Sitting of 9 May 1939

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

    INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has yet been decided to hold an international exhibition and fair in Great Britain when the International Convention will allow of it being held; and will he consider the areas of Trentham, Manchester or Black-pool for the fair and that all forms of trade, sport and other human activities be represented and also consider the need for a representative committee in order that the best possible arrangements can be made to ensure a successful exhibition?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The International Convention on this subject would not permit of the holding of an international exhibition in this country before 1944. No proposal has been made to me for the organisation of such an exhibition in that or any subsequent year.

    MILLING COMBINES.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent the continued practice of the large milling combines buying up smaller mills, since this practice results in men being thrown out of work and has a detrimental effect in the rural areas?
    Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received to a similar question which he addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 3rd April.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the milling combines have taken all the best and merely left the
    262
    remnants, and it is with respect to these remnants that I ask him to consider introducing legislation; and is he aware that, if legislation is not introduced, there will not be a single mill left in the rural areas, and is he aware that this is vital?
    Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that milling is being made a monopoly, is it not time that the Government took over the whole of this industry?
    Mr. Stanley: The effect of the reply to which I referred was that actually the number of mills had increased during the period.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not the fact that it included the port mills and had nothing to do with mills in the rural areas, and that it is totally and wilfully misleading?

    COTTON GOODS (EXPORTS).
    Mr. Chorltonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures for cotton textile exports for the first quarter of the year as compared with a similar period for 1938?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will find the desired information on pages 165 to 183 of the March issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom."
    Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will discuss with the cotton trade representatives a Government scheme for employing unemployed cotton operatives to make coarse-count cotton goods for sale in the export markets at whatever price they will fetch, so that the Government may use the overseas credits thus created for purchasing materials for munitions, and benefit trade and employment by the export of grades of cotton goods hitherto produced and exported by foreign firms to the exclusion of similar British goods?
    Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. The Government do not consider that a proposal of this kind could provide a satisfactory solution of the problems of the export trade in cotton goods.

    TOBACCO (IMPORTS FROM GREECE AND TURKEY).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amounts of the tobacco exported by

