverable, and that it is not unreasonable to provide that, if a child is in the custody of its parents, the disability period shall not apply. It is right not to apply this generally, because you might have a child in the custody of the local authority by whose education officer the accident might have been caused, but in other cases it is not an unreasonable provision, and I commend it to the House.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or part payment.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 14, line 36, after "and," insert:
    "either receives any sum in respect of the principal or interest of the mortgage debt or."
    In line 40, after the second "the," insert "payment or."—[The Attorney-General.]

    CLAUSE 27.—(Application of Act and other limitation enactments to arbitrations.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 18, line 9, leave out "agreement."
    In line 10, after "arbitrator," insert "or to agree to the appointment of an arbitrator."
    In line 42, at the end, insert:
    "and Sub-sections (3) and (4) thereof shall have effect, in relation to an arbitration under an Act, as if for the references to the arbitration agreement there were substituted refer-
    2030
    ences to such of the provisions of the Act or of any order, scheme, rules, regulations, or bye-laws made thereunder as relate to the arbitration."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(King's Consent signified.)
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

    WORKS OF ART.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1939, dated the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."—[Captain Crookshank.]
    Mr. Foot: Could we have some explanation of this Order, which deals with a not unimportant matter?
    11.31 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): This Order deals with works of art. In the Import Duties Act, 1932, books were placed on the original free list, but it was not till 1937 that arrangements were made for the exemption of sculptures, etchings and engravings. Such exemption can only be given on the receipt of a certificate from the Director of the Tate Galley. The Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 15) Order, 1937, provided, broadly speaking, that sculptures, whether in the round, in relief or in intaglio, and hand-etched or hand-engraved blocks, plates, or other material and hand-printed impressions framed or otherwise thereof should be exempted from duty but only if they received such a certificate, with the condition that the number of replicas of any one sculpture which could be imported on the free list was limited to three. The procedure established in 1937 worked on the whole quite satisfactorily, but since then it has appeared as a result of experience that there is room for improvement. There has been some difficulty with regard to what I might call "works of traditional or conventional craftsmanship," which are not exactly works of art in the accepted sense. I have in mind, for example, marble tombstones, which are

    2031
    sometimes works of art and sometimes of traditional or conventional craftsmanship. Secondly, it was felt that there should be some limit to the number of engravings which could be imported free. Accordingly these two Orders have the effect together, first, of removing from the free list works of traditional or conventional craftsmanship and putting them on to the ordinary basis of ad valorem duty, and second, to limit to 25 the number of impressions of any one engraving that may be imported free of duty.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Would the 25 that are admitted be the first 25 that seek admission at the ports, or would preference be given to a particular type?
    Captain Crookshank: It would naturally be the first 25.
    11.34 p.m.
    Mr. MacLaren: This is the most amazing performance I have ever witnessed in the House. It is a condition for the exemption of any article that it shall be certified by the Director of the Tate Gallery to be a work of art. Does he determine what is or what is not a work of art in this case?
    Captain Crookshank: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I might say that that has been accepted since as long ago as the Finance Act of 1937. It is the fact that he decides, not on the artistic merit of the particular article but whether he considers it falls within the definition of the Exemptions Order.
    Mr. MacLaren: Is he to determine what is, by these words in this document—I would like to know who invented them—a work of art and what is traditional or conventional craftsmanship? Does the Director of the Tate Gallery determine that also?
    Captain Crookshank: We are not in Committee and I do not know whether I should answer these questions seriatim, or whether the hon. Gentleman would like me to hear what he has to say and then to answer him afterwards?
    Mr. MacLaren: I remember that on one occasion I had to raise a matter in this House about a piece of sculpture which had been produced in Rome by a British artist, whose education had been paid for out of public funds in this country. The
    2032
    statue was not allowed to be brought into this country without the payment of a heavy tariff. The artist was advised to take the statue back to Italy, and when it reached the Mediterranean the Italians would not have it in Italy. That is the kind of ridiculous situation which arises when you deal with works of art. I protest that the Director of the Tate Gallery, whether he knows if art is good, bad or indifferent, should have been appointed to hold a position under this Order. I would not mind if you called me in to define works of art under this Order, but I object to his doing it.
    As to the question of what is traditional and conventional craftsmanship, I submit that there are many works of art which might come under this heading and be deemed to be traditional and conventional. A good many foreign tombstones come into this country, and I daresay that it is not the art which is really bothering the people who are promoting this Order. It is the objection to the importation of slabs for graveyards. I do not mind people playing about with tariffs and tariff Orders in the field of commerce. They can be as mad as March hares in the field of commerce and get away with it, but it is rather an insult to Art, or to what is really a work of art, to drag in works of art in this way. This is an Order not to protect works of art, but to protect the tombstone-makers of this country. What I object to in the main is, that a person outside this House should have this power of discretion and of advising what is and what is not a work of art. We have come to a nice state of affairs when a director of an art gallery has to be appointed for this purpose, and I take this opportunity of protesting in this House against an appointment being made in this manner.
    11.39 p.m.
    Captain Crookshank: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes exception to the fact that the Director of the Tate Gallery should have to give his certificate as prescribed by the Act of 1937, but the fact remains that this House agreed to this form of procedure two years ago. No doubt for reasons of his own, the hon. Member would consider that he himself would probably be a better judge than a Customs officer, which is presumably the obvious alternative. The hon. Member must bear in mind that there are other cases than tombstones. I only mentioned

    2033
    tombstones as one possible case. When he asks what is meant by works of traditional and conventional craftsmanship, I should say that they are the kind of works which are made to pattern and can be produced in very large numbers. The first one may be of artistic merit, but by the time you go on repeating and repeating it, you get into a different field. The hon. Member asked who invented the wording. It is the phrase used in the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee which precedes this Order.
    11.40 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Suppose there is an original work of art produced, and 25 copies are made. What would be the difference between the first 25 copies and 25 subsequent copies? Why is a numerical test adopted as to whether or not it is a work of art? It does not seem to be a well considered principle, but I do not wish to press the matter at this late hour.
    Resolved,
    "That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1939, dated the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."
    Resolved,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1939, dated the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."—[Captain Crookshank.]

    POTASSIUM FERROCYANIDE.
    Resolved,
    "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1939, dated the twelfth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the thirteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved."—[Captain Crookshank.]

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACTS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Amendment of the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 30th March, be approved."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]
  Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask for a precise explanation from the Undersecretary? I am well aware that, on Paper, the matter has been presented to the House, but that is a very inadequate safeguard. Will the Under-Secretary be good enough to give an explanation. One matter closely affects my constituents.
  11.42 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The Amendment is to enable the Aberdeen Milk Marketing Board to deal in plant, machinery and utensils for the production or sale of milk. That is a power which is provided for in Section 5 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. It is a provision which is already contained in other milk marketing schemes now in operation in Scotland, and also in milk marketing schemes for England and Wales.
  Resolved,
  "That the Amendment of the Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 30th March, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  TERRITORAL OFFICERS (AGE LIMIT).
  TERRITORAL OFFICERS (AGE LIMIT).
  OFFICERS' EMERGENCY RESERVE.
  OFFICERS' EMERGENCY RESERVE.
  OVERSEAS AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION.
  OVERSEAS AIR TRANSPORT CORPORATION.
  AIR MINISTRY (MR. V. W. T. BLOCKSIDGE).
  AIR MINISTRY (MR. V. W. T. BLOCKSIDGE).
  OMNIBUS DUTY SCHEDULES (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  OMNIBUS DUTY SCHEDULES (NORTHUMBERLAND).
  TRANSPORT (RAIL AND ROAD GOODS TRAFFIC).
  TRANSPORT (RAIL AND ROAD GOODS TRAFFIC).
  TRINIDAD (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).
  TRINIDAD (CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASERS).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASERS).
  COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
  COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
  PROTECTION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS (CONFERENCE).
  PROTECTION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS (CONFERENCE).
  EDUCATION (MEALS IN SCHOOLS).
  EDUCATION (MEALS IN SCHOOLS).

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

THE ROYAL VISIT TO CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES.
3.5 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, conveying to His Majesty, on the occasion of his departure for Canada and the United States of America, an assurance of the loyal affection of this House and of the deep interest with which it will follow the progress of His Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen, during their absence from this country.
No words of mine are necessary in order to win the unanimous approval of your Lordships for the Motion which I have placed upon the Paper. It is, I believe, without precedent in the annals of your Lordships' House. The occasion, however, is also without precedent, for I believe it is the first time that a reigning Sovereign has ever visited a self-governing Dominion. Their Majesties have so much made themselves a part of the life of this country that we cannot view without a pang their absence even for a few weeks from our midst. That feeling, however, is effaced by the knowledge of the tremendous welcome which awaits them in the Western hemisphere. From the moment that they approach that historic gateway of Canada at Quebec, through all the cities that they visit, across the Prairie Provinces, right through the Rockies down to the Pacific Coast, and on their return journey through the Maritime Provinces and in Newfoundland, they will be greeted with a fervent loyalty that they will never forget. Nor will Their Majesties' visit to the United States afford them a less tumultuous welcome from the warm-hearted people of that country with whom we have so much in common.

859
Yet it is no light task which the King and Queen are about to undertake. A journey of thousands of miles and a succession of public occasions necessarily must impose a heavy tax upon their strength. We shall watch the Royal progress with a profound interest. We respectfully wish them God-speed, and we look forward to welcoming them on their return, proud in the knowledge that our Sovereign and his gracious Consort will have won to themselves the hearts of all those with whom they come in contact throughout their visit to Canada and the United States and Newfoundland. I believe that this Resolution and a similar one which is being moved in another place truly give expression to thoughts which are in the minds of all the people of this country. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, conveying to His Majesty, on the occasion of his departure for Canada and the United States of America, an assurance of the loyal affection of this House and of the deep interest with which it will follow the progress of His Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen, during their absence from this country.—(Earl Stanhope.)
3.9 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the terms of the Motion which the noble Earl has moved commend themselves without any need of support to the undivided appreciation of your Lordships' House. Comment upon this occasion must be appropriately brief, but personal feelings require that we should, however inadequately, clothe the somewhat formal words of the Motion with a spoken expression of warm human sentiment and of our appreciation and our hopes. The Motion gives to His Majesty the assurance of the loyal affection of this House. That is an assurance that all of us will willingly give. His Majesty was called upon unexpectedly, in an acute constitutional crisis, to assume his very heavy responsibilities, and as he sets out upon his journey, so full of promise and of significance, we should wish him to know and to feel that he takes with him the grateful admiration of all his people.
The Canadian people, without any distinction of race, class or Party, will welcome their King—the King of Canada—
860
with immense fervour and satisfaction. Their attachment to the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which they form so precious and distinguished a part, will be intensified, and they will get, we hope, a new inspiration from their contact with the Sovereign of the Commonwealth which will strengthen their attachment to the Mother Country.
Of the projected visit to America, I cannot adequately speak. It is an event of very great interest and of profound significance. The American people will give to the British Sovereign a generously abundant welcome. They will receive him, not as representing something strange and remote, but with the intimate and half-possessive feeling that he is the living symbol of that rich common heritage of freedom which is the pride of both nations. That, my Lords, will be no new attitude of the American nation to our own. They have always made the claim to share in the inspired traditions of our own land. Whittier, who was perhaps the most beloved of the New England poets, put this claim before our fathers, and the American people will remember it:
"O Englishmen! in thought and deed
And blood and tongue our brothers:
We, too, are heirs of Runnymede,
And Shakespeare's fame and Cromwell's deed
Are not alone our Mother's."
It will be in the spirit of kinship in a common inheritance that Their Majesties will be welcomed both in Canada and in the United States, and we wish them complete happiness in their visit.
3.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, as my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe is unavoidably absent, he has asked me to express on behalf of the noble Lords sitting on these Benches a cordial concurrence in the terms of the Motion that has been so felicitously proposed by the noble Earl and supported by the noble Lord who has just spoken. The nation already owes a deep debt of gratitude to Their Majesties, from their Accession and on every occasion that has happened since, for their services to the country. This visit across the Atlantic, which will undoubtedly be a happy one but which cannot fail, as the noble Earl who leads the House has said, to be a somewhat arduous one, is another reason why we

861
should express our deep and loyal thanks to Their Majesties for having undertaken such a duty.
It is the first time, as has been said, that a British Sovereign has visited a Dominion overseas. His Majesty goes to Canada, no longer a Colony but a Dominion, and no longer a Dominion such as it was in years gone by, but, since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, a Dominion enjoying equal status with Great Britain under the Crown. We are happy also that Their Majesties will be able to visit Newfoundland, the oldest British Colony, and not least that they can accept the invitation of the President and people of the United States of America. There is throughout this land a deep feeling of friendship towards the people of the United States, and not merely of friendship but also of affection. Their Majesties, in visiting that country and in expressing that feeling, will be the emissaries and the spokesmen of a unanimous British people and a unanimous British Commonwealth.
3.16 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sure that this Motion will commend itself to all sections of your Lordships' House. May I, in the briefest possible manner, support what has been so admirably said? I note that in the terms of the Motion the words "loyal affection" are used, and I am certain that we give our assent to that phrase in no formal manner. Nothing could be more remarkable than the way in which, during these early years of their reign, Their Majesties have already possessed the hearts of their people by their kindliness, by the simplicity and naturalness of their intercourse with all sorts and kinds of people, by their active interest in all the functions which they are called upon to fulfil, by the charm of their whole life, and by their unfailing sense of duty. Canada will rejoice in giving a welcome to one who is now in a special sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has reminded us, its own King; and Their Majesties' visit to the United States may well prove to be a landmark in the relations between this people and that of the United States, on which so much of the future of the world depends.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.
3.18 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY, who had given Notice that he would call attention on behalf of the Roads Group to the Report of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents and urge His Majesty's Government to take immediate action thereon, said: My Lords, on a point of order: the House will observe that there are two Motions of a similar character on the Order Paper for discussion to-day. I suggest that it might be for the general convenience of the House if a way could be found of taking both these Motions together if that be possible. I have studied the Standing Orders and find some difficulty in knowing precisely what can be done in the matter. If it can be done, may I suggest that an Amendment be moved to the first Motion, standing in the name of Lord Newton, which would bring the two Motions into line? I understand that Lord Newton would be prepared to accept that method of dealing with the two Motions if it be found practicable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, may I be permitted to point out that, strictly speaking, the second Notice, in the name of Lord Eltisley, is not a Motion, although the first, in the name of Lord Newton, is a Motion, and I am told that difficulty arises from that circumstance in calling the two matters together. I apprehend that Lord Eltisley, in the course of Lord Newton's Motion, can readily deal with the matter which stands in his name.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, do I understand that the second Motion will be moved and seconded in the ordinary way?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are not two Motions; there is only one Motion. This is, of course, a technical difference.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, as the point of order has been raised, perhaps it would be convenient for me to mention another matter arising on the wording of the second Notice. I understand that the noble Lord proposes to call attention "on behalf of the Roads Group." That seems to me an entirely novel form of words in this House. I thought we all represented the country