    263
    Greece and of the tobacco imported from all sources by the tobacco firms in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: During the last three years the quantity of leaf tobacco exported from Greece averaged 96,000,000 lbs. per annum; the corresponding figure for the total quantity of unmanufactured tobacco imported into the United Kingdom from all sources is 295,000,000 lbs. per annum.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Would it not be possible and reasonable for the British tobacco firms to buy more of the Greek tobacco crop, and so enable Greece very largely to escape from her economic subjugation to Germany?
    Mr. Stanley: The possibility of increasing the imports of these oriental tobaccos is being examined in detail, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that the difficulties are very considerable. It depends to a large extent upon public taste in this country as to the kind of tobacco they want to smoke. We are not yet a totalitarian country which can force people to smoke the tobacco we want them to smoke.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that the total export of tobacco from Greece only amounts to some 1 per cent. of the tobacco used by the British Tobacco firms, and, therefore, could not affect the quality or taste of tobacco in any way; and will he consider making some representations to the British tobacco firms on this matter?
    Mr. Stanley: I said that the possibility of increasing these imports is being considered, but the difficulties are very great.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it not advisable to buy more tobacco from the Dominions?
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Imperial Economic Committee, in their tobacco report, unfortunately, on all the evidence put before them, came to the conclusion that, faced with the cigarette smoking in this country, it might be impossible to increase the amount even of Empire tobacco which they were very anxious to do, and that nothing could be done in that direction?
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: The matter is only one of 1 per cent. of all the tobacco used here.
    Mr. Priceasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of preventing Greece and Turkey from becoming too dependent on trade with certain states, he will consider whether arrangements can be made for British tobacco companies to take a small portion of their requirements from these two countries?
    Mr. Stanley: The possibility of increasing United Kingdom imports of oriental tobacco is being examined in detail, but the difficulties are very considerable.
    Mr. Price: Have any recommendations been made to the tobacco companies in this country?
    Mr. Stanley: It would be impossible to consider this question without finding out the views of the tobacco firms.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it not largely a matter of taste and palate?
    Mr. Stanley: That is what I have just previously said.
    Mr. T. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend say whether or not representations have been made to the co-operative societies to push this particular tobacco?
    Mr. Holdsworth: Are you adding Bulgaria to the list?
    Mr. Stanley: The original answer says "oriental tobaccos.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Magnayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that members of the National Association for Rolled and Re-rolled Steel Products, one of the bodies controlled by the British Iron and Steel Federation, have for more than two years been selling certain classes of steel at a lower price to the consumer than to the stockholding merchant; whether he has considered a letter from the London Chamber of Commerce drawing attention to this example of discrimination by manufacturers against merchants, only rendered possible by Government protection; and whether he will take steps to ensure that merchants shall not be subjected in any trade to unfair discrimination consequent upon Government intervention?
    Mr. Stanley: I understand that the same basic prices for re-rolled steel products are charged to consumers and to stockholding merchants but that the same rebates on purchases in large quantities are not allowed to merchants as to consumers. The rebates to merchants, however, have already been increased in some respects by agreement with the producers and the question whether any further modification is justified is a matter for discussion between the parties. The merchants are, of course, authorised to charge higher prices than the basic prices on re-sale in smaller quantities. I do not accept the suggestion that the terms on which these products are sold to merchants are a consequence of Government intervention.
    Mr. Magnayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in its 1937 report, stated, after exhaustive inquiry that, apart from products which were sold in bulk to a relatively small circle of consumers, there was little doubt that an experienced merchanting organisation could carry out the functions of distribution more efficiently and at a lower cost than the individual producer; and whether he is satisfied that the application of this principle in the case of the iron and steel industry has proved advantageous to both producers and consumers?
    Mr. Stanley: I have no reason to doubt that the working arrangements between the producers and merchants, under which a wide range of products of the iron and steel industry are sold both direct to the consumer and through merchants, have in the main proved satisfactory both to producers and to consumers.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of scrap-iron exported from this country to Germany in the past 12 months; whether this represents an increase on the previous 12 months; whether any difficulties are being experienced in providing our own industries with the scrap-iron they need; and whether stocks are being accumulated for future requirements?
    Mr. Stanley: During the twelve months ended March, 1939, exports from the United Kingdom of scrap-iron and steel
    266
    consigned to Germany amounted to 134,000 tons, compared with 51,000 tons during the preceding twelve months. As has been previously stated, the exports to Germany during recent months were made under contracts entered into some time ago when there was a surplus of scrap available, and there is no intention of entering into further contracts at present; some of the scrap recently exported was of a kind which could not be used here. I understand that the British Iron and Steel Federation have been giving the scrap position their close attention, and that they have made arrangements for the supplies needed to meet current requirements. As regards the last part of the question, the position is kept constantly under review.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations recently from some steel manufacturers that they have had some difficulty in securing supplies of scrap iron; and were the Board of Trade consulted before this largely increased quantity of scrap iron was exported to Germany in the last few months?
    Mr. Stanley: This was under an old contract entered into at a time last year when the steel industry was very depressed and there was no outlet in this country either for scrap or for pig iron. Conditions have now changed. The steel industry is operating at a much greater rate of production, and for that reason this contract was allowed to lapse and has not been renewed.
    Mr. Griffiths: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations that some firms are finding a difficulty in securing supplies?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not think I have received any such representation, but I know that the Iron and Steel Federation have the possible effect of this increased activity in mind, and it is to that I referred when I said in my reply that they had been giving the scrap position their close attention.
    Mr. T. Williams: Was there not an obvious lack of foresight on the part of those responsible in allowing so many hundreds of thousands of tons of scrap iron purchased from America to be sold to Germany at a price less than the cost when purchased in America?
    Mr. Stanley: I must point out to the hon. Member, as I am sure many of those who know this industry will realise, that there are different kinds of scrap, and it may well be that you are selling to another country scrap which you cannot use yourself at the same time as you are buying scrap from abroad.
    Miss Wilkinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that what is really needed is some kind of central planning for the iron and steel industry, because the thing is getting into such a hopeless muddle that neither the Government nor the iron and steel combine know where they are?
    Mr. Stanley: There is central planning.
    Mr. A. Reedasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in these days when dispersed stocks of every type of material are so essential to the national safety, he is aware of the circular issued on 15th September, 1938, by the British Steel Makers' Association, indicating that stockholding merchants may not do trade, excepting with their approval, with Government Departments, a number of public bodies, and a long range of commercial buyers; and what he proposes to do about it?
    Mr. Stanley: The resolution to which my hon. Friend refers related only to heavy steel and applied only to merchants who do not hold stocks. I understand that the matter is now under discussion between the merchants and the producers of steel.
    Mr. Magnay: Does not my right hon. Friend know that this has been going on more or less for two years, and that six months ago I asked a question on this matter, and I was promised exactly what my right hon. Friend has said to-day?
    Mr. Stanley: I think that my hon. Friend's question referred to stockholding merchants, whereas this question refers to a resolution relating to merchants who do not hold stocks.
    Miss Wilkinson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that what is needed is some representation of the consuming interests, and that all that is being done is being done by the producers, and that the consumers cannot get the steel?
    Mr. Stanley: The consumers, of course, are entitled to make application to the
    268
    Import Duties Advisory Committee who watch the operation of the iron and steel industry.

    FLOUR (PRICE).
    Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the increase in the wholesale price of straight-run flour to bakers in London from October, 1931, to the last convenient date?
    Mr. Stanley: The increase in the official wholesale price of straight-run flour on 8th May, 1939, as compared with October, 1931, is 10s. 6d. per sack of 280 lbs. This includes the wheat quota payment of 6s. 6d.
    Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the difference between the wheat quota prices of 1935 and 1936?
    Mr. Stanley: Not without notice.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is this not a case where the Food Council should do something to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission?
    Mr. Stanley: The rise in the price of flour, excluding wheat quota payments is, I think, proportionately less than the rise in the case of most other commodities.
    Mr. John Morgan: Have not the variations been very steep and continuous?
    Mr. A. Reed: Is it not the fact that with the prices which were prevalent in 1931 unemployment was at its greatest and everyone in a distressed condition?

    ANGLO-RUMANIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has a statement to make as to Anglo-Rumanian trade talks, and whether it is now intended to increase the loan beyond the sum of £5,000,000 originally intended; and, also, whether the rate of interest to be charged is yet settled?
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the progress of the trade negotiations with the Rumanian Government?
    Mr. Stanley: The negotiations are still in progress, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Adams: In view of the anxiety of certain British firms who are desirous of engaging in Anglo-Rumanian trade, is the matter being expedited as far as posible?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, and I am hopeful of being able to make a reply shortly.

    ANGLO-GERMAN DISCUSSIONS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Presidant of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the declaration of Herr Hitler that he desires a peaceful evolution of European tension, he is proposing a resumption of trade discussions in all phases with Germany, with a view to improved business between the two countries?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Member knows, trade discussions had to be interrupted as a result of European tension produced by Germany's annexation of Bohemia and Moravia. Whenever this tension abates, I shall be only too glad to see discussions resumed, with a view to improving trade relations between Great Britain and Germany.

    NEW ZEALAND.
    Mr. J. Morganasked the President of the Board of Trade what reductions have been imposed on New Zealand meat exports to this country since January, 1939; and what gentleman's agreement with New Zealand is still operating with regard to the regulation of dairy supplies, including milk products, from that country?
    Mr. Stanley: The only reduction made in imports of meat from New Zealand into this country since January, 1939, is the reduction in imports of mutton and lamb (that is, 3 per cent. below the level of 1938), which I announced in this House on 16th February. There is no arrangement in operation for the regulation of imports of butter and cheese from New Zealand. With regard to processed milk, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for The Wrekin (Colonel Baldwin-Webb) on 4th May.
    Mr. Morgan: Is there not to be imposed upon the Governments of Australia and New Zealand a restriction on frozen beef in the third quarter of the year, and also is there not operating an understanding to restrict exports from New Zealand of agrarian produce?
    Mr. Stanley: There was, I believe, some years ago, an understanding of that kind, but there is no understanding now, and we are limiting ourselves entirely to calling the attention of the respective Governments to any case that may arise of an abnormal flood of imports which are having an effect on the market.
    Mr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that almost the total output of New Zealand is agrarian, and does not a restriction on production affect the whole farming community?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, but you must put against that the largely increased facilities which we have offered in our markets to New Zealand imports during the last few years. There has been a large increase in the importation of food products from New Zealand.
    Mr. Morgan: Strictly on the basis of pound per pound?