863
when we came here, and that we did not represent one group or another group. I venture to think that this is a very unfortunate form of words to use in the circumstances. Who knows what the Roads Group is? It may be anything.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, if I may reply to the point, it is a very simple reply. Several members of your Lordships' House have made a practice of meeting every week and studying road questions from various angles, as a matter of first-class importance to the average citizen of this country. Individually we put down a Motion on the Paper of this House; it was signed by nine or ten members of your Lordships' House, and only one name was published. There is therefore no means by which the public can know who was supporting that Motion, who was behind it or who had anything to do with it. We then made representations, and were told that we should put in words representative of a group, in order to convey that certain members of your Lordships' House were interested. We felt very strongly the expunging of names from the Notice, but that is the explanation of the matter.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, perhaps I might give some explanation as to why the names of noble Lords do not appear. I was approached, and I stated that it was entirely contrary to the traditions of your Lordships' House that any name except the name of one Peer should appear over any Motion. I care not at all what happens in another place. There, I believe, it is a different matter. In this House it has always been the custom that only one Peer's name should appear. It is perfectly easy for any member of the House to take part in the debate and make his views clear to the House and the public, or if the matter goes to a Division, to make it clear by registering a vote in the Division Lobby. But so far it has never been found necessary that a number of Peers' names should be on the Order Paper. I trust that such a practice will not come into force in this House.
With regard to the Motion and Question before us, as your Lordships know, it is very often our practice to telescope two similar Motions on the Paper and have a discussion on the two together, and I suggest it would be for your Lordships' convenience if that were done on
864
this occasion. That will probably mean, I suppose, that the second Question will be raised formally, and that at any rate we shall not have on the second Question a repetition of the debate which takes place on the first Motion.
3.23 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents and to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the Report of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents should be taken into consideration as soon as is practicable.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is evidently not such a simple matter as I imagined. I thought that I was going to move an ordinary Motion, containing a Resolution. I propose to do so now, and if the House permits, I would like to be allowed to say what I propose to say and try to get general agreement on what it is that we want. Whatever may happen, I would like to say in the first place that I have no intention of detaining the House for a long time. There are many noble Lords here who are far greater authorities on the subject than I am. No doubt many of them will speak, and I will leave to them what I might term the solid examination of the Report. I am only animated by a desire to ascertain what portions of the Report the Government will accept, and to urge them to take early action. Whatever people may think about the Report (and I do not suppose everybody will agree with everything in it), I think I shall be expressing the general opinion when I say that it appears to me to be an admirable Report in every respect. I think it reflects enormous credit on the members of the Committee, and there is very little fault to find with it. I have waded through the volume of evidence, no light task in view of the abominable way in which these Reports are published, which renders it almost impossible to discover what is question and what is answer, and I hope that if this debate leads to nothing else it may possibly lead to an improvement in the reporting of evidence before Committees.
There is one thing upon which I think I can fairly congratulate myself. I have frequently expressed the opinion that if

865
you want to get a rapid and sensible decision you had far better have recourse to an ordinary Select Committee of this House, than resort to the ponderous action of a Royal Commission, or a mixed Committee of both Houses. This Report has been issued in a comparatively short time, and I will undertake to say that if resort had been had to a Royal Commission, or a mixed Committee of the two Houses, you would not have had a Report for a couple of years; at least half a million casualties would have occurred meanwhile; and the Report at the end would not have been unanimous. If we have got nothing else, we have obtained a unanimous Report.
This Report divides itself naturally into three sections, which deal with the various users of the road:—motorists and motor cyclists, pedestrians and pedal cyclists. I will say a few words to begin with as to the portion of the Report dealing with motor cars and motor cycles. I should be inclined to describe the recommendations with regard to this particular section as being partly deterrent and partly hortatory. In using the expression "hortatory" I am referring to the fact that the Committee are apparently relying a great deal—more than I do myself—upon propaganda. I do not think anyone is likely to find much fault with the recommendations which I have described as being of a deterrent character. They are pretty much what everybody must have expected. They embody the advice which has been given on this subject from various quarters, and they amount shortly to this.
They recommend more stringent administration of the law; they recommend that the Highway Code should become law; and they very rightly advise not only that really serious offences should be more severely dealt with, but that the penalties imposed should be more or less of a common character, and that there should be a standard set up with regard to penalties. They further urge that grave offences, with which we are familiar, should be punished much more severely, and I observe with much satisfaction that they specially recommend that cases of drunkenness should be dealt with with great severity. So far as I am concerned, I think there are few crimes that are worse than those committed by reckless or drunken motorists. I cannot understand anyone
866
feeling the smallest sympathy with those who commit these offences, and it was with great satisfaction that I noticed that the Committee appeared to be of the same opinion.
With regard to the other suggestions that appear in this portion of the Report there is only one of a novel and original character and that is the proposal that is made with regard to insurance. The Committee take the view that, to use their own phrase, no financial recompense should accrue to drivers who have committed grave offences in inexcusable circumstances. That seems to me common sense. At the present moment I suppose a man might almost make a profit out of an action which resulted in the death of somebody else. At all events he does not stand to lose anything by it, and that seems to me an absurd position. I am not clever enough to explain myself how this difficulty should be met, but I presume it could be done by altering in some respects the question of cover, and I take it that the chief objection to any action of the kind would proceed from the insurance companies, because their premiums would be lower. I hope that in the course of the discussion some noble Lord who was a member of the Committee will explain what they had in their minds, and I sincerely hope that this particular proposal will be carefully brought before the Minister of Transport because it seems to me to be a highly important one.
I pass from that to another point in this portion of the Report. I have myself always been interested in the question of walking on the left, and I observe that the Committee thought, as every other inquiry has thought, that pedestrians should walk on the left of the pavement or footpath, but they add in a somewhat pusillanimous manner that although they are strongly in favour of it they do not see how it can be enforced. I should have thought it could be enforced like anything else. If people are always wedded to the idea of walking on the right, I suggest that there is a very obvious alternative, and that is that vehicles in the future should proceed along the right of the road instead of the left. It may sound revolutionary to some minds, but I cannot see that there is much difficulty about it. It is merely a question of time and making the necessary alterations. If you did this you would derive

867
three advantages. In the first place, you would assimilate the rule of the pavement to the rule of the road. In the second place, you would avoid an enormous number of accidents. In the third place, you would be only doing what other countries do, with very few exceptions. I do not know whether the House is aware of it, but at the present moment, since the disappearance of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia from the map of Europe, there are only two countries that now drive on the left. These two countries are Sweden and Hungary, and shortly there will only be one because Sweden is about to adopt the practice of driving on the right.
There is another point to which I desire to draw attention. There are various suggestions, all of them very useful. Many of them refer to the more careful examination of drivers, the make of cars, and rules of all kinds which may help us to escape the accidents which are continually taking place. But they make a suggestion which to my mind is one we ought not to entertain. They suggest, as an experiment, that a road should be constructed here in imitation of the German Autobahn. People go from this country to Germany and are impressed with what they see and they want to institute the same system over here. It is hardly necessary for me to point out that the circumstances are entirely different. Germany is a far bigger country than this and the population is far less dense. Moreover, the reasons for making these roads in Germany are entirely different. If you were able to obtain a confidential opinion from a German Nazi on this point he would perhaps say, "These motor-ways are an absolute necessity for us. We are encircled by dangerous and aggressive nations such as Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Latvia, and Denmark, and it is absolutely essential for our safety that we should have these huge motorways." At all events we need not entertain any fears on this point. We are not menaced in that way.
But there is an additional reason why we should spurn this idea and that is the enormous expense. I gather from the Report that the big German motorways cost £30,000 a mile to make, and that if you do the same thing here it would cost a great deal more.
868
Now, if the German mile costs £30,000, and it would cost a great deal more here in view of this country being far more densely populated and the enormous number of houses that would have to be removed, the cost in this country might very well be £60,000 a mile. But I will not put it as high as that. I will be reasonable. I will put it at £50,000. You can make the calculation for yourselves. I suppose an experimental road ought to be 100 miles long. If my arithmetic is not at fault, that would cost at least £5,000,000, and at the present moment it seems to me that would be a perfectly reckless and useless expenditure. And not only useless, for we know perfectly well it would result in this track being covered with all sorts of vehicles, including very heavy lorries, which would destroy the road almost as soon as it was made, thereby necessitating our making a fresh one and diverting traffic which in ordinary circumstances ought to travel by road.
I will not pursue this subject further, but I will pass on at once to the second category, that of pedestrians. It is quite evident that the pedestrians do not like this Report. I am myself a member of the Pedestrians' Association and I sympathise very strongly with their point of view. What they say, and I think say with great truth, is that the Committee have not sufficiently appreciated the fact that the fundamental cause of these accidents is undoubtedly speed, and that point seems to have been evaded to some extent by the Committee. But while I have the strongest sympathy with pedestrians on this point I do not think they are entirely reasonable. If we are going to impose, as we are going to do now, rather onerous conditions on motor cars and motor cycles and upon pedal cyclists, then I do not think it is reasonable for the pedestrians to object to being placed under restrictions themselves. I do not at all sympathise with them when they protest against not being allowed to use the roadway in whatever way they choose. If you are going to make any scheme for general security a success, everybody must contribute his share, and I think pedestrians ought to contribute like anybody else.
But there is one other point upon which I sympathise very strongly with the pedestrian. As far as I can understand from

869
the Report, the pedestrian's safety in the future is largely to depend on propaganda and propaganda does not convey much confidence to me. I was once responsible for an important propaganda position in this country, and I have never been able to understand why such magic value is attached to it. There are many people who think that propaganda is a cure for everything, a cure for peace, a cure for war, a cure for the depression—in fact there is nothing that they think cannot be done by propaganda. I can understand that in this particular case propaganda is very necessary for the younger generation; but I observe that they suggest that a special attack, so to speak, should be made upon people whom they call elderly pedestrians. I am a very elderly pedestrian myself, but I do not think this propaganda would have much effect on me. I suppose we may look forward to something of this kind. We may see announcements that aged pedestrians, some of whom may have reached second childhood, should receive propaganda, and that Uncle George or whatever he calls himself will deliver a lecture upon how we ought to walk and so forth. All I can say is that that would make no impression upon me. I do not want to be told the dangers: they are perfectly obvious. Why even a sheep, which is not an intelligent animal, does not require to be told by its parents that it is not safe to frequent the company of wolves, and people who have arrived at a respectable age or even an advanced age like myself certainly do not require anything of the kind. The only form of propaganda which would recommend itself to me would be a distinct announcement that any person who injured me by running me down would suffer severely in consequence.
I said that pedestrians, more especially elderly pedestrians, are to put their faith in propaganda as their chance of salvation. I see the greatest masters of propaganda are present here to-day in the persons of the right reverend Prelates. After all, it is their profession and I should like to know what they have got to say on the subject. I would ask the most reverend Primate, if I am fortunate enough to secure his attention, to let me ask him this plain question. If you are dealing with the repression of crime, which is the most efficacious—propaganda or the strict enforcement of the
870
law? I hope that one of the occupants of that Bench will give me an answer before the debate concludes.
In the meanwhile I will pass on to the third section of persons affected by the Report, and that is the cyclists. I do not wish to say anything harsh about cyclists. I hope they will not take it in bad part, but they seem to me to be the chartered libertines of the road. They are not subject to any restraint at all. They are not taxed, they are not registered, they are not numbered and they are not obliged to insure, they are not even obliged to ride on the tracks which are specially provided for them, and they are not obliged to report accidents. They are not even obliged to carry bells or brakes. They are at complete liberty to do what they like. All that must come to an end. It is all nonsense to pretend that they are in a different position from anybody else. I suppose the people who object to any limitation being placed upon cyclists will contend that they are proletarians. No more ridiculous reason could be adduced. I am perfectly certain that everybody I am addressing this afternoon has ridden a bicycle at some time in his life, and therefore there is no claim to class them as proletarians. That is not the real reason at all. The reason why this claim is made is not on account of any particular virtues they possess: it is merely because they are so numerous. I do not know how many there are, but I imagine 14,000,000 or 15,000,000, and they form a very formidable body, of which all Party politicians are very much afraid. That is the sole reason why they have not been regulated up to now, and I hope sincerely that that state of things will come to an end.
I have dealt—I am afraid very superficially—with the three classes affected by the Report, and I only desire before I sit down to address an appeal to the Minister of Transport to lose no time in dealing with this question. It really increases in urgency every day. I read with feelings approaching almost stupefaction a statement by the Committee that motor cars are being turned out at the rate of a thousand a day. I also note from the Report that the roads of this country carry nearly double as many cars in proportion as any other country. In this country there are thirteen or fourteen motor cars to the mile, and in Germany, which comes next, the number is

871
only seven to the mile. If you take a country like France or Italy the number is not more than six. Look what that means. What is going to be the state of things a few years hence? Imagine, if you can, the perfectly intolerable congestion that will take place unless some radical change is made.
I am afraid there can be very little doubt that there will be a good deal of opposition to certain parts of the Committee's recommendations. There will be a section—not I hope a large one—of motor owners who will complain of persecution. When a motorist complains of persecution I never understand what he means. I have owned motor cars probably as long as anybody in this House. I have even driven one until I had the sense to get someone else to do it and I have never got into trouble of any kind. I have never been summoned for anything; neither has anybody in my employment. Therefore I look upon the statement that motorists suffer from persecution as a pure figment of the imagination. I am not more virtuous than other people, but if I have been able to escape scatheless up to now it must be perfectly easy for anybody else to do so.
What I would venture to do is to urge upon the Minister of Transport that he should act immediately. I am afraid not much attention is likely to be paid to what I say because the Ministry of Transport is not even represented in this House. There is no Peer who represents the Department. It is true that every now and then somebody is imported to speak for them, but you cannot expect a Minister of Transport to attach as much importance to what an outsider says as to what is reported to him by his own officials. I have no doubt that the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Department will do his best, and I dare say he will agree to make the recommendations which we suggest, but I do not feel very confident as to the result. In addition, to discontented motorists and discontented pedestrians, there seem to be the furious cyclists. In addition to competing with all these people, the Minister will have to deal with the Whips. I rather think the present Minister of Transport was a Whip himself once and, therefore, he is more likely to pay attention to them than to other people. What no doubt will happen will be this. When he is drawing up
872
measures which he proposes to bring forward, he will have the Whip at his elbow all the time telling him to be very careful what he does. I would implore him—although I do not think it is much use to do so—to pay no attention to complaints from vested interests or from other interests, but to go straight ahead. If he has the courage to do so, and if he will undertake to put into force the recommendations made by this Committee, I believe a great change will be made in the situation, and that before long we shall find that this national disgrace—I can call it nothing else—so aptly described by the Committee as the holocaust of the roads, may be mitigated. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House the Report of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents should be taken into consideration as soon as is practicable.—(Lord Newton.)
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as I am obliged to leave soon and cannot be here much longer, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, will be gracious enough to allow me to intervene for a few minutes only. I am sure the House will then be very glad to hear what he has to say. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that I have been described as a master of propaganda. I am usually regarded as singularly lacking in the qualifications needed for such a post, but, so far as propaganda is desirable in this matter, I should just like to remind your Lordships that those to whom the noble Lord referred have already made an effort to bring about an improvement in this matter. No doubt some propaganda in this connection is necessary. No doubt the noble Lord himself is wholly impervious to it, and I should be very sorry myself to attempt any form of exhortation upon the noble Lord. I believe it would be entirely unsuccessful. But there is a wider and perhaps less obstinate opinion, and to that I would address myself.
I think it is necessary to make the reminder that this is, in one sense, a moral question and that there must lie some decency in the hearts and consciences of road users. Believing that, I should just like to remind your Lordships that in the Church Assembly, a body with which

873
your Lordships' House is constitutionally associated, in February, 1935, a Motion was unanimously passed:
"That this Assembly regards with grave concern the fact that more than 7,000 people lose their lives in a year on the roads of this country, and calls upon the members of the Church to set an example of courtesy, care and consideration for others on the public highways."
We alluded to members of the Church lest it should seem that the Assembly was censorious and self-righteous, and we asked them to set an example on this matter. The then Minister of Transport, Mr. Hore-Belisha, wrote at once warmly to appreciate the action that had been taken and some words that I myself had used, and particularly a speech by the Bishop of Ely which, I think, is the very best speech on this matter that I have ever heard or read. I have it here, and I think that any noble Lords who are interested in this matter and who have not seen it might fitly peruse it.
In consequence of that debate, Mr. Hore-Belisha asked me to do what I could to help him to do what he at least regarded as a very important part of his duty—namely, the moving of the public conscience on this matter—and at his request I wrote an open letter of which he was permitted to make any use that he pleased. Your Lordships will perhaps allow me in a sentence to quote a part of that letter because it expresses what is still strongly in my own mind:
"I share your belief that a real remedy lies in a quickening of the conscience of the whole community and in the impression upon that conscience of the truth that to show in this matter 'due care and consideration for others' is a moral duty. This to my mind is a clear and direct application of the divine maxim—Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself—of the principle that a man ought to do to others what he would wish others to do to him."
Doubtless the noble Lord would feel that these remarks are entirely inapplicable to him, and not likely to move him, but the Minister of Transport thought they would be of great value. I went further and called the attention of all the Bishops of the Church of England to the importance of this matter, and I have every reason to believe they did what they could. I am well aware—no one more so than myself—of the danger of repeating these moral exhortations, but I am always ready to do what I can to emphasize the point that behind all administration there
874
is this moral basis, and that it is a matter of moral duty for all Christian citizens to be decently courteous to one another.
3.56 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, it is a long time since the House has received such an important Report as that which is now submitted for its consideration and attention, and if the House will permit me to do so, and if the noble Lord, Lord Alness, and his colleagues will not consider it impertinent of me to do so, I would like to say that they have rendered splendid service to the rest of humanity and to our country as a whole. The Report is a brilliant example of a really useful piece of work. It is logical in its arrangement, it seems to show a complete grasp of the subject, it is clear, definite and concise, and it also has a most excellent summary of the Committee's recommendations. Many of us are glad to know that the Committee have taken a wide view of the questions they have had under consideration. They realised the magnitude of the problem they were up against once they had opened the inquiry, and they saw its many ramifications. That is why there has been covered such a vast field in their investigations. That is also the reason why the Committee's Report has been delayed some eighteen months.
I am happy to see that the Committee are very courageous in the way they have shown that they have no fear of facing up to the problem and of dealing with a Government Department. They say that the Ministry of Transport has shown lack of vision, lack of initiative and lack of driving force in dealing with road construction and in dealing with matters affecting accidents. Those are very strong words to come from any Committee which this House sets up. Their Report occupies nearly eight hundred printed pages—796 to be precise. At their numerous sittings 75 witnesses were heard and over 200 recommendations have been made. I think perhaps that this is an auspicious time for this question to come up for consideration, because we have just got a new Minister of Transport and we are more or less entering upon a new era so far as road questions are concerned. I am sure at any rate, so far as the little group is concerned who make it their special business to meet weekly and discuss road difficulties, that they will