    WOMEN'S DRESSES (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the imports of women's dresses from America rose from 207,000 in 1937 to 456,000 in 1938; and whether it is proposed that any steps should be taken, by limitation or prohibition of imports, to safeguard British interests against this rapidly increasing competition?
    Mr. Stanley: Imports from the United States of America of women's dresses and skirts of silk and artificial silk were as stated by my hon. Friend. I have no power to impose a quota restriction or prohibition on imports of such goods.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons there are so many imports of ladies' dresses from America is that women on this side are concerned with having longer dresses to cover their scrimpy legs?
    Mr. Stanley: I would not attempt to speak with the same authority as the hon. Member on the perfections or imperfections of the female form, but, if that be so, surely it should not be beyond the; ability of our manufacturers to make longer dresses which would equally well cover scrimpy legs.
    Mr. Pritt: Why not get the National Fitness Council to make the legs less scrimpy?
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not desirable to have British dresses for British girls?

    PATENTS (GERMANY, TRANSFERS OF ROYALTIES).
    Mr. Sextonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the German Government are blocking the transfer to owners of patents in this country of considerable sums due by way of royalty from German licencees; and whether he will state what provisions govern the transfer to Germany of royalties from British licencees to German patent owners?
    Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Difficulties and delays in connection with transfers of royalties do arise however from time to time and, if the hon. Member will send me particulars of any case that may come to his notice, I will make investigations. No restrictions have been imposed by His Majesty's Government on the transfer of royalties from United Kingdom licencees to German patent owners.
    Mr. Sexton: Would the Government be prepared to take retaliatory action if I produced evidence that British owners of patents are not allowed to get money from Germany?
    Mr. Stanley: I have said that we have no information that that is the case, but that they have been getting these payments for many years. If there has been any irregularity in regard to these payments, and the hon. Member knows of a case, I should be glad to look into it and see what I can do.

  FOOD COUNCIL.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government will consider appointing additional members to the Food Council with a view to assisting and enabling that body better to fulfil the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Food Prices of 1925, which laid down that, in view of the known existence of price-fixing associations, the Food Council should vigilantly watch these matters?
  Mr. Stanley: I have no reason to think that the membership of the Food Council is inadequate for the discharge of its functions.
  Mr. De la Bère: Why does the Food Council consist of persons who refuse to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission? Is it not up to the Food Council to act upon these recommendations, and will my right hon. Friend answer that question?
  Mr. Stanley: That applies to quite different points. I have told the hon. Gentleman on several occasions that, if he would prepare some evidence of the facts which he alleges, I am sure the Food Council would inquire into it, and it certainly would be their duty to do so, but up to now the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have made any attempt in this direction.
  Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend realise that I shall spend a great deal of time with him?
  Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will spend the time with the Food Council.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is it not true that the Food Council are dominated by the Board of Trade?
  Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when the Food Council have made a report reflecting upon certain organisations whose charges are too high, the Board of Trade accepts their recommendation and acts upon it?
  Mr. Stanley: That is a different question, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.
  Mr. De la Bère: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPS (SALES, GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).
    Colonel Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships and the tonnage which have been transferred from the British register to Germany and vice versa for the years 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, and 1939?
    Mr. Stanley: As the reply consists of tabular statements, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel Burton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the balance is in favour of Germany or Great Britain?
    Mr. Stanley: I have not actually made up the figures, but I should think that it is fairly equal on both sides.
    Following are the statements:
    I. Number and tonnage of ships registered in the United Kingdom reported to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having their registers closed on sale to Germany:

    Year.

    No. of Ships.

    Aggregate gross tonnage.

    1935

    7

    47,514

    1936

    6

    25,077

    1937

    26

    64,565

    1938

    6

    16,852

    1939 (to the end of April)

    6

    23,710

    II. Number and tonnage of ships reported to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been purchased from Germany and registered in the United Kingdom:

    Year.

    No. of Ships.

    Aggregate gross tonnage.

    1935

    8

    17,764

    1936

    37

    86,058

    1937

    7

    19,529

    1938

    8

    31,595

    1939 (to the end of April)

    Nil.