875
be only too happy to co-operate with the new Minister and do what they can to render him whole-hearted assistance.
Road users have many grievances. The Report emphasizes the necessity for the construction of new highways and new roads in the interests of public safety as well as in the interests of those who use the roads. I think, as the Committee point out, that there is no one in this country who is not vitally affected by the safety of the roads. The major remedy lies, the Committee say, in making the roads as fool proof as may be practicable. Certain conditions should be attended to and should be ameliorated—conditions such as varying surfaces from one section of a road to another, dangerous cross roads and abrupt bends, just to mention a few matters. It is interesting to note that on 750 miles of main road the overall width between hedges, not the width of the road, is less than 30 feet. We find from the Road Fund Report for 1937–38 that there are only 189 miles of dual carriageways, although I believe there are now an additional 90 miles under construction. There are only 38 miles of cycle tracks in the whole country, although some 55 miles are being added. There are 4,000 level crossings over railways, which are a great nuisance and a not inconsiderable danger to traffic. No fewer than 200 of them are within the radius of Greater London. At the present rate at which these level crossings are being dealt with it will be 200 years before they are all done away with.
Thousands of danger signs litter and clutter our roadways, and each danger sign is really a condemnation of the road. It means that the road is unfit to carry traffic. Surely where danger signs abound steps should be taken to improve the road. Yet we find that only £1,327,000 was spent by the Minister of Transport upon improving major roads. I venture to think that it is distressing to feel that so little money is devoted to the roads when so much is expected of the roads. It is a distressing fact, too, that it is quicker to drive 23 miles round London—and safer, probably—than to drive 12½ miles across London. Then there is the question of road exits. Who knows when they may be wanted at short notice to cope with enormous unprecedented traffic? But road exits remain as they were in 1888. Continental
876
experience shows that great weight is attached in other countries to an adequate system of road exits for all big cities.
Two principal facts emerge from the Report. One is that the Committee very rightly emphasize the standard of decency in road conduct that should be exercised by road users. The second is the condition of the roads. When the Committee speak of road users they include pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motor drivers, and they hold the view after close investigation of the subject that education is more valuable than punishment for offences. In that respect I differ from the previous speaker in feeling that hard and cruel and fierce penalties are not going to be of as much value as education so that a decent standard of conduct on the roads may be observed. It is necessary to stimulate road sense, starting not with second childhood but with extreme youth. The Metropolitan Police Report, issued I think yesterday, states that children from five to ten years of age are the greatest sufferers from road accidents. They should be taught the dangers of the road and how to avoid those dangers. They should have pointed out to them the difficulties which are bound to confront them. The same Report refers to the fact that the most dangerous hours are from 12 to 2 p.m. and from 4 to 8 p.m. I take it that that is because those are the busy hours when roads are carrying the heaviest traffic. Education should be followed by reminders and warnings and safety-first notices.
All this really means administrative work which can be carried through without Acts of Parliament or even rules and regulations. I venture to urge that this is a form of activity which should proceed immediately, and that new regulations and laws which may be found necessary—many are suggested by the Committee—for pedal cyclists and pedestrians should follow at no very distant date. So far as motor drivers are concerned, I think they have been amply regulated and legislated for as conditions exist at the present time. The plain fact is that the condition of the roads is responsible for a good many of the accidents. Traffic has far outgrown the capacity of the roads. Mention has been made of one thousand new cars a day. I believe five hundred additional cars running on the roads is the net daily increase.

877
Segregation of traffic is of great importance. Dual carriageways, cycle tracks, service roads and motorways should all receive attention. Tinkering with widenings and by-passes is not a sufficient policy in the existing state of the roads. New through roads are urgently wanted to divert the traffic which is spoiling villages, rendering some far from peaceful, and congesting our smaller towns. It is urgently necessary that new roads should be planned, and it is even more important that land which could be used as soon as opportunity offers should be acquired or at any rate sterilised from buildings. Tracks should at any rate be reserved for development where it is already abundantly clear that land is required for the purpose.
I would also like to urge the recommendation that an experimental motorway should be laid down. Many of us believe that it is far cheaper to make one of these new motorways which you find in other countries, and that in that way you will help to preserve the amenities of the countryside. It is cheaper to make a brand new road just where we want it, and to make it to suit modern traffic, than to try and widen an existing highway, perhaps cutting down a choice village tree, disturbing the village green and generally upsetting the amenities of the countryside. Further I would suggest that it is unfair, when over £100,000,000 is raised annually by licence and petrol duties, that something under £25,000,000—less than threepence in the shilling—is returned by way of betterment of the roads. I regret the setting aside of the Bressey Report. Three major schemes have been turned down because of insufficient grants. The Ministry of Transport, although they approved the schemes, refused to budge beyond a 60 per cent. grant from the Exchequer. There are precedents for 75 per cent. and even 100 per cent. grants for trunk roads. I hope the door has not been finally closed and that it will be possible for the Ministry to reconsider this decision.
It is suggested that new motorways are not of value, and in that connection may I quote figures relating to accidents in another country? In 1935 there were 2,158,000 vehicles in that country, and the figure rose to 2,848,000 in 1937. That means a 32 per cent. increase in traffic. Road deaths in 1935 numbered 8,764 and fell to 7,635 in 1937, a decrease of 13 per
878
cent. in spite of a 32 per cent. increase in the number of vehicles. Road deaths per vehicle—perhaps a convenient measure—which were 4.06 in 1935, dropped to 2.68 in 1937, a decrease of 34 per cent. in proportion to the amount of traffic.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Not per vehicle?
LORD ELTISLEY: No, per thousand. I am glad to say they did not reach that alarming figure per vehicle.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: In what country was that?
LORD ELTISLEY: That was in Germany. I hope I have given all the information desired by noble Lords opposite. I venture to suggest that that shows the value of building roads suitable to modern traffic conditions. I hope that this debate will do something to shake what I regard as departmental apathy and self-complacency, and that the do-little or the do-nothing departmental policy which we have seen will be replaced by an energetic and forceful attempt to carry out the many excellent recommendations in the Alness Report. We shall thus, I hope, reduce the awful toll of 6,000 road deaths and thousands and thousands of road accidents, which we now deplore every year. So far as the group of members—I hardly dare make any allusion to the group now, in view of the discussion that took place!—is concerned, we shall continue to use every endeavour we can to prevent the Alness Report, which is a most helpful Report, from being put into a departmental pigeon-hole. The Report is full of valuable recommendations, many of which can and should be implemented without legislation. We therefore press that at any rate that section of the Report be given effect to without delay.
4.12 p.m.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, my first and most obvious duty is, on behalf of the Select Committee, to express our high appreciation of the generous welcome which has been given to their Report by my noble friends who have preceded me. I should also like to take the opportunity, if I may, of expressing our gratitude to the witnesses, representing every interest and drawn from all quarters, who were good enough to give the Committee the benefit of their experience and advice. Above all I should like, if I may, to express my deep indebtedness to each

879
member of the Committee for the unflagging zeal and the invaluable assistance which he proffered in the course of a protracted and difficult inquiry. The inquiry was protracted and it was difficult. The Committee met on thirty-two occasions and heard seventy witnesses; 8,000 questions and more were put and answered, and a precious year of time was spent on the enterprise.
The point which I desire, with your Lordships' permission, to stress has been alluded to already: it is that the Report is unanimous. Your Lordships will look in vain within its four corners for any reservation or dissent. As your Lordships know well from previous experience, a Report which is honeycombed with reservations and with dissents is devoid of authority and stillborn. The reproach of lack of unanimity, at any rate, can certainly not be levelled against the Report of this Committee. Despite its unanimity, I cannot conceal from myself the danger of an untoward fate awaiting the Report of the Committee, due largely to the international situation and the menace of war. I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that it seems to me that the casualties upon the roads, in their tragedy—and, I had almost added, in their volume—may be assimilated to the casualties of the battlefield. I most earnestly hope, therefore, that the Government will see to it that the solution of this major domestic problem—I know of none more pressing, none more exigent—shall not be allowed to suffer, shall not be shelved and put on one side, because of the pressure of external affairs.
I said a moment ago that the problem was a pressing and an exigent one, and that was emphasized by my noble friend below me also. May I document that proposition by two simple figures? There were in 1936–37 very nearly 200,000 accidents involving personal injury upon the roads of Great Britain. Of these accidents no fewer than 6,300 were fatal. These are staggering and, I venture to say, disgraceful figures, and I do not envy the position of anyone who can listlessly contemplate that, as I think, avoidable massacre. That is one reason why I venture to say that this is a pressing problem. The other has been alluded to already: there are no fewer than 1,000 new cars put on the roads every day. That is the statement of the
880
ex-Minister of Transport himself. I set against that unquestioned figure the fact that during the last seven years only 280 miles of new important roads have been constructed in this country; that is to say, an average of 40 miles a year. It does not require very much imagination in those circumstances to foresee that, unless there be a vastly accelerated programme of road improvement in this country, complete strangulation of traffic will result, and that in a very short time.
Having regard to these figures, I venture to think that my proposition is documented: that this is an urgent and a pressing problem which cannot be set on one side. But when one comes to the solution of that problem, there is the difficulty. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House at a very early stage reached the conclusion, which the Report expresses, that for this holocaust of the roads there is no single, no sovereign remedy. To that conclusion we were driven by the evidence and by force of circumstances. On the other hand, if I may use an unconventional expression which was used by one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, two major alleviations "stick out a mile."
What are they? The first is the segregation of road traffic, and the second is the education of all road users. To achieve these ends the Committee have made something like 200 recommendations. Some of these recommendations are self-evident. Some of them are not new; they have already been made by Committees whose Reports have been pigeon-holed and whose recommendations have been ignored. A third class of recommendation, however, is new. I want to say of our recommendations that your Lordships may take it that each recommendation made by the Committee was documented by evidence, that the evidence of each witness was carefully weighed, and that the conclusion with regard to the reliability and the weight of that evidence was unanimously reached and is echoed in the recommendation we made. I quite appreciate that many of these recommendations may be challenged, and some of them reasonably challenged. At the same time I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind the circumstances, which I have mentioned, in which the generation of these recommendations took place.

881
I am deeply indebted, as I have already said, to my noble friends who have already spoken. I should like, if I may, to say just a few words in reply to one or two points which my noble friend Lord Newton made in opening this debate. He asked a question, with regard to the recommendation which the Committee made in connection with insurance. That recommendation, your Lordships will recollect, was the affirmation of the principle that no man should earn a recompense from his own crime. Such is the principle which the Committee affirmed. My noble friend is in agreement, as I understand, with that principle, but he expressed some little doubt as to the means of carrying it out. What was in the mind of the Committee, if I may speak for them, was that it should be made the law of the land that such recompense was contrary to public policy, and that such a defence would be open to any insurance company against whom a claim was made. I think that is perfectly simple procedure, but, if anything further is required, I have little doubt that it is a suitable subject for consideration by the Road Safety Research Committee which the Report suggests should be set up.
The second point to which the noble Lord referred was with regard to the Autobahnen of Germany. He has been answered on that point by Lord Eltisley, but I would like to say this to the House. In the first place your Lordships will remember the limited character of that recommendation. The recommendation of the delegation which went to Germany was that there should be a national network of these roads constructed forthwith in Great Britain. The recommendation of the Committee is much more guarded than that. It is that an experimental motorway should be constructed on the German lines, that its progress should be vigilantly watched and any diminution in the accidents which resulted noted, and that on whether or not it proved a success or a failure would depend the question whether further roads of that type should be constructed in this country. I submit that that is a modest proposal. In making it the Committee had two things in mind. They had first in mind the fact that that delegation, I think I am right in saying, was the most numerous that ever left these shores. It consisted of 225 persons, representative of both
882
Houses of Parliament, of borough and county councils, and so forth, and they were unanimous in making the recommendation for the introduction of these roads in this country. That was an impressive fact, and one which the Committee were bound to note; but still more impressive and important was the fact that the contruction of these roads in Germany had resulted in a startling decrease of fatalities in that country. It was because they were moved by these considerations that the Committee came to the conclusion that they might safely and properly recommend the construction of an experimental motorway in this country.
The last point to which Lord Newton referred, and to which my noble friend opposite (Lord Cecil) will no doubt refer later in the debate, was the question of speed. My noble friend may take it from me that the bearing of the question of speed on road accidents was very carefully considered by the Committee. Your Lordships will bear in mind that this is a Report based upon evidence, and the Committee reached the conclusion that the most serious cause of road accidents is not, as is frequently contended, the speed of the motor vehicle. We bore in mind two facts which are not generally recognised, or at least accepted, but which were proved before us. The first was this, that after the 20-mile speed limit was removed, the toll of the roads, in the matter of accidents, was less than it had been for a number of years preceding it. That was one thing. Another, and I venture to think much more conclusive fact, was that it is proved beyond all posibility of doubt that the great majority of accidents on the roads in this country take place within the restricted areas, where there is a speed limit of 30 miles. I think I am right in saying that 60 per cent. of fatal accidents, and 76 per cent. of non-fatal accidents take place in areas which are subject to the 30-mile speed limit. In these circumstances it seems to me very difficult to reach the conclusion that the major cause of accident, which we are all anxious to see abated, can be attributed to the speed of the vehicle.
There is one other topic to which allusion has been made. I must apologise for detaining your Lordships so long, but this is an extensive subject. That other topic is the way in which the Report deals with cyclists. It has been my lot

883
to read nearly 600 Press extracts in reference to this Report, and the only criticism of substance which I find running through them is criticism of the Report in so far as it dealt with cyclists. It was suggested that the Committee had dealt harshly with the cycling community. Will your Lordships forgive me if I say that, so far as I personally am concerned, I am not likely to be out of sympathy with the cycling community? I rode for many years the contraption which came to be known as the penny-farthing machine, and for many years afterwards I rode a safety machine. I am therefore fully cognisant of all the joys and utilities of cycling, and nothing could be further from my mind, and I think I can speak for my colleagues, than to do anything which would discourage that form of recreation.
But one has to bear in mind certain facts. In the years 1936–37, 133 accidents occurred by collision with the rear of cycles. The point of the Committee's Report is this: we have recommended that after dark, every cycle should be equipped not only with the present reflector and white patch, but also with a red lamp. For that proposition most conclusive evidence was forthcoming. I think I am right in saying that there are seven other countries to-day in which that is the law of the land, without the slightest inconvenience or hardship occuring to the cycling community. In the second place it is without doubt that motor cars and motor cycles are equipped with red lights, and it seems a little difficult for another and more vulnerable section of the road user community to claim exemption from the requirement. Furthermore, it is not a new suggestion. According to my information it was universal in war time in this country and I have been quite unable to discover why it was discontinued. I appeal to your Lordships, as road users or observers of the roads, to judge of the reasonableness of the proposal. If it receives effect it will not only be in the interest of all other road users, but also in the interest of cyclists themselves. I very much hope that that recommendation will receive effect. Now I have done, and I desire to end as I began. I desire once more to implore the Government to give early and earnest consideration to this Report and to translate its recommendations
884
into statutory form, where that is necessary, and that without any avoidable delay.
4.31 p.m.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think our thanks are due in the first place to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for having been the initiator, not only of the debate we have had, but of the setting up of the Select Committee, and while we congratulate him on having done this, I hope that his future services will be available, because he knows as well as I do that the matter does not end here. In the next place I think we must congratulate the Select Committee on having chosen such a Chairman. I do not suppose that they could have found anyone with a clearer head or more businesslike methods than the noble Lord, Lord Alness. I congratulate them also on the Report, which has brought to the attention of the whole country this very grave problem.
If I intervene myself it is because I am an ex-Secretary of the Ministry of Transport, I have driven a motor car for twenty-five years, I am an ex-cyclist, and I have been a pedestrian for about sixty-six years. If I may make a general comment, I should like to have seen a more drastic proposal in the Report. The danger, as my noble friend Lord Alness said, is that there is practical unanimity on this question, and anybody who has been in Parliamentary life some years knows that when people are unanimous, you get nothing done, whereas when a matter is highly controversial you get effective action taken. It is unfortunate, but I should like to make a drastic suggestion to start with, and I do so hoping for your Lordships' consent, and asking your Lordships to remember that about six years' ago you abolished the Ministry of Transport on the Motion of the late noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who so often eloquently pleaded for a change which might bring about an improvement in this terrible matter of motor accidents. Well, nothing was done. Now I want to support what the Committee says with regard to far more expert knowledge and study in the Ministry, but my proposition is that the Ministry of Transport should cease to be a political office.
There have been seven Ministers of Transport in the last fifteen years. The post of Minister of Transport is regarded as a stepping stone to the Cabinet. No-

885
body has time really to master his job or devote his whole energies to it. The result is that the highly skilled officials in the Ministry have to be more or less interpreters of the policy initiated by the Minister, and they very often find themselves thwarted in trying to deal with the very great difficulties in an expert manner. I think that the Ministry of Transport ought to be transformed into one of those Commissions, like the Forestry Commission or the many Commissions under the Treasury and the Home Office, manned solely by experts, although naturally the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with an Under-Secretary, would have to be responsible for Questions in Parliament.
But this is not a political controversy. It is a matter in which we all want to help, and it is far better than it should be removed from the political sphere. I need not remind your Lordships of the various Ministers of Transport we have had. I was very fortunate in serving under my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison, who, I think, must be regarded as one of the very best we have had. He devoted his whole attention to the matter, and when there was a question of his going into the Cabinet he refused to relax his efforts in the Ministry of Transport and remained there so long as the Government lasted. There have been other Ministers who have begun to do good work and been interrupted by being transferred to other offices. This matter is far too serious to be treated in a sort of in-and-out way like this, and my proposal is that the Ministry of Transport should henceforth be a Commission of experts with a Chairman, dealing with this matter directly, although in some way subordinate to a big Government office.
Now let me take the question of the Highway Code. I was instrumental in helping to draft the original edition of the Highway Code. We had considerable difficulty in knowing what tone should be adopted for that Code—whether we should take the Litany as our model, that is to say, "We beseech thee," or the Ten Commandments—"Thou shalt not." On the whole we decided that it would be better not to create a number of new indictable offences, and that, anyhow to start with, it was better to be on the cautious side. And I think that if the suggestion of the Committee is carried
886
out of giving the Highway Code the force of law there should be a section of it which should be retained merely for advice. There are a lot of people who respond to advice more than they do to commands. But here again I make a small criticism in regard to this idea that sections of the Highway Code should be separated and given to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I am against this use of the word "pedestrian." Pedestrians are suggested to be peculiar bipeds who use their legs and are rather a nuisance. We are all of us—the millions of people in this country are all pedestrians. Even the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for instance, is a pedestrian and perhaps he is a very bad pedestrian. It is quite possible that when he is crossing the streets of London he commits all the errors which are condemned in the Report. But this idea of treating a pedestrian as if he were somebody strange ought to be done away with, and therefore if the Highway Code is divided into sections with a view to distributing it more wholesale, it ought to be for motorists and pedestrians and for cyclists and pedestrians. The pedestrian section should not be omitted for any road user.
I do not want to detain the House by going through what I consider to be the very good suggestions that are made. Notably the idea that an accident-prone motorist should be refused a licence is a good one. It is very difficult to know, psychologically, where the fault lies. I would humbly suggest that the faults for the three sections always referred to are, for the motorists, impatience—nothing more criminal than impatience. They get accustomed to a certain speed, and they get impatient if they are not able to cover the ground as they have planned for themselves, with very often, perhaps, risk of accidents. In the case of cyclists, I would say their fault is conversation, generally. Noble Lords have seen cyclists on the road, and almost invariably, when there are more than one, they will find them in conversation and not attending to where they are going. Of course, we know what is the fault of the pedestrians, and it is difficult to get over it because we all have it. When you are walking along a street or road you are not thinking of where you are going, you are not thinking of where you are, you are not thinking of how to avoid other pedestrians. You are absorbed in other thoughts—we all are.

887
That is why in our absence of mind we do these foolish things. It is very difficult to get people to learn this new road sense. It is very difficult to get all pedestrians to realise that when they are crossing a street it is a matter of complete attention and of freeing the mind of all other thoughts. Education is very necessary, and I believe we are making great efforts in schools to meet the needs.
The various suggestions put down by the Committee, to which I do not intend to refer, may be small, each of them, but their cumulative effect would have an extraordinary influence in preventing the disastrous state of affairs that exists to-day. But we debate this here. A few people will read our debate, but I should say that the pigeon-hole is being prepared in the Ministry of Transport for this Report, and we shall hear no more of it. The late Lord Buckmaster's eloquence was insufficient. The debates that we have had here have been insufficient. What they have had in another place has also been insufficient. The question is whether by propaganda you can rouse the country. I am afraid the newspapers no longer think the report of an accident is news. We are in a dilemma in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, who has been so very public-spirited in insisting on bringing this matter before the House, must help us along to the next stage. He must batter at the door of the Ministry of Transport and, if need be, lead deputations to the Prime Minister and to the Government in order that the matter may not rest here, but may be brought to a further stage where we can really feel some pride in having reduced this terrible massacre on the roads.
4.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it would be regrettable if this debate were to degenerate into an internal exchange of floral tributes between members of the Committee and the Chairman, but, as the first ordinary member of the Committee who has taken part, I desire to express on behalf of the other members of the Committee our infinite debt to the industry, tact, patience, and courtesy of the Chairman whom we were wise enough to select from amongst our members. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said, there is some virtue in these circumstances
888
in a unanimous Report. But if we were enabled, ranging over a very wide field of subjects, approaching the question from a number of different points of view, to arrive at unanimous conclusions, it was not in any sense because our individual opinions were over-borne by the Chairman, but simply on account of the skill with which he welded the different opinions into a harmonious whole.
This is one of those fortunately non-Party matters on which this House can express opinions with a clear conscience. I do not, and cannot, purport to be pledging those noble Lords who sit on these Benches to agreement with all or, indeed, even the majority of the recommendations contained in our Report. These must be matters for individual judgment. But I am perhaps not committing them too far if I say that we hope that at least some attention, and prompt attention, will be given to the recommendations, and that those which seem to be acceptable and feasible will be put into operation by the Department without unnecessary delay. It is a non-Party question, and therefore one would have hoped it would have been possible to have obtained a large measure of approval from all sections of the population; but we seem to have outraged the feelings of some representative pedestrians and all representative cyclists. One of the most impressive features of the Report—if I may be allowed the expression—and one which certainly enhances its value, is that we have endeavoured to approach the question and to frame our recommendations so that it shall be brought home to all users of the road, irrespective of the type of progression in which they indulge, that they have not only a several responsibility in regard to their particular form of locomotion, but a joint responsibility with all other users of the road to see that so far as possible they work in harmony one with the other.
The reception of the recommendations in those two quarters to which I have referred does not seem to indicate at the moment that we have altogether succeeded in that particular object, but I still hope that more reflection and more detachment, and the very great weight of public opinion which is behind these recommendations, will persuade the cyclists and the pedestrians that in what we are recommending we are endeavouring not

889
to oppress but to protect them. I confess that, approaching it with all possible detachment, I find it extremely difficult to accept the doctrine put forward on behalf of the cyclists that in some peculiar way segregation and degradation are synonymous words. You have a highway, and the cyclist says, "It is my right to use that highway." Does the highway consist only of that part of the road upon which motor cars proceed, or does it include that part of such roads as may be reserved for cyclists and that part reserved for pedestrians? Does any sane pedestrian expect—certainly he does not expect for long—that he should be allowed to walk upon the middle of the Great West Road on Sunday morning, and say that unless he is allowed to do so he is being deprived of the right to use the King's highway? One wonders what would be the attitude of cyclists if, in a place where there was a cycling track, a motorist suddenly took it into his head to proceed along that cycle track. Yet, if the cyclists have a right on the motorists' road, why, on similar terms, have not the motorists a right on the cyclists' road?
It must be that in all these things, in the interests not of one section but of all sections of users of the roads, persons using them shall submit in their own interests and in the interests of others to the reasonable regulation of traffic in order to preserve life and limb from further disaster. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his capacity as a member of the Pedestrians' Association, was inclined to think we had been a little severe on the pedestrian. When I look at the recommendations I find that the only one which imposes any liability upon the pedestrian is one which suggests that it should be made an offence for him to enter a carriageway heedlessly. I think the members of the Committee were all impressed in particular by the evidence of a London Coroner of great experience who said that, during an experience I think of some twenty-five years, he was satisfied that the great majority of accidents in his particular area were due to pedestrians stepping off the kerb without looking where they were going or at what was coming behind.
It really is not a very severe affliction on a pedestrian to ask that he should learn the habit of looking where he is going before he goes there, especially if
890
he is stepping into a public road in which he is liable to be exterminated in the course of the next second. It is only this precaution that he is asked to take—a necessary precaution—before he steps into the roadway, and in order to impress upon him the necessity for taking that extra precaution we have recommended that it should be made an offence to disregard it. That is the only restriction that we have proposed upon the complete liberty of pedestrians, and surely in order to bring all classes of road users into harmony and to protect pedestrians from their own carelessness as well as to diminish the casualties, we have not suggested so outrageous a device.
I want to refer to only one other matter—I certainly do not propose to plough through the whole field of our numerous and various recommendations—and that is the question of speed. Whatever any of us, approaching this question with open minds, thought as to the proportion of accidents which was due to speed, we all must have been impressed by the evidence from police sources, as well as from other sources, that in fact what has come to be called the "road hog" was responsible for an extremely small percentage of the accidents. A good deal of evidence was given to us as to the advisability of insisting, by the imposition of some mechanical device, upon keeping within the 30-mile speed limit in places where the 30-mile speed limit existed. That suggestion is perhaps superficially attractive, but it has also difficulties and dangers which, speaking for myself as an individual, I think far outweigh the possible advantages that it might have. The danger of insisting upon the use of any limiting device of that kind, even if a practicable one was upon the market—and as to that I express no opinion—is that in the case of any sudden emergency you have so serious a loss of flexibility in the car that it would be made impossible for you to avoid a serious accident which, if you had complete liberty of movement, you would never be involved in at all.
The only other matter which I may perhaps be allowed to touch upon for one moment is the question of special Traffic Courts, which was strongly impressed upon us by more than one witness. That suggestion, too, has perhaps a superficial attraction, but it is made prohibitive by

891
two overriding factors. The first is the colossal expense. The only estimate we had was a figure of something like £10,000,000. The other factor would be the immense army of members of a very estimable profession—some 22,500 was the estimate—members of the Bar who would be required at short notice to be recruited from a not very wide field in order to perform the duties, or most of the duties, which are under present regulations performed by some twenty extremely expert and experienced High Court Judges. Those two difficulties seem to me to eliminate the proposal from serious consideration, but I confess that as a matter of principle I am always a little suspicious of technical knowledge in the seat of judgment. I have a preference for people approaching a question without the complications of technical knowledge which sometimes occur, viewing it upon its merits, judging it upon the evidence and coming to their conclusions upon the evidence put before them. After all, in these cases of motor car collisions, the number of them in which any technical knowledge would be of particular assistance is exceedingly few, and in those cases it is always open to either party to put before the tribunal such information of a technical character as it thinks necessary by way of evidence.
We have covered in the Report a large area of ground, we have willingly and readily given a considerable amount of time to it, and I think we shall all feel ourselves amply repaid for any effort we have made in this connection if we are enabled to feel in the future that our recommendations have had the effect of reducing, in however small a degree, this appalling toll of casualties on the road. But we shall indeed feel that our time has been wasted if this Report is allowed to lie in a pigeon-hole to accumulate the dust of official oblivion and no action is taken upon it.
4.59 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Newton. I should also like to join with other noble Lords in their expressions of admiration of the monumental work which has been carried out by the Select Committee and of the very helpful Report which they have produced. As one of the witnesses who
892
appeared before this Committee, I fully realise that they were set no mean task and, in the words of the Committee themselves:
"They realised the surpassing importance as well as the extreme difficulty of the problem with which they were confronted."
The Committee appear to be of the opinion—and that opinion has already been disclosed by my noble friend Lord Alness—that perhaps the most important factor which may lead to a diminution of road accidents is education. On that point I beg to differ from my noble friend Lord Newton. The other important point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alness was segregation of road users, that is, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
I cannot help feeling that education and propaganda offer one of the greatest hopes of reducing the appalling accidents on our roads. Education of public opinion allied with suitable propaganda would undoubtedly achieve very great results if properly conducted. The art of propaganda in this country has not been given the full attention that it deserves. I think it is true to say that it is still looked upon in certain quarters with a certain amount of suspicion. But the sooner we learn in this country how to use the art of propaganda, not only in the sphere of road accidents but in many other spheres which your Lordships can no doubt call to mind, the better it will be for the country. The Report suggests that the Highway Code should be revised and should form the basis of propaganda, and it goes on to make the further suggestion that the principles of the Highway Code should be encouraged and amplified from the pulpit, cinemas, advertisement posters, and above all by broadcasting. I propose to make a reasonable challenge to my noble friend Lord Alness on one point of the Highway Code which is mentioned in the Report. The Report suggests that the department of propaganda should revise the Highway Code. I would like to suggest that the Highway Code should be revised by a highly technical body of experts as it is a highly technical matter.
At the present time, as was pointed out by my noble friend the Marquess of Reading, all road users have an equal right to the King's highway, but many obligations are laid upon the driver of a

893
vehicle. It certainly appears from the Report that the pedestrian is apparently unwilling to sacrifice any of his rights for the common cause of safety. Surely it can be accepted that where pavements or footpaths exist the vehicle should have a prior right to the carriage-way, provided that reasonable and safe facilities are given to pedestrians to cross it. I think the same reasoning should apply to cyclists, and I feel sure that many of your Lordships are glad to see that the Committee recommend the compulsory use of cycle tracks. On this point I would again like to make a reasonable challenge to my noble friend Lord Alness. In the Report of the Committee, in a section headed "Right of the Road," it is suggested that drivers of vehicles other than cyclists—I would like to stress the words "other than cyclists"—should as far as possible overtake other vehicles on the right-hand side of the road. In my opinion, and I believe it is the opinion of the House of Lords Roads Group, cyclists should conform to the rule of overtaking and passing on the right-hand side in the same way as other vehicles.
As the law stands at present, it is not only the cyclist who can commit only one offence on the highway; that also applies to the pedestrian. The offence that cyclists can commit is that of reckless riding. A pedestrian commits an offence if he fails to cross the road with due despatch, but I cannot help feeling that, as suggested by the Committee, it is time that pedestrians as road users should share in responsibility for road safety. I am glad to see that the Committee feel they have no alternative but to propose that it should be an offence for a pedestrian to enter a carriageway heedlessly, just as it is an offence for a motorist or cyclist to drive or ride heedlessly or recklessly. I should like again to add my congratulations to the Committee for their far-reaching Report, and I hope that the Ministry of Transport and Parliament will take steps as soon as possible to have their recommendations given the force of law. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby has suggested that the pigeon-hole for the reception of the Select Committee's Report has already been prepared. But even a pigeon must come out some time and I hope that my noble friend Lord Newton will use all his wiles to tempt the Report out into the open and into the light of day.
5.7 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am anxious at the outset to join with those of your Lordships who have paid tribute to the really wonderful work of this Committee. We have had an account of their proceedings from their noble Chairman and from the noble Marquess on the other side, and speaking as one who was privileged to appear before the Committee I may say that I was struck with the extraordinary kindness and courtesy with which they put questions and treated the witnesses. You could not have had a finer Committee from any point of view from which you could possibly judge them. They have produced a really remarkable Report. This Report, I submit, is literally a matter of life and death. That is not just a metaphorical expression but a literal description of the state of affairs. It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and it has been referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and other speakers, that there is a possibility that the Report may be overlooked. I do not believe the country is long going to continue to watch the proceedings of the Government in patience if they set up Committee after Committee and then proceed to ignore their recommendations. It simply will not work, certainly not when we are dealing with questions of life and death.
The noble Lord, Lord Alness, told us in his speech that in one year—1936–37 I think he said—road accidents involving personal injury numbered 200,000. Think of the loss entailed, not only in life and limb, but in all sorts of financial directions. The loss to insurance companies alone is estimated to amount to £20,000,000 a year. Something has got to be done, and I am perfectly certain the country, however grave the international situation may be, will expect the Government to take action following on the Report of so magnificent a Committee. As the noble Chairman of the Committee and the noble Marquess have reminded us, that Report was practically unanimous. The Report cannot be pigeon-holed. Your Lordships will all remember the Bressey Report, a most able document which came out a short time ago. It has been put away, and I suppose is going through the curious process of being put into a pigeon-hole and left there. Practically nothing has been done