    —

    ORIENT (JAPANESE COMPETITION).
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now taking any steps to ascertain the views of the Dominion Governments on the report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on British Shipping in the Orient in view of the committee's conclusion that the problem of competition from Japanese shipping is urgent and of sufficient importance to merit early and serious consideration by the Governments of the Empire?
    Mr. Stanley: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not yet completed their consideration of the report. Steps are being taken to ascertain the views of His Majesty's Governments in the other parts of the British Commonwealth concerned, to whom copies of the report have been supplied.
    Mr. Smith: As this report has been in the hands of the Minister for a good many months, and a month ago he promised that he would look into the matter seriously on the point as to the Japanese taking the trade from this country through their intercourse with the Dominions, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite his report, and also get into communication with the Dominions, as recommended by the Committee?
    Mr. Stanley: I am in communication with the Dominions. The reason for the delay is due to the fact that we have been considering proposals of our own to assist the liner services, and we have to see how these proposals fit in with this report.

    BRITISH COMMONWEALTH MERCHANT SHIPPING AGREEMENT.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to give effect to any or all of the provisions of the draft Agreement as to British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping which was prepared in the United Kingdom, examined in two successive years by representatives of the Governments concerned, adopted by the Imperial Conference of 1930, as a statement of the matters in which it was considered that concerted action on a voluntary basis between the parts of the Commonwealth is essential in the common interest, was to come into operation at the same time as the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and under which His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and the Dominions undertook to propose legislation and take such other steps as might be required for the purpose of giving full effect to its provisions relating to common status for ships registered in the British Commonwealth, standards of safety, the extra-territorial operation of laws, equal treatment for British ships in all parts of the Commonwealth, ship's articles, certificates of officers, shipping inquiries, relief and repatriation of seamen, wages and effects of deceased seamen, offences on board ship, and other matters?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that it would not be possible to deal with this matter within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but if the hon. Member has in mind any particular question among the

    275
    numerous matters covered by the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement, I should be glad to give him all the available information.
    Mr. Smith: As the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the whole of the report and of the recommendations, as I hope the Government are, if they are seriously determined to deal with the problem of shipping, will he undertake to send me an answer, or may I approach him immediately?
    Mr. Stanley: I would prefer that. The hon. Gentleman will realise that this deals with a large number of subjects, and action has to be taken on them by a large number of bodies, and it would be very difficult to deal with all this in a Parliamentary answer. If the hon. Gentleman will see me, I will give him all the information I have.
    Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will note that the report was made in 1930, and it is now 1939.
    Mr. Stanley: It is a question of setting out the various recommendations and the action or inaction on them by the various Dominions.

    SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steamship "Tuscania" which has been sold to Greece is a ship capable of use as a troopship in war time; and what representations to this effect were made by his Department to Messrs. Runcimans, Limited, the managers of the Anchor Line, to which the "Tuscania" belonged prior to the sale?
    Mr. Prittasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether in the contract for the sale of the steamship "Tuscania" to Greek buyers there is any clause prohibiting the resale of the vessel to Germany or other other Power;
    (2) whether the steamship "Tuscania" was offered to the Government in connection with the scheme for the reserve of tonnage; and, if so, upon what date?
    Mr. Stanley: Although this ship, like any other passenger liner, is capable of use as a troopship the Board of Trade,
    276
    when approached in December, after consultation with the Admiralty, did not consider it essential in the national interest that this ship should remain on the British register. The sale of the ship was completed before the announcement of the reserve tonnage scheme, but in any case I should not have considered this ship suitable for purchase under the scheme. I am informed that there was no clause in the contract as to resale.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether this ship was delivered to the Greek buyers before or after the British Government had expressed the view that British ships should not be sold abroad?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not know about delivery, but certainly the contract was completed before the announcement on the matter of reserved tonnage.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this vessel was unsuitable to be purchased by the Government? Is he aware that it is not as old as the vessel which is carrying Their Majesties to Canada?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes. The anxiety of His Majesty's Government with regard to the requirements of the Mercantile Marine in case of war, is not on the question of ships which can be used as troopships but as to ships which can be used for carrying cargo, and it is to that purpose that I propose to devote the greater part of the amount to be allocated for a reserve of tonnage.
    Mr. T. Johnston: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman add a Clause against re-sale?
    Mr. Stanley: It was not a case of my adding a Clause against resale, as the contract had been completed. It is the case of sale to a company which is virtually under the Greek Government, and I have no reason to suppose that it will be used for any purpose except that for which it has been purchased.
    Mr. Pritt: Is it not elementary that when people want to sell a ship and the Government do not want them to sell, they do it by means of an intermediary? Why not stop the rat-hole?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not think it is elementary that the sale of a ship to a