895
with regard to it, although the Report has been out now for a month or six weeks, or perhaps a little longer. I should be interested to hear, when the noble Lord comes to reply, if he is able to tell us whether any steps whatever have been taken in connection with this Report.
There is another matter to which I should like to direct our Lordships' attention. There are some very serious criticisms of the Ministry of Transport in this Report. For many years I have been trying to keep track of the Ministry of Transport in its proceedings. I happen to be connected with a very important body which represents the whole of the commercial motor vehicle world outside, and they, like me, are intensely interested in the Ministry of Transport and what it does. And what do we find stated in paragraph 4 of this Report?:
"The Committee were not impressed by the evidence which they heard from its representatives regarding the organisation and working of the Department so far as road accidents and road construction are concerned. The Committee formed an impression that there is, in these matters, a lack of vision, of initiative, and of driving force in the Department."
What more serious view could be taken by the Committee? Remember that the Committee were absolutely unanimous in that view. That was the view of all the members, and there is no dissent from it.
In this Report there are no less than thirteen paragraphs which level criticism of one sort or another, in some cases serious, in others perhaps not so serious, against the Ministry of Transport. There are five other paragraphs that criticise the Ministry by implication. The plain fact of the matter is that there is a great deal to be said for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, this afternoon: that the direction of affairs of the Ministry of Transport should be taken away from the political field and put more under the experts. Of course you will have to have a Minister responsible to Parliament in some shape or form. But when you get thirteen clauses of a Report such as this criticising the Ministry directly and five by implication, I submit that it shows a very serious state of affairs. I entirely agree, from such knowledge as I have of these matters, with the view taken by the Select Committee. I have never been impressed with a feeling that the Ministry really took sufficient
896
heed of this question of loss of life and limb on the highway. There is far too great a tendency, not only in the country as a whole but in the Ministry, to take a very complacent view of all this and to be content to apportion the blame among other people.
There are some most serious criticisms of the Ministry. There is a further one in paragraph 16:
"… the Committee are unable to accept the conclusions of the Ministry regarding the causes to which these accidents are attributed."
And then they give reasons. I quite agree with that. Take the question of road construction: the Ministry have told us that they have worked out from statistics that only 1.2 per cent. of the accidents are due to defects of road design, whereas one of the most eminent road surveyors of this country, the road surveyor of Oxfordshire, carried out a most elaborate analysis of the area for which he was responsible and analysed all the accidents which took place in his area. He came to the conclusion that 75 per cent. of the accidents were directly or indirectly caused by defects of road design, and that if the Ministry's own specification with regard to the design and the improvement of roads had been carried out, those accidents would have been avoided. The Committee mention that fact and suggest, quite rightly and reasonably, that the truth probably lies somewhere between the two. It probably does; but you would have thought that when Mr. Bennett published his exhaustive analysis of the accidents in the area for which he was responsible—namely, in Oxfordshire—the Ministry would have carried out a fresh analysis—in fact, would have had inspectors there to see and cause inquiry to be held into how far the statements which he had made were justified.
I appeared, as I told your Lordships, before the Committee and had to give evidence on behalf of the great organisation for which I am responsible. The evidence we placed before the Committee was this:
"It seems clear to us that the Ministry have never conducted an investigation which would indicate to them and the public the proportion of accidents that might be saved if the national road system were comprehensively improved on the lines indicated in the Memorandum on the Lay-out and Construction

897
struction of Roads. If this is so, then it appears to us that they have not attempted to assess the effect of road conditions on accident numbers."
That was what we stated before the Select Committee, and, from all I can gather from the Report, I do not see that they really differed from it.
There are one or two recommendations in the Select Committee's Report to which I would like to refer. One is the question of the Highway Code. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I also was one of those who took a part in the drafting of the Highway Code. I was called in—the only occasion on which I have ever been called in on such a matter—and asked to sit on a Committee under the Ministry of Transport which was concerned with the drafting of the Highway Code. What Lord Ponsonby says is quite true: we had to consider whether to invite or to compel. As the Highway Code was not to be given the force of law, we thought that it was much better to invite, to ask and to urge. But the Select Committee now recommend that the Highway Code should be given the force of law. I should like to submit to your Lordships and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, that if you have to give the existing Highway Code the force of law it will have to be very considerably redrafted and remodelled. I quite agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has said, that when that redrafting and revision comes along, not only the Road Research Committee, which has got to be set up and is not yet in existence, should be concerned, but, as no doubt would be done, experts should be called in to help.
A few remarks have been made about speed, and of course the Select Committee have a paragraph on it: paragraph 26 deals with the subject of speed limits. There is one thing that I am sorry the Select Committee did not see their way to recommend. I speak for the commercial motor vehicle industry in this country, and one thing which we are most anxious to see take place, if it can be done at some time or another, is that there should only be one speed limit for commercial motor vehicles. As your Lordships no doubt know, it is a question of weight at the present moment. Vehicles of a certain weight are only allowed to go at 20 miles an hour, but vehicles below that weight are allowed to
898
go at 30 miles an hour. One of the things that create difficulty and danger on the highway is varying speeds. Your Lordships have probably seen a heavier commercial vehicle going along and a rather lighter commercial vehicle trying to pass it. The margin of speed between the two is very small: the lighter vehicle has very little more speed than the heavier one, and the result is that they travel alongside one another for very considerable lengths of the highway, and there is often the chance, on our inadequate highway system, that a vehicle will be approaching from the other direction. It is difficult to see how that can be avoided. It would also be very much easier from the point of view of the driver of a light motor-car overtaking heavy traffic if he knew that any commercial vehicle which he saw could be expected to be proceeding at the same speed. Not all drivers have great experience. I think it would have helped them a good deal if the Committee had been able to make that recommendation.
With regard to restricted areas, the Committee urge that restricted areas should be reduced in number and extent. I also support that view. I am most anxious that roads should only be restricted where Parliament obviously meant them to be restricted: where they are in obviously built-up areas. There are many stretches of roads to-day which are restricted roads but which are really out in the country, and there is no possible reason for having any speed restriction upon them except that there may be an isolated lamp-post or something of the sort. I could easily give your Lordships the sort of case that I have in mind. You probably all know Mitcham Common. There is a road which goes across the Common from Mitcham to Croydon, and there is scarcely a house within half a mile of the road. There is, I believe, one house the whole way across the Common, and there is no obvious reason why there should be a speed restriction there. Yet that is where the police are most active in order to get convictions for vehicles exceeding 30 miles an hour. I am most anxious that the law should be observed in this matter, but I do not believe in it, and do not like it, because I think it standardises the speed of vehicles, and concentrates the attention of the police far too much on one factor alone, to the neglect of other matters.

899
There are one or two other matters to which I would like to refer. There is very serious criticism in paragraph 91 of the Report of the statistics of the Ministry of Transport. I have already referred to the statistics of the Ministry of Transport, and I do hope that something can be done to improve those statistics. They really are most important. Then, if your Lordships will direct your attention particularly to paragraph 92, I would say that I do not think a more important paragraph, from the point of view of road safety, ever figured in any Report presented to this House. Really it contains almost the kernel of the whole thing from the road construction point of view. It says:
"If more vigorous action is not taken in the future than in the past, there will be a complete strangulation of traffic, for saturation point has almost been reached."
The figures of accidents have been quoted in this Report by the Select Committee, and it was pointed out by Lord Alness that 60 per cent. of the fatal accidents occurred in built-up areas. The reason, I would suggest, for that state of affairs is probably that that is where the maximum congestion takes place. The more the roads of this country get congested, the more our accident figures are likely to increase. I entirely endorse what the Committee have said.
Every one of your Lordships must know that it is perfectly true, from some points of view, that the saturation point has been reached. If any of your Lordships happen to try to return to London along any of the main roads leading into London, on a fine Sunday evening, you will find colossal blocks of traffic, which stick for hours together, and it is quite impossible to move in any direction. That state of affairs is getting much worse. Motor vehicles, your Lordships have been told, are increasing at a net rate of 500 a day, and yet there is practically no new motor road construction, and such as is undertaken proceeds with the slowest possible speed. Take, for instance, the Western Avenue. It was started in 1921, and it will not be completed for another two or three years. Examples of that kind can be multiplied. Even the Western Avenue will require improvement in a short time. It is one of the most dangerous roads in London to-day, and it is used by an enormous
900
amount of industrial traffic, as well as by light motor car traffic. One would have thought that the Ministry would have gone ahead and tried to get that road improved.
There are many other points in the Report which I would have liked to bring to your Lordships' notice, but I feel that I have probably taken up too much of your Lordships' time already. There is, however, one matter to which I would like to refer, and that is the question of a motorway. The British Road Federation, of which I happen to be Chairman, organised the visit of the German Roads Delegation, who included members of both Houses of Parliament, road surveyors, representatives of county and borough councils, etc. I am not one of those who are prepared to dogmatise, that we should have exactly the German Autobahnen over here—I think probably we shall have to have something a little different—but I entirely support the Report of the Select Committee on this particular matter. They have suggested that an experimental motorway should be constructed. I was surprised to hear Lord Newton tell us that he was against motorways because in Germany the population was less dense than in this country. I should have thought that that was a good reason for having a motorway in this country.
With regard to a motorway the Committee in their Report give the approximate idea, which is a motorway from the London area to the Birmingham area, along an entirely new alignment, avoiding existing towns and villages. Evidence was given by a representative of the Ministry of Transport that the cost would be about £6,000,000. It so happens that that is the precise figure which the Ministry of Transport has authorised to be spent in improving roads in the crofter counties of the north-western Highlands. At a time like this, when money is hard to come by, it is difficult to understand why it is necessary to spend £6,000,000 on any such purpose, but I would ask your Lordships to contrast it with this proposed motorway, and to ask yourselves which is really likely to be more valuable to the country. These are not times when we want to spend a farthing more than is necessary, but it seems to me that here you have one of the most important industries in this country entirely dependent upon the roads.

901
Take it also from the point of view of national defence. Can we say that our roads are adequate for the purpose if the need comes? This country can exist without its railway system, but it certainly cannot exist without its road system. The railways are more vulnerable than the roads, and we may have to depend upon our roads to keep the country going. It is a matter which concerns us from every point of view, and I wish strongly to support the recommendations of the Select Committee. I only wish I could pay adequate tribute to the labours and wonderful work of that Committee. But I want to say this before I sit down, that I personally—and I am perfectly certain that I am only speaking for thousands and perhaps millions more—will never forgive the Government if they put this Report into a pigeon-hole and do nothing about it. It is a matter of life and death. I want that never to be forgotten.
5.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Newton, I have the honour to be connected with the Pedestrians' Association, but I do not ask your Lordships to think that I am speaking on behalf of that association. Nor am I able to assure your Lordships that everything that I am about to say would be agreed to by that body. At the same time there are just one or two things I would like to say about pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, objects altogether to the word or the classification "pedestrian," but of course he is wrong, as I would ask him to believe if he were here; because it is perfectly plain that when you are a pedestrian you have certain rights and certain duties and a certain position, which may indeed be changed, by your taking a cab for instance, but while you are a pedestrian you are a pedestrian, and provision must be made for your safety.
There is one other observation I want to make about pedestrians. One or two noble Lords who have spoken have suggested that the attitude of pedestrians, admitting that they exist, is wholly selfish and unpatriotic, that they are prepared to regulate everybody else's user of the road, but not their own. I think that is a very one-sided and unfair representation of the attitude of those pedestrians that I know. I believe that many of
902
them at any rate would be prepared to make very great concessions as to their rights and duties if they were satisfied that by so doing they would really produce a considerable improvement in the fearful conditions in which we find ourselves. I think I ought to remind noble Lords, if they do not know it, that quite recently this association—compared to the great motorist associations a very poor and almost indigent association—has taken a considerable part in advocating the better use of road crossings by pedestrians, and quite recently issued, I am told, half a million leaflets entirely concerned with that subject. It is quite untrue to say that they are not prepared to do what they can to meet the great difficulties we are in.
In that very brilliant speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, he a little understated, if he will allow me to say so—although he said it very fairly—the figures of the road slaughter. He gave the figures for 1936. The year 1937 was a good deal worse. There were in that year 6,590 people killed and 226,355 people injured; and in 1938 there was no improvement—6,595 people were killed and 226,854 were injured. I do not know that that makes a very great deal of difference when you come to these figures. They are all, in the current phrase, almost astronomical in their extent, and they do undoubtedly present, as he very truly and forcibly said, a tremendous problem which, I agree with other speakers, has been far too long neglected by the governors of this country.
I have made one or two notes about the details of the Report, but I do not think I should be occupying your Lordships' time usefully by going into those. Some day, I hope soon, we shall have a Bill founded on the recommendations of the Report. I hope perhaps we may even get other things into it besides those included in the Report, and then will be the time to make detailed criticism. I am not therefore going to attempt any detailed criticism of the Report now. I take from the noble Lord's statement, and accept it, his view that the two great reforms they recommend are propaganda and segregation. As to propaganda, I am all for trying it to the utmost. It cannot do any harm, it may do a great deal of good. It has done a great deal of good—and the Report is founded on that largely—in Lancashire, as we know.