    277
    regular liner company which is largely under the control of the Greek Government is that the ship will be re-sold to Germany. I would point out, in reply to the implication in the last question, that I can conceive of no military purpose why Germany should want to buy a ship of this kind.
    Mr. Pritt: Are not ships made of iron and steel, and does not Germany want iron and steel?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not think anybody is going to buy a passenger liner of this expensive type merely for the purpose of converting it into scrap iron and steel.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade the names of ships which have been transferred from the British register to foreign ownership during the last six weeks; and the names of the owners by whom such transfers were effected?
    Mr. Stanley: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the particulars required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    The names and British owners of the ships of 100 tons gross and over registered in the United Kingdom reported to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen during the six weeks commencing 26th March, 1939, as having had their registers closed on sale to foreign buyers are as follow:
    Name of Ship and Owners.

    Isleworth: The Dalgliesh Steam Shipping Company, Limited.

    Cleveland: The Workington Harbour and Dock Board.

    Stanmore, Stanburgh, Stanbridge: The Stanhope Steamship Company, Limited.

    Thixendale: The Yorkshire Dale Steamship Company, Limited.

    Laleham, Peckham: The Alpha Steamship Company, Limited.

    Meopham: The Apex Shipping Company, Limited.

    Fredavore, Camden: Messrs. Angel, Son and Company, Limited.

    Tuscania: The Anchor Line, Limited.

    Essex Envoy: The Essex Line, Limited.

    Atlantic: Sir W. H. Cockerline.

    Heliopolis: The Skenderia Shipping Company, Limited.

    Dunstaffnage: The Scottish Navigation Company, Limited.

    St. Quentin: The Triton Steamship Company, Limited.

    CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of vessels registered in this country in which the accommodation for the crew is placed forward, aft, and amidships, respectively?
    Mr. Stanley: I regret that this information is not in the possession of my Department.
    Mr. Smith: Are the Government so uninterested in the British Mercantile Marine that they cannot issue instructions as to the new quarters and accommodation, and that they do not take the trouble to discover where these quarters are?
    Mr. Stanley: There does not seem to be any point in having these statistics. After the regulations are issued all new ships have to have this accommodation and, therefore, any ship registered since then has to have the accommodation.
    Mr. Smith: But as to reconditioned ships, surely the Board of Trade must know. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can help us to get this information.
    Mr. Stanley: Before the instructions were issued there was no obligation on the part of the owners as to the location of this accommodation, and it is not a matter which can be altered to any large extent even in existing vessels.

    COASTAL TRADE.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals the Government have under consideration for the assistance of the coastal shipping trade, in view of the nature of the competition, both external and internal, to which that trade is subject; and, particularly, whether any steps have been taken to secure that Governmental and local bodies stipulate that consignments belonging to them, or ordered by them and carried coastwise, shall be conveyed only in British vessels?
    Mr. Stanley: The Government's proposals regarding the coasting trade were included in my statement in this House on 28th March, to which I would refer the hon. Member. Steps have been taken to encourage municipal and other public authorities to ensure that British tonnage is used for their coastwise shipments. The coasting trade has arrived at understandings with the railways in connection

    279
    with the application of the latter to the Government and, as has been pointed out to the industry, it is in the direction of co-operation within the industry and coordination with the railways, road hauliers and canals that further progress lies.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what are the Government's proposals with regard to the building up of a reserve of tonnage suitable for the coasting trade in case of an emergency?
    Mr. Stanley: Coasting steamers will be included within the ambit of the Government's scheme of a reserve of tonnage, and, of course, it will have to depend upon the suitability of particular ships engaging in the coasting trade as to whether they are bought for the reserve.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to reconsider the question of shipbuilding grants for the coasting trade, so as to help the reserve of tonnage?
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I could not undertake to reconsider that. The trouble is that only a small fraction of the competition, with which only one section of the coasting trade meets, is from foreign sources. The principal source of competition is other internal forms of transport in this country. I could not subsidise one form of transport against another.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to carry his counsel of perfection to the ordinary employers as well as to the local authorities and Government Departments?
    Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I will certainly take any steps I possibly can.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIALS (HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Sandysasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in cases of hardship, assistance will be given to Territorials called out for emergency service in peace time who may find themselves unable to meet out of Army pay their existing commitments for rent, etc.?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I would refer hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for
    280
    Widnes (Mr. Pilkington) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May last.
    Lieut.-Colonal Dower: Will that additional assistance include the £5 embodiment grant?
    Sir V. Warrender: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will wait for the statement which my right hon. Friend will make to-day.