903
The figures are extremely interesting and striking. Whether they can be maintained I am not quite so sure. Propaganda, as the Report recognises, loses its force very rapidly when it becomes familiar, and there is a considerable difficulty in keeping it always fresh. But still let us try it.
As to segregation, I also humbly entirely agree with the general principle of the paragraphs of the Report which recommend segregation. I believe it is the only way out. I believe it must be carried very far indeed. I am perfectly certain that, human beings being as they are, and being capable of a certain amount of care, it is trying them much too high to ask traffic going at four, five, six or seven miles an hour to use and occupy the same roads as traffic going at forty, fifty, sixty or seventy miles an hour. It has nothing to do with exceptional wickedness on the part either of the motorist or the pedestrian. It is simply that you are putting them under conditions in which safety is impossible. My only criticism there is that I think the Committee might perhaps have gone a little further than they have gone in that direction. They do recommend an experiment in what we may call the German cement roads—they call them Autobahnen, I think, but I am not a German scholar. I am all for the experiment because I am for all experiments. I should like to see several different experiments tried in connection with various safety devices under various conditions. Then we should have real facts to go upon instead of, necessarily at the present time, a great deal of theory.
But the only thing that I desire to press upon the House is that I do think, with all respect to the Committee—and I have the deepest respect for the Committee—that they have underrated the factor of speed. I cannot believe that they are right in thinking it has so little force, and I venture to enter my protest against the attitude adopted, not so much by the Committee but generally, in regard to speed. It is regarded as a kind of positive good, a kind of fetish, a thing to be admired in itself. Some people even apply to it the ordinary language applied to sport. I can see nothing sporting whatever in driving a machine very fast along a road to the danger of the other users of the road. It does not appear to me to be
904
at all a sporting proceeding. But it is regarded as a kind of fetish, and the moment you get up against that feeling held by a great many motorists, you are conscious that you are up against a perfectly impenetrable wall of prejudice. They think that anything that is going to interfere with the general speed of motor cars is a retrograde step.
I would not suggest that that was the attitude of the Committee, but I cannot help feeling that even they were a little infected by this impression. I notice that they say they would be very sorry if restriction of speed went any further. On the contrary, they look forward to the time when it can be greatly removed. In passing, I must say that that seems to me a matter on which the local authorities of the district through which a road passes ought to be consulted very much more than they are consulted at the present time. They say, on page 11 of the Report, that there is too much restriction. I cannot conceive on what ground they put that statement forward unless they regard it as a serious matter if the speed of motor cars is reduced. They do not say restriction is unnecessary. They do not say restriction is not desirable. On the contrary, they say it is essential, and, if it is essential, then I cannot imagine why they think it desirable that it should be reduced to any extent.
I observe another of their phrases with reference to this question of speed is that if you re-impose a speed limit that would unreasonably retard progress. They will forgive me for saying that I regret that attitude. I deny that speed and progress are convertible terms. I cannot bring myself to doubt that speed is, in the end, the most important element of danger on the road. After all, we are dealing with a new problem in this great slaughter of people on the roads. What is the fundamental distinction between driving now and driving before this slaughter began? It is the advent of the motor car, and the only difference between the motor car and the horse-drawn carriage is that the motor car goes much faster. In all respects the horse-drawn carriage was less manageable than the motor car, but in the one respect of going faster the motor car has increased the danger.
That is not the only thing. I will not ask your Lordships to listen to a long

905
argument on the subject, but the mere fact that the central areas of towns are very nearly free from accidents, though they are the most crowded, is impliedly admitted in the Report, and the reason given is perfectly true—namely, the traffic is so great that speed is very severely limited. No doubt that is the reason. There was an experiment tried in the American town of Providence, where the speed limit was introduced for the first time and was fixed at 25 miles an hour, with an immense reduction in the casualties in the street. That, of course, is not conclusive. You may say, and with truth, that other circumstances may have induced the improvement, but it is a fact that must be borne in mind. Quite apart from these reasonings as to facts—I will deal with what the noble Lord had to say about it in a moment—surely it stands to reason that a car going, let us say, at 60 miles an hour is much more likely in unforeseen circumstances to cause an accident than a car going at 30 miles an hour. Just conceive 60 miles an hour—I make it that that means 30 yards a second, roughly, or 15 yards in half a second. Suppose a child runs out into the road 20 yards in front of the car, it is most incredible that the car can be stopped in half a second if it is going at 60 miles an hour. There is not sufficient time even to apply the brakes, much less stop the car. If you compare that with a car travelling at 30 miles an hour you have at least a second to act, and a second is a great deal longer than half a second in such circumstances and makes a great deal of difference.
There is this further consideration, that if you can apply the brakes you reduce the speed from 30 miles an hour to something very much less. Far less reduction can take place in the case of a car travelling at 60 miles an hour, so that when the collision takes place it is much more serious in the case of a fast-going car than in the case of a slow-going car. That argument seems to me impossible to refute. It seems to me quite clear that, once there is danger of an accident, the faster a car is going the more likely is an accident to occur, and the more serious it will be if it does occur. My noble friend said, with much force, that accidents diminished after the abolition of the 20 miles an hour limit. But the noble Lord will remember that the 20 miles an hour limit was never observed, and that was
906
indeed the main ground on which it was removed. It had become simply a defiance of the law. Then he said that most accidents occurred in restricted areas. I cannot pretend to have examined the figures, but my information is that that is not true. I am informed that as far as vehicles are concerned there are more accidents in the non-restricted areas than in the restricted areas. However that may be, as far as pedestrians are concerned no doubt there are far more accidents. There must be, because there are far more pedestrians. You can drive through the countryside and see a pedestrian every half mile perhaps. You cannot kill many on a road of that kind. But if you have them all crowded in the streets, as you do in the restricted, built-up areas, of course there must be many more accidents even in spite of restriction.
I must add that those who have watched the actual working of the speed limit assure me that it is very often disregarded even at the present time. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that seems to me the first thing to do—to see that the speed limit is effectively applied. I am sorry to trouble your Lordships on this point, but it is really so vital that I must just say a few more words upon it. What is the practical material advantage you gain by this speed? I think it is very small. I believe that the cases where you can say that being able to drive a car at more than 25 or 30 miles an hour produces any actual good to anybody are very few. There are of course cases. There is the celebrated case, of which we hear so much, of the doctor speeding to a patient who is in great danger. But these cases are extremely few, and in these cases, very properly, it is not considered necessary to enforce the penalties. I do not believe there are many such cases, nor do I believe that the speed limit diminishes speed over a long distance to anything like the extent some people imagine.
To take again this Providence experiment, they tried two cars. One was instructed to go as fast as it could without any regard to speed limits or traffic lights from one end of the town to the other, a distance of five miles, and the other was instructed never to exceed 25 miles an hour and to obey all traffic regulations. The non-regulated car arrived a

907
minute and a half quicker than the regulated car. I believe that, broadly speaking, the truth is that restriction, though it does prevent exceptional speed, does not prevent rapid transit over any important distance. I am afraid I am bound to conclude from this that the real case for speed is not the importance or value of it to the community, but because it gives pleasure to a certain number of rich people. That is the real case for speed, and in that they are supported, I think rather foolishly, by the great motorist organisations which have, unfortunately, very great advantages in any form of agitation in this country. I cannot help thinking that a fair consideration of the matter would lead to the conclusion that it is not safe to allow cars to be driven at great speeds along roads which are used by other members of the public—pedestrians if you like, or even cyclists, for after all they are entitled to consideration—and, so far as they exist, horse-driven vehicles. I do not believe it can be done with safety, and I am sure it is a scandal if that be true that something should not be done to limit these speeds.
I believe future ages will regard with consternation the complacency, the indifference with which this slaughter and mutilation on the roads is now regarded. I observe with great interest that in the final paragraph of the Report the members of the Committee themselves say that they are puzzled and shocked—I do not think I am exaggerating what they say—by the complacency with which this matter is regarded. I agree most heartily with them. There is no need to attribute blame to those who have assisted in this complacency. You have on the one side a great unorganised body of pedestrians and others, not rich enough and not having the power of making their views felt because they are not organised, and on the other hand you have the great motorist organisations, immensely wealthy, immensely vigorous. I will not say they are unscrupulous, but their agents certainly serve their companies with great devotion, and they carry on the battle against the unhappy pedestrian with great advantages. Your Lordships are entirely free from those influences. You do not depend upon votes. You can do justice if you will, irrespective of what
908
the consequences may be to the Government of the day. I ask you for justice in this matter. I ask you, when you come to enact this law, to consider very carefully whether it is really true that a reduction of speed would not make for a considerable degree of safety on the roads. If you arrive at that conclusion then I venture to ask that in any future legislation all public roads which are used by all members of the public should be subjected to a really effective speed limit, and that if motorists want to go at great speeds they should go upon such motor roads as have been suggested, where the conditions would be analagous to those which prevail on railways and not to those which prevail on roads.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that at least the members of your Lordships' House have reported, and the Report which we are discussing to-day has not in any way come under malign influences.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not suggest that. I am sure the noble Lord did not think I was making any such suggestion. So far as that part of my observations is concerned what I meant was that in point of fact the members of the Committee had the benefit of being able to judge from the evidence submitted to them, and I know, because I have been on a Committee, that the evidence submitted by the motorists' interests was always extremely well prepared, and extremely well delivered, and every detail and every fact was extremely well organised. Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that the Committee took a rather more favourable view than I did on the problem of speed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will accept that explanation. I do not know that I can do so to the same extent, because I consider that the Report is one of the fairest reports that has ever been issued by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. It takes into account all the various points of view which were represented before it. I want to join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on having moved this Motion. I supported the Motion when he moved for the appointment of a Select Committee originally in this House, and I am very glad I did so. I

909
wish to pay a tribute to the Report itself, and to the work which has been done by the Committee on behalf of all the interests represented. I think we ought to take note here to-day that the late Minister of Transport, Mr. Leslie Burgin, also welcomed this Select Committee. He told me personally that he did so. That this Report should have appeared at the moment when a new Minister of Transport, Captain Euan Wallace, has been appointed, ought, I think, to be a very happy omen for it. That the new Minister of Transport should have presented to him on his entry into his office a Report of this nature must be a matter of great satisfaction to him.
So far as the Report itself is concerned, I cannot agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Newton that propaganda and education would not be a very useful measure in reducing the death toll on the roads. I happen to be Chairman of an organisation of veteran motorists, who are 36,000 strong in this country. Its aim is careful driving and its motto is "Care and courtesy." In May of last year it inaugurated for a few days, with the consent and the blessing of the then Minister of Transport, a campaign with the object of bringing before the motoring public, cyclists and pedestrians, the advantages of driving and walking carefully. This organisation was in touch with different Chief Constables in the country. The campaign lasted through Whitsuntide, and after it was over we received information which proved that the casualty lists in the particular areas where the campaign had taken place were less in comparison with those of the year before. Another campaign of a similar nature is being carried through this month, also with the blessing and support of the present Minister of Transport, and I believe we shall find that very similar results will have been obtained.
From the experiment which was made in Lancashire by the Chief Constable by an intensive use of motor patrols whose object was courtesy and not prosecution, we learned that the casualties were reduced by 46 per cent. during that period compared with the same period of last year. There is definite proof that education and propaganda is of the greatest use and I wish to support very strongly indeed the recommendations
910
made in paragraphs 25 to 31 which deal with education and propaganda for the use of care and courtesy on the road. I do not think a campaign of that nature can be too widely spread, and I believe that all our people, whether they be motorists or cyclists or pedestrians, will respond to it if it is brought universally to their notice. Motorists as a body are not more cruel in nature than pedestrians or cyclists. They do not wish to go out and create a death roll on the roads, as was almost suggested by my noble friend Viscount Cecil. To-day they are so hedged round with regulations and laws that if any law is capable of preventing people carrying out something of that kind they would be prevented.
With regard to pedestrians, we are all pedestrians most of the time and probably motorists for a very short part of our daily lives. I do not think any noble Lord can get up here and talk as from the pedestrian's point of view alone, and look at other noble Lords and say, "You are motorists and not pedestrians." We all have the same knowledge of walking. There are a number of things one observes as one walks along which could very well be adjusted by imposing certain regulations on pedestrians which would be of advantage to the pedestrians themselves. There was a suggestion that a pedestrian walking in a town who happens to be near a crossing should be made to cross the road at that crossing, and not do a sort of jay walk about twenty-five yards from it, zig-zagging across the road in the path of motorists driving legitimately at a legitimate pace. It has been suggested that in those cases the onus of any accident should be placed upon the pedestrian. I think that is perfectly fair. Again, where there are footpaths pedestrians should use those footpaths, and not walk in the middle of roads when motorists are travelling along. That surely is perfectly fair. That applies also to cyclists, where tracks are provided for them. I agree with my noble friend Earl Howe, that the Highway Code should be brought into law, although probably it would require certain adjustments to give it a better aspect from the legal point of view.
Now with regard to roads. I believe that to-day there must certainly be some limitation on the roads that are built. It is perfectly true that additional roads

911
are required to carry all the motors that are being used now and will be used in the future. In these days, when there is immense expenditure on armaments and defence, I feel quite sure that the Government must have some difficulty in finding funds for the construction of roads along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Eltisley in his speech. I venture to suggest that if any roads are to be built, at least they should be roads of tactical or strategical advantage, and that they should be roads which would enable people to be evacuated from the large towns, roads which would fit in with the measures of defence which are being taken.
Within the last week a new Budget has been introduced under which motorists will pay an additional large sum. The horse-power tax is to be increased by nearly 75 per cent. This is not the moment, I agree, to debate whether that is the right way to impose a tax, or whether it would not have been better to have put a penny or twopence on petrol and so let everybody share the burden and not interfere with the manufacturing or export trade in motors. The reason I raise the point is that this large sum is to be raised not for the purpose of making roads but for the purpose of defence. Consequently the Government cannot count on anything more from this taxation in order to carry out a programme which is very necessary for the safety of the roads. I do not believe, however, that that should interfere altogether with this programme. Over £100,000,000 per annum is being taken in taxation from the motorists to-day. If it is necessary to curtail expenditure somewhere else in order that a fair proportion of that money could be spent on the needs of motorists—which, after all, are also the needs of pedestrians and cyclists—I venture to suggest that the Government should do so. There are many points in this very admirable and long Report which one could comment upon, but I only wish to end on this note, that I venture to hope that the Minister of Transport will take this Report into very early consideration and bring as much of it into law as he possibly can.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I rise to address your
912
Lordships for the first time, and I crave that indulgence which you extend to a speaker making his maiden speech. I would like first of all to call attention to one point which does not occur in this very excellent Report. It is already the subject of an Act, but sufficient attention is not paid to it, and that is the question of tyres. Smooth tyres constitute one of the greatest menaces on our roads to-day. I have seen just recently a number of public vehicles—lorries, and some private 'buses—running about the roads with their tyres through not only to the breaker-strip but right down to the canvas. That is a serious criminal offence, for a burst tyre may throw a car out of control and cause unlimited damage. It ought to be punishable very severely.
Secondly, I come to the subject of roads. I heartily endorse what the noble Earl said about roads on a fine Saturday or Sunday evening. I will give your Lordships one example. Last Easter Monday I was coming back from Devon on a main road, A30. From the junction of the Farnborough and Camberley roads to the bridge by the Cricketers Hotel, a distance of perhaps two miles, took me forty-eight minutes to cover—on a main road. The railways have an admirable slogan, "Clear the lines," and that could equally well be adopted by the Ministry of Transport. Clear the lines with large, wide bridges, and clear the roads of old-fashioned and out-of-date level crossings. As Autobahnen have been discussed, I submit that such a road exists or is in process of being finished in this country. That is the admirable stretch of road between Leatherhead and Dorking. One section of the old road has been converted into a one-way street, and a fine new section with super-elevated corners has been built. There is a marked contrast between the two; the narrow old road with its reverse camber, and the new road, on which it is possible to go round the corner, keeping on the outside of the road, within about six inches of the kerb.
Road surfaces, particularly in London, seem to consist largely of a very dangerous material: wood blocks. It is impossible to stop from twenty miles an hour in less than sixty-seven feet on a wet wood-block road. A child runs out; you put your brakes on, and what happens? The car slides forward, and all the more so because the authorities have the habit of throwing sand or small

913
stones on the roads; they make it worse. A bad example of a wood-block road is the Haymarket. There is a 'bus stop on the left-hand side of the road about halfway down, just before Panton Street. When it is wet the 'buses stopping there slide forward five or six feet; they cannot do anything about it. To watch them go round the corner at the bottom is quite funny and sometimes pathetic.
Recently an article appeared in a paper called Timber and Plywood in which they took my noble friend Lord Sandhurst to task for creating and talking about woodblock roads. They said that they must attend to his education: that he must remember that his old school tie was in these days woven from wood. Lord Sandhurst told me to-day that he was very upset about it and has taken immediate steps to see that the next old school tie he buys shall be woven from glass, as he does not believe in having anything that is out of date!
6.16 p.m.
LORD PERRY: My Lords, like the last speaker, this is the first time that I have ventured to address you, and I am sure you will extend to me the indulgence that is necessary, particularly after what happened this afternoon, and forgive me if I make any infractions of the conventions of the House and its usual methods of behaviour. We are discussing the Report on the Prevention of Road Accidents, and I find myself, having read it very thoroughly, in perfect agreement with all its recommendations and in great admiration of the way in which its conclusions and recommendations have been arrived at. But in the debate this afternoon I am impressed by the almost unanimous fear of every speaker that nothing will happen in consequence of this Report, and that it will be pigeon-holed or sent into oblivion. I wonder, therefore, what has been the use of the Report and all the work involved in preparing, publishing and discussing it, in view of the unanimous opinion regarding its fate.
For example, the Committee reported:
"The present road system is inadequate and out of date. It does not meet the traffic needs, the convenience, or the safety of road users."
The Committee were impressed throughout their inquiry by the fact that the Ministry appeared to be out of touch with the practical problems. Another refer-
914
ference was that the Ministry of Transport had shown lack of vision and initiative. A real knowledge of the facts brings out clearly that we have been let down by the Ministry of Transport. Lord Howe said that there were thirteen similar references in the Report directly and a number of others by implication. The Report is being considered by the House now with a view to having action taken concerning it, and yet your Lordships seem unanimously to be afraid that nothing is going to be done. Certainly if any action is taken, apparently what must be taken is action by this very severely criticised Department of the Government. It is not the present Government that is exclusively to blame; it has been every successive Government since the Ministry of Transport was first created which has been blameworthy for the conditions of to-day.
The Ministry was created soon after the Great War. It had many duties, among which the control of road traffic was perhaps the least, because the first Minister of Transport was obviously a railway-man. The Ministry was created in an atmosphere of protection for the railway and that atmosphere has permeated it and its actions ever since. The Ministers immediately succeeding the first Minister were considered by the Governments of the day to be of so little importance that no remuneration attached to their office. The appointment of other Ministers, I am sorry to say, has been used either as a means of reward for services elsewhere or as a stepping stone to higher things, as witness examples in the last three Ministers. Nothing in fact has been done by the Ministry of Transport during its existence but what may be described as eye-wash. There has for many years among motoring organisations been great agitation for central authority in respect of road control. Three years ago 4,500 miles of road were handed over to the Minister of Transport. I do not know if that was the result of that agitation. I rather fear that there was an ulterior motive. Whatever the reason the roads were handed over and the Report which we are now discussing says this:
"Since the Act came into operation"—
that is the Act by which these 4,500 miles of road were put under the control of the Ministry of Transport—
"there has been less work done on trunk roads than during the preceding five years."

915
So having achieved our central authority, we have a great deal more procrastination and a good deal more eye-wash than ever before.
I am sure it will interest your Lordships to recall, respecting the indication of pedestrian crossings, whether by steel studs or other disfigurements of the highway or by barbers' poles and oranges, that similar devices had been used and discarded abroad many years before the particular Minister with whose name they are associated adopted them in this country, indeed long before his name was even hyphenated. It is such a Department which is to receive this Report and take the necessary action to carry into effect its recommendations. It was certainly a very happy condition to have a Minister who could speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but unless he has also the knowledge such speaking is as sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. Unless he has some further qualification than mere eloquence, he is as nothing, and we shall get nowhere with our roads which are so vitally necessary. I agree with Lord Howe that this is a matter of life and death and yet, although almost unanimously every speaker this afternoon has without reservation, except perhaps in the case of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, supported the Report and recommended its immediate adoption, the implication in every case has been "Oh, well, we are merely hoping for the impossible." I do not know sufficient of the procedure of this House, but I think it is a scandal that we should receive so wonderful a Report in such a spirit and seem to be so impotent to insist that something should be done in carrying out its recommendations.
6.25 p.m.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I will deal very briefly with this vexed question. May I say first of all that the suggestions made by the Select Committee have been put forward from time to time by the Pedestrians' Association, with which I am connected? Many of these proposals, such as those for the exemplary punishment of motorists convicted of driving under the influence of drink or drugs, have been advocated by that association for many years past. Lord Newton ought to be very pleased to think that the proposal which he has made so persistently
916
year after year, that pedestrians on the pavement should keep to the left and not to the right, is endorsed by the Committee. I also made one recommendation—namely, that maps or charts should be prepared and published showing dangerous spots where accidents are likely to occur or have occurred. These could be on sale and be made use of by both motorists and pedestrians.
Still, I am disappointed that so little attention is paid in the Report of the Select Committee to the reduction of accidents at the present time. Education, no doubt, particularly of children, is an excellent proposal, but a long-term policy means that you can hardly apply the advantages of improvements of roads to built-up areas. They will only apply to the district outside the towns and therefore there will be a very great number of casualties continuing to occur in built-up areas. The Select Committee's Report lays stress on the fact that there are a greater number of accidents in built-up areas than in the unrestricted parts. Of course, because the greater number of people are in built-up areas. In this connection I would just read a part of a report which has been prepared for me by my association with regard to figures for the Metropolitan Police area. It says that in 1934, before the speed limit in built-up areas, 1,434 persons were killed. In 1935 (the speed limit came into operation on March 18) 1,103 persons were killed, a reduction of 331. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis also commented in his report that in the first three months after the operation of a speed limit the number of fatal accidents in which vehicles not previously subject to the speed limit were involved was reduced by a half, whereas the number of accidents involving vehicles which were always subject to a speed limit—namely, public service and commercial vehicles—remained the same.
That shows that the restriction of speed had a very great effect in relation to the safety of pedestrians. I regret that in such a very excellent Report as that of the Select Committee so little regard is paid to the reduction of the number of accidents at the present time. This long-term policy which they advocate would take many years to carry out, and during that period the slaughter would continue. Lord Cecil dealt with the experience of the

917
town of Providence in the United States of America, showing the great benefit which had been obtained by motorists and the general public from a speed limit. I think the death rate fell in that case by half. Then, I think, there was put before the Committee evidence in regard to vehicles fitted with a device which limited the speed of the vehicle, but the Committee, I regret to say, did not see fit to put this into their Report.
I wish to mention two points of which I gave private notice to the Minister of Transport. One was as to whether any further information than that contained in the Report is available with regard to the effect of one-way streets on pedestrians and the number of deaths and accidents caused thereby. The Report says that they are only about.08 per cent. of the whole. It is very difficult in crossing these one-way streets to remember that they are one-way streets, and I imagine there must be a considerable number of casualties occurring through this fact. I do not know whether any further information can be given on this point by the noble Earl who will reply.
The other point was whether in making new tube stations or remodelling old ones lifts should not be installed, in addition to escalators. The statistics have shown that about 68 per cent. of the people killed are either below eleven years of age or over sixty, that is, children or elderly and infirm people. They dare not go on the escalators. I am sure the experience of your Lordships will be that they object to venturing on an escalator. It is not safe for very old people and for young children. Therefore I hope that it will be insisted upon that lifts are put in, in addition to escalators, when in future any new tube station is built or any old one remodelled.
6.32 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I regret to intervene at this stage, but I understand it will meet the convenience of the noble Earl who is to reply. I think that the House will have been impressed by the fact that it would be an enhancement of our debates if the noble Lord, Lord Perry, were able to intervene somewhat more frequently than in times past in our discussions. There is one matter which I think should be mentioned, or rather summarised, before the noble Earl replies, and that arises out of a good many of
918
the comments which have been made in the House and out of the very fact that something like two hundred recommendations have been made by the Committee. If a Committee appointed by this House, addressing its mind to these problems as this Committee did, coming to them fresh without prejudice, arrives at the conclusion that this considerable number of recommendations should be made, and should be given effect to, is it not clear that we have not hitherto been provided with a proper thinking department in this matter? Otherwise it would not be the case that a Select Committee, set up as this was and working as this has done, would have produced a Report of this character.
And that compels me to make one or two observations, to which I hope the noble Earl will reply, upon the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and that is as to the evidence put before us about the general character of the work of the Ministry of Transport itself. Of course it is true that the Ministry has been used as, so to say, a transfer platform to other posts, but I do not accept that at all as a sufficient reason for a Minister, and more particularly a Ministry, failing to deal in a constructive deliberate and continued fashion with the problems with which they are paid to deal. The fact that you had passenger Ministers is really not sufficient explanation of the strange phenomenon with which we are confronted to-day. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that the Ministry of Transport should be a Commission with a Chairman, and not perhaps very amenable to Parliamentary pressure. I think the present Report goes to show that we ought to have a Ministry that is more susceptible to public pressure, and I sincerely hope that this will not mark the end of the efforts of this House to get something done about this Report, but will mark the beginning of a sustained endeavour.
There are two aspects of the Ministry's work which appear to me to emerge very prominently from this Report, and to which I would ask the noble Earl to turn his mind. After all, when accidents occur obviously the right course to take is to ascertain the conditions in which they occur, so far as you can, to find out why they occur, and then take the necessary steps so far as you can to prevent their

919
recurrence. That is just the common sense of the situation. Now what do we find in fact so far as the Ministry is concerned? I have taken the trouble to look up the evidence, and it will be found on page 577 of the Minutes of Evidence. The fact is that, although there were 200,000 or more injuries on the roads in 1937 the Ministry themselves have no machinery for being informed about those accidents unless they happen to occur on trunk roads. It was brought out in evidence that it appears never to have occurred to the Ministry that they ought to establish machinery to inform themselves as to the character of those accidents.
We had before us a very remarkable example of the necessity of informing yourself precisely of the circumstances of the different accidents in the Report of the surveyor for the county of Oxford-shire. This man took the trouble to go into the different accidents and find out as well as he could what they were due to, and, where they were due to something in the road which ought to be attended to, he had it attended to and effected a very remarkable improvement. The fact is, as is shown in our Report, that the Ministry are possessed of eight accident officers. I did a little sum in arithmetic and perhaps the House will be interested in knowing what was the result. There were 200,000 or more accidents, and that meant that there were about 500 a day, and each of these accident officers, if he had attended to them, would have had about three minutes per accident. Well, of course, you only have to state a fact of that kind to display the absurdity of the present position. That was one of the reasons which lay behind the recommendation of the Committee that there should be a road safety research body, using the whole of the organisation, vastly augmented, which will be able to inquire in a sensible and practical way into the different accidents—why they occur, what road improvements they call for, and so on. It is not enough simply to blame the folly or carelessness or thoughtlessness of the pedestrian because it is quite clear that, just as we have a handrail to our own staircases to prevent our falling over them, so a large number of safeguards or improvements will reduce the number of accidents by preventing the possibility of thoughless acts. It
920
was proved in Oxfordshire and in other evidence before the Committee that where the cases are properly inquired into, with proper machinery created for making the inquiries, then you will be able to plan your provisions so as to prevent accidents occurring.
That brings me to the next big difficulty to which the noble Earl should attend. There is no planning machinery, so far as we can see, in the Ministry at all. There is this authority over a limited number of main roads which does not appear to have galvanised them into much activity so far as the records put before us are concerned. In fact, they have done much less than the local authorities whom they have superseded. We have been told that they are still thinking about a programme and that there has been a road improvement programme on paper for three years, but nothing has been done about it. I suppose it will remain on paper, this programme of necessary road improvements recommended by the Ministry to the Treasury. In the first place, the Ministry are not able to draw up a programme of road improvements at all except in so far as they concern trunk roads. There is no machinery, as far as I can see—in fact it was admitted in evidence—for informing the Ministry as to defects in the roads at all, outside trunk roads, unless they learn of them by accident. There is no machinery for automatically informing the Ministry what is required in the roads.
When road defects are revealed either by accident or in some other way on the small mileage of trunk roads, they are referred, in so far as they are referred to anybody, to the road engineers; but there are only eight engineers for 20,000 miles of roads. You only have to state that fact. There is no machinery, therefore, in the Ministry, and, so far as I can elicit, it never seems to have occurred to anybody that there should be machinery—that is the significant and sad fact—for informing the Ministry as to the distribution of accidents, the causes of accidents, and what ought to be done to prevent them on the one hand, or the extent of deficiencies in the roads, what ought to be done to improve the roads, what ingredients should enter into a national road programme, or anything of that kind.
In my opinion—I am speaking only for myself—the central reason why after

921
this length of time you have a Select Committee which produces this great body of recommendations, unanimously supported, is that we have not had a proper Governmental machine put together for dealing with this problem at all. We have not got one now, and if anybody wants to be convinced of the fact all he has to do is to read the Report or, better still, the evidence supporting it. I am hopeful that the noble Earl will decline to allow this Report to be pigeon-holed. I am more hopeful than the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I think public life shows us that if you make yourself sufficiently a nuisance long enough and often enough you will get something done. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will take note of that fact in respect of this matter. I do hope the noble Earl will not forget in his reply, or perhaps afterwards, if he does not see fit to reply on the point now, that the most important fact of all and the main cause of our continued impotence in this matter is that we have not yet created a proper and efficient central State Department to deal with it. Might I, in conclusion, without impertinence, on behalf of my fellow members of the Committee, say that I am quite sure the reason why the work was done so harmoniously and so unanimously was due largely to the fact that we were presided over by a Chairman of eminent clarity and fairness throughout the whole length of our deliberations?
6.47 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, we shall be all agreed that this has been not merely a very useful but a very important debate. Not least amongst its uses is that it has shown us that we have two very good and useful new members who are going to take part in our discussions—the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Perry, who obviously have great knowledge of their subject and can also add not only wisdom but considerable cheerfulness to our proceedings. Another point on which we are quite unanimous is that we owe to the noble Lord, Lord Alness, who took the chair of this Committee, and also to the members of the Committee, a debt of gratitude. They have produced a most compendious document taking into account all the evidence they had.
922
That evidence we have been told takes up over 600 pages and the Report has taken fifteen or sixteen months to produce. We can safely say that almost every proposal that has been made lately or in the last two years with regard to this vital problem has been carefully examined by the Committee. After all that, as your Lordships have been reminded, the Report is unanimous.
It has produced a very interesting debate and one in which a certain number of points of view have been expressed. These points of view have been quite unanimous in one respect, and that is that very few of your Lordships seem to like the unfortunate Ministry of Transport. If I may say so, a number of points and useful bits of work that that Ministry has done have not been accorded the notice that your Lordships in common fairness would have wanted to accord if you had had them put before you. What is the extent of this subject? At the present time its extent is shown by the fact that we are discussing the actual death of 6,500 people during the last twelve months and injury to more than 200,000. I do not know how much comfort we can really take from statistics. After all, what is the difference between 6,500 and something over 7,000? But I think that if we are looking at this as a continuous problem, one that has to be dealt with on a long-term basis, we should take at least some comfort from the fact that whereas in 1930 one person was being killed for every 315 vehicles, to-day it is one person for every 460 vehicles. That is a decrease of just over 33 per cent., a figure that should not give us any sense of complacency, but nevertheless a figure which shows that some progress is possibly being made.
If I may say so, I thought the contribution made by the most reverend Primate was a very useful and important one. He drew attention to the fact that a great portion of this problem is not one of machinery at all. That is where I venture to say that some of your Lordships' unanimity in criticism of the Ministry of Transport is perhaps a little unfair. This is not an entirely new problem. How many realise that in the year 1900 there were nearly 2,000 deaths from traffic other than railways, and that with a population of nearly 10,000,000 less? I say that simply in order to help us to remind ourselves that we are dealing with

923
what is largely a psychological problem, and that there are some of us who are what is called "accident prone" and that whatever form of transport we use we are somehow going to get hurt, just as there are some people whom we ask to dinner in fear and trembling knowing always that there will be a spill on our tablecloth. I think that is a fact we have got to face when we are dealing with what is essentially a human and psychological problem.
That is a point which is referred to in the Report. In paragraph 31 the Report refers to the importance—and I do not think we can overrate it—of good relations between all road users, and it is said that it should be fostered by propaganda. Again, in paragraph 44, the Report refers to the possibilities that might arise out of a round-table conference, or series of round-table conferences, between representatives of road users. I personally believe that a considerable amount of good might result from action of that kind by removing the sense of grievance that does undoubtedly exist in so many people's minds, in the minds of motorists against pedestrians, in the minds of pedestrians against motorists, and in the minds of cyclists against pedestrians. This, when in a moment, in a flash, it has to be decided whether there is to be an accident or not, frequently influences, perhaps unconsciously, the act of a man or woman.
If I may say so, it seems to me one of the most hopeful features of this debate that there has been so extraordinarily little of that spirit of blaming one section or another. There has been very little reference to the actual figures of responsibility. The figures show that, according to the police—I do not know whether the figures are correct or not, but they are the best evidence we have—twice as many accidents are in fact caused by pedestrians as by cyclists or by motorists. I think those figures are important. On the other hand we should be pleased that there has not been a great deal of reference to them, because I do not believe we are going to solve the problem in that spirit. With those few remarks I think I have made it clear that I, at any rate, am a believer in propaganda. I think that propaganda properly used is going to be one of the most potent methods of dealing with this problem, and no regula-
924
tions, no prosecutions, however important in certain cases they and the right punishment of the offenders may be, are going to be a substitute for a right feeling.
A very great number of points have been put before us by the Report, and a very great number of points have been put before us in this debate. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that it would not be possible for me during the present debate to deal with all those points, particularly in view of the fact that the Report has only been out for just over a month and that my right honourable friend the new Minister has only been in his office for a fortnight. Naturally he wants to give consideration to all the points that have been put before him. But there are a certain number of categorical criticisms that have been made, some of which have been referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe. I think it might be helpful to the discussion if I ventured to say one or two things with regard to those criticisms.
The first, and I think one of the main points that was made against the Government, was with regard to the inadequacy of our road system. I do not think anybody who travels the country would venture for a moment to say we have an ideal road system in this country, but it may perhaps be of interest to your Lordships to know that during the last twenty years we have spent no less than £1,000,000,000 on the improvement of that system, and I do not think anybody would say that is a small figure. The Report refers, and noble Lords in their speeches have referred, to the small length of new roads constructed during the last few years. That is perfectly true, but against that we have the fact that at the present moment we have a greater mileage of roads in this country, compared to our surface, than anywhere else in the world. Rightly or wrongly we have taken as our first problem the widening of existing roads rather than the making of new ones. I know that is a point on which there is not entire agreement, but I do not think there can be entire agreement because you have to deal with different problems in different ways.
Reference has been made to trunk roads, to the fact that something in the realm of 4,000 miles of trunk roads have been handed over to the Ministry and that since then there has not been very

925
great activity. Actually there are at the present moment schemes for 885 miles of new road in existence. I think your Lordships may know that just about the time when these trunk roads were handed over to the Ministry of Transport we started having to bear very heavy financial burdens in other directions. I think it would only be fair to take that as in part an explanation of why progress has not been so swift during the last few years as noble Lords would have wished. At the present moment we cannot have everything. His Majesty's Government have to make a choice with regard to new expenditure. If I am not going off the point, I should have thought it one of the most amazing achievements of any Government that, at a time when we are spending over £2,000,000,000 on armaments in a very short period, there has been no talk as yet either in Government circles or in Parliament, of a cut in any of the existing social or public services. But that does not mean that we do not have to look with the greatest care at new undertakings.
The Report complains of disregard by His Majesty's Government of other Reports, and it mentions particularly—I think in paragraph 6—the Report with regard to safety among school children. I am not quite sure what evidence can have been taken on that point, because in fact local authorities are doing a very great deal in regard to that particular matter. They were at once told that they could have a grant of 50 per cent. of necessary expenditure, and they are taking considerable action with regard to putting up barriers and signs. We do not leave this question merely to local authorities, but our inspectors definitely regard it as part of their business to keep a good look-out and take up cases which the local people may appear to be neglecting.
As regards instruction in the schools, which was recommended, arrangements vary very considerably and it is difficult to give satisfactory statistics, but over 92 per cent. of the local education authorities in England and Wales are taking action with regard to instruction in schools. That instruction is given both by teachers and by police officers who go to the schools and lecture. Teachers are putting in a considerable amount of work with individual children. They watch children arriving at and leaving
926
school, they pick up cases of bad traffic behaviour and discuss them with the children, and give considerable assistance in that way. I noticed a report in the Press—I think on April 19—with regard to special investigations that have been carried out by certain large insurance firms quite lately. They said that children are now traffic-conscious and that this is due to the thorough grounding in road behaviour given in both elementary and secondary schools to pupils of every age. Of course initiative rests primarily with the local authorities, but I think your Lordships will agree that very considerable activity is taking place. What are the figures that result from this? I think your Lordships will consider them not only a very good defence of the Board of Education and the Ministry of Transport, but also very encouraging from the point of view of what propaganda and instruction can do. In 1934 the total number of deaths of children between five and fifteen years of age was 1,218. In 1937, the last year for which I have information, it was 928, a reduction of nearly 300, or 25 per cent.
In regard to matters such as lighting, where it is suggested the Government have taken no action, we can now make grants of 50 per cent. to local authorities for carrying out new schemes on trunk roads. In paragraph 173 reference is made to noise, a very important point, and again it is suggested that the Government have taken no action with regard to the recommendations of the Committee which dealt with that subject. In fact we have now come to an agreement with the manufacturers both of horns and of motor cars, which will operate as from July 1, to put into operation on a voluntary basis the recommendations of that Report. With regard to traffic signs, standardisation was immediately adopted and put into regulations. No grants are given for signs that are not approved, and a great number of unauthorised signs have been removed. There are other subjects with which I need not trouble your Lordships at length, such as tram and omnibus stops, which although seemingly trivial are really of importance. Considerable action has been taken there, and it includes in the Metropolitan Traffic Area 1,700 tram and 'bus stops.
Those are a few of the criticisms made, and I think your Lordships will agree

927
from the few remarks I have addressed to you that the Government have not been entirely inactive in regard to a number of recommendations that have been made. Take the case of the Road Safety Research Board. It is an important recommendation, and one that will have to be considered very carefully. The proposals with regard to Autobahnen, too, whatever we think of their merits, will have to be considered in the light of the financial position. A great deal has been said, and I thought that perhaps more would have been said, about the very important experiment that has been carried on in Lancashire and in other areas in the use of a mobile police force. The resulting figures have been very impressive, and it has been decided to continue the experiment for another six months to September, and from then onwards local authorities will receive the 50 per cent. grant on their expenditure for carrying on that work.
Many other recommendations have also been made with regard to cyclists, pedestrians, driving tests, insurance, construction and design of vehicles, playgrounds, methods of road construction, and the Highway Code. On none of these points at the present moment am I in a position to give your Lordships a full answer. I hear your Lordships laugh, but this Report has taken fifteen months to prepare, and I do not think I am treating it with undue respect if I say that we want something more than three or four weeks for its proper consideration. I can say this, however: that it is receiving the really serious consideration of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. I know there is a fear that it is going to find its way into a pigeon-hole from which it will not re-appear, at any rate until dragged forth by one of your Lordships in a further debate. I am in a position to assure your Lordships that that fear is ungrounded. If I venture to mention a number of points in defence of His Majesty's Government showing that considerable action has already taken place that has given results and has largely decreased the accident figures, that certainly does not mean complacency. The Report, and equally with the Report the debate, will, I hope, be a real stimulus to the Government Departments concerned, and not only to the Government Departments but also to those highway
928
authorities and other bodies and persons who are the partners of the Government in dealing with this vital and most important problem. With regard to the Motion on the Paper, I can only say that the matter is under the serious consideration of the Government and that the Government are certainly prepared to accept the Motion.
7.13 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, while I am sure that the House is very grateful to the noble Earl for the speech which he has just made, I must say that I should not be quite truthful if I said I was satisfied altogether with the reply which has been given on behalf of His Majesty's Government this evening. I feel that I am justified in suggesting that, because, as the noble Earl will, I am sure, admit, the House has not been given, perhaps for good reasons, any real indication of the effect upon the programme of His Majesty's Government which the publication of this Report is likely to have, or of the reactions of the Ministry of Transport which are probable as a result of the recommendations made in this Report. I certainly do not wish to be unfair in any way or to be too hasty, and it may be that insufficient time has elapsed for the digestion of this very weighty Report.
That, however, does not alter the fact that those of us here who are particularly interested in this subject could not honestly say that they were satisfied with the programme that has been outlined this evening. The noble Earl touched upon the somewhat debatable question of whether the right policy was to build entirely new roads over virgin country or to widen existing roads. I am no engineer and do not feel qualified to decide that point. I do, however, urge that some further consideration should be given to it to-day before the Ministry allow themselves to be finally committed to the policy of widening existing roads. I am advised, and it seems to be the fact, that the cost of widening roads is, by reason of the higher burden of acquiring land, considerably more per mile of road than the cost of building a new road.
The noble Earl said, and we of course quite appreciate, that the expenditure which is undoubtedly necessary on rearmament has hindered the development of the trunk roads. One is, however.

929
tempted to ask whether, if the trunk roads had not been taken over by the Ministry and had been left in the hands of the county councils during the last two years, more money would not in fact have been spent on them than has been spent. It may be that the answer to that question is that the Ministry have been spending their time and resources on the preparation of long-range road planning, and I very much hope that that indeed is the case, as I think the noble Earl suggested it was. But there is the additional fact that the motorist has recently been called upon to pay a very largely increased taxation by a method which was at any rate at one time, years ago, designed, I believe, especially to provide the wherewithal for the construction and repair of roads. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord's statement that the Government have found that the Lancashire experiment has proved so successful that it will be continued and that the 50 per cent. grant will be paid to local authorities who institute and continue this experiment. I am not quite sure whether I am right, but it occurred to me that the local authorities already receive a grant of, I think, 50 per cent. of their expenditure on mobile police. This grant therefore will not be, if I am correct, a new grant but merely a continuation of a grant in respect of added expenditure.
I do not wish to detain the House at this moment, but may I utter a plea that the provisions of the Report which deal in particular with the administration of the law shall receive very close consideration, and that the putting into effect of this Report when it does take place shall be drastic and even ruthless? Accidents will never be reduced except by these methods, and we must realise that these methods would be unpopular in many quarters. I believe that this problem is somewhat akin to the problem of unemployment. Nobody wants it. Nobody wants to seem to be able drastically to diminish it, because there is a certain reluctance to put into effect the inevitably unpopular methods which alone will have the desired effect. I refer of course to the attitude of members of certain organisations, who, for the sake of preserving their ancient rights to the liberties of the King's highway, insist upon using the whole of the highway, or are disinclined to allow themselves to be re-
930
stricted to cycle tracks and pavements and so forth.
I was disappointed to hear nothing from the noble Earl as to whether it was the intention to adopt the recommendation that the Highway Code, in a new form, should be converted into the law of the land. I do hope that that will prove to be the result. I think that the provisions in this Report dealing with this particular subject do, if I may say so, deal with it so successfully that it is strange to think that some of them were not put into effect a great number of years ago. I refer now to the clauses which deal with the procedure in courts of law, before even motor cars themselves were invented, and I particularly refer to the paragraphs which suggest, for example, that a man who desires to plead guilty to a road offence should be enabled to save much time and trouble both to the prosecution and himself by writing his plea, and by its being unnecessary on that account to call witnesses for the prosecution. There is also the suggestion that it should be possible to act upon previous convictions of a defendant, although he may be absent from the Court and although they have not been strictly and formally proved in accordance with the existing law. Those are some of the provisions, and there are others, which might well have been adopted many years ago, and I do plead that the time will not be long before they are put into practice. I would like to conclude by adding one more tribute to the excellence of this Report, and to the Committee who framed it.
7.23 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I have the greatest admiration for the gentle tones in which Lord Merthyr referred to the reply of the Government. I, personally, was more profoundly disappointed with it than I even anticipated, and that is saying a great deal. I did think that when the Government replied they would give us some hope that not only were they going to act on the Report fully, but that they were going to act on it quickly as well. What do I find? I find that it is going to be turned into a long-term policy. Accidents in this country have been a long-term policy for twenty years, and if we are going to continue at the present rate for another-twenty years, then I believe that the

931
people of this country are going to have something to say to the Ministry of Transport and the Government for permitting it.
I find myself to a certain extent in a difficult position. There have been, I think, seventeen speakers before me, and it is a little difficult after that to find something new to say, but when you have a Report such as this before you, which is such a wonderful example of how members of this House can do a great work when a great work is put in front of them, I do feel, late though the hour is, that one has a right to say one's say and to pay one's tribute to those men who prepared that Report. I had the great privilege and honour of appearing before the Committee, and I was struck with the amazing grip, if I may be allowed to say so, that Lord Alness had of the problem in front of him. When one came to read their Report, and, still more important, to do what it was quite evident, I am afraid, that the noble Earl who replied for the Government had not done—namely, to read the evidence—one did realise the extraordinary thoroughness with which the whole question had been gone into. Every single suggestion was based not upon one man's evidence but on the evidence of several people.
At the same time I do feel, because I hope that this debate is going to be read in the Ministry of Transport, and that it may act as a stimulus, that certain criticisms should be made, because even the wisest men in the world are apt to be led astray when they have the biased evidence of different sets of people in front of them. When you have the biased opinion of motorist, pedestrian and cyclist, it is very difficult to sort out what is the best and the wisest thing, but there is one hope I want to express, although after what has been already said by the Government I fear it is a forlorn hope. I cannot help saying that I hope the Home Office and the Treasury will not lay themselves open to the same merited criticism of lack of vision, initiative, and driving force as has been levelled at the Ministry of Transport, and will not have a six months experiment before adopting the mobile police system as already tried out in Lancashire. If you have had a thing tried out, as this has been tried out, and it has proved a success, why do you want to try it out for another six months?
932
That scheme has already saved in its experimental period a tremendous number of lives. It should be adopted throughout the whole country, and without an experimental period.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have already said that it was to be adopted in the sense that the Government were prepared to pay the whole rate for another six months.
LORD SANDHURST: In the areas where it is already in operation. I want to see it everywhere. I find it a little difficult to agree to one or two suggestions in the Report itself. One is extolled by the Government, and that is the suggestion for a round-table conference. I quite agree that that is a beautiful idea, but I do not know if any of you ever see Cycling. If you do, you will realise how much hope there is of success. Talking of the Report, the editor of Cycling finds it necessary to invent a new body of your Lordships' House, which he calls the Peers Road Council. Having invented it, he then elects four members of the Select Committee to it—the noble Lords, Lord Reading, Lord Iddesleigh, Lord Birkenhead, and Lord Brocket—and then, having described them as keen motorists, he says, "Let us see what this Committee recommends for cyclists." What is the idea? Obviously they are trying to get at their not too well educated public and suggest that this is such a biased Committee that no attention need be paid to their recommendations. If you get that coming along from the cyclists at the start, what hope have you of getting any straight thinking from them at a round-table conference?
Then, one rather more important item, and that is the question of driving licences. There are a good many suggestions in that respect with nearly all of which I agree, but there is one—the issue of a second learner's licence—which is a little bit hard. A period of twelve months is suggested during which he should have to wait for the issue of an additional licence. I quite agree that it is desirable that he should have to wait. I think six months would be a sufficient penalty for failing to pass his first test, but having failed a second time he should never be allowed to try again. Then there is one point about the suspension of licences. It is recommended that restraint in suspending licences should be

933
exercised where the future livelihood of a driver is concerned. That is a very dangerous recommendation. Restraint should always be exercised in the administration of the law; it should be always levied justly; but the man who is a professional driver, who is dependent for his livelihood on his licence, is the one man to whom no extra consideration should be given, because he is the one man who is spending most of his time on the road driving, and who has the greatest opportunity of doing damage and causing casualties which we all deplore so much.
Finally, with regard to brakes. There is a suggestion that the efficiency of brakes should be 30 per cent. I suggest that that is too low a figure. It should be made 50 per cent., and an additional obligation should be put on the local authority to provide a road surface which will provide tyre adhesion capable of holding a brake with a 50 per cent. efficiency mark. There is not a wood block in London that will do it, and I hope the Ministry will really take action to see that the road surfaces are made safe for every type of user from the man who walks in the rubber-soled shoe to the man who drives a high-speed car. In conclusion, may I impress on the Ministry that the greatest part of the recommendations in the Report can be carried out by regulation? If they really get down to it there is no reason why these regulations should not be before this House in the space of the next month. If they are prepared to make a long-term policy of it, I suppose members of the Select Committee as well as myself will
934
be members of another House before anything happens.
7.35 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is only by the indulgence of the House that I can say a word, but I cannot refrain from expressing my extreme disappointment at the statement made by the representative of the Department. He has, of course, nothing whatever to do with the Department. It may be my stupidity, but I did not gather that he was prepared to answer any of the questions of importance put to him. Neither was there any indication that any recommendation would be carried out without delay. The only additional fact I gathered from the noble Earl was that they would have to take several weeks to consider the recommendations before they could deal with them. Let me remind him that the Report has already been out a month. They have already had five weeks to consider it. I cannot help being reminded of a fact which everybody has forgotten that, years ago, the Prime Minister of the day promised to abolish the Ministry of Transport. If anybody who heard that statement made had been here to-day I do not think very much surprise would have been felt at this decision. I consider the reply made by the noble Earl to be thoroughly unsatisfactory, and I can safely promise that he has not heard the last of the matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS).
Petition of the London County Council under their Common Seal praying for leave to introduce a Bill to empower the London County Council to execute street works and acquire lands in the City of Westminster, and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL, STOCKPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL. [H.L.] BARMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the Droitwich Canals (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the additional provision:
Read, and agreed to.

MEDWAY CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.] CROYDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
ALL HALLOWS LOMBARD STREET BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

AMENDMENT OF THE ABERDEEN AND DISTRICT MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Amendment as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Amendment; that in the opinion of the Committee the Amendment can be passed by the House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Amendment:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

WELLINGBOROUGH GAS ORDER, 1939. BODMIN GAS ORDER, 1939. MIDDLESBROUGH GAS ORDER, 1939.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.