    RESERVE (RE-ENGAGEMENTS).
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary of State for War the reason for refusing applications from men to be re-engaged in the Army Reserve?
    Sir V. Warrender: I presume that the hon. Member has in mind Section "D." Section "D" is a class of the Reserve for men who have done at least 12 years' service, and this particular section is in excess of requirements in certain arms.
    Mr. Smith: Does not the hon. Baronet appreciate that these men, with all their experience, would be very useful in certain grades in the Army, and that many of them are willing to engage for a further term of service?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the value of these men in an emergency, but such a man has reached a certain age. He is still entitled to Reserve pay, and there must be a time-limit beyond which it is not considered expedient or efficient to go on giving him Reserve pay.

    TERRITORIAL CAMPS.
    Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for War how many Territorial units, in England and Wales, will attend annual camps this year at times other than the months of July and August; and how many units will camp in each of the months of May, June and September?
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for War what Territorial units in Scotland will attend annual camp this year at times other than the months of July and August; and how many units will camp in each of the months May, June, and September?
    Sir V. Warrender: Under the programme as at present arranged, the figures are: England and Wales, May 34; to June, 59; September, 44; total, 137;

    281
    Scotland, May, 4; June, 24; total, 28. The above figures are for "First Line" units only. Camps for "Second Line" units have not yet been finally arranged.

    BREN GUNS (CONTRACT, CANADA).
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for War with whom the contract for the manufacture of Bren guns in Canada has been made; and what are the terms of the contract?
    Sir V. Warrender: The contract for the manufacture of Bren guns in Canada has been placed with John Inglis Company, Limited, Toronto, Ontario. The terms of the contract provide: For the manufacture of a number of Bren guns in conjunction with the concurrent manufacture of a number of guns for the Canadian Government; the British Government is subscribing a proportion of the cost of the plant, the cost of the balance being met by the Canadian Government; for payment of the actual cost of production with profit up to a fixed maximum amount; for fixing a standard cost for the gun after three months' full production of guns, and the provision of an incentive bonus consisting of a percentage of any saving achieved on the standard cost.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether the Minister's attention has been called to the report of the Canadian Government inquiry into this matter, which indicates that this British contract was made with a gentleman who had no previous experience of gun manufacture, no plant or resources at his disposal for manufacturing guns, and who represented a company with several dummy directors?
    Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir. I am not aware of those facts. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give them to me.
    Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    MONTHLY ARMY LIST.
    Mr. Cary askedthe Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the suspension from general circulation of the monthly Army List?
    Sir V. Warrender: The Monthly Army List in the form in which it has hitherto
    282
    been issued contains information which in present circumstances it is undesirable to publish. A book which will exclude such information is in preparation, and will be placed on sale and reissued monthly. In the meantime, publication of the Monthly Army List is suspended.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is this procedure in accordance with that adopted by certain other countries which also exclude military information of this nature from the general public?
    Sir V. Warrender: I think there are very few other countries that publish as much information as we do.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is there any chance of units being able to obtain reference books giving the necessary information which they require for their administration?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, there will be official issues available for units giving all the information.

    SHELLS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War what was the average contract price of 3.45-inch shells made from bar ordered from firms not normally engaged in armament manufacture during the latter half of 1936; how many of those contracts were at a figure above 17s. 6d. per shell; and how many of those contracts have been renewed year by year since they were first placed, and at what average price?
    Sir V. Warrender: It is contrary to practice to disclose prices paid under contracts; but, in actual fact, no 3·45-inch shell was made from bar by any firm not normally engaged in armament manufacture.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that in 1936 contracts for 3·45-inch shells were let at 22s. 6d. a piece, and is it known, to him that, using the proper machinery, it is possible to manufacture these shells, including a wide margin of profit, at 14s. a piece?
    Sir V. Warrender: The hon. Gentleman asked me for particulars of firms which are not usually armament manufacturers who manufacture these shells for 17s. 6d. I said that there have not been any such cases.
    Mr. Stokes: Were any contracts let to any firms at 22s. 6d. in 1936, as it is not giving information to an enemy?
    Sir V. Warrender: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Mr. Lawson: Why should not the House have information of this character?
    Sir V. Warrender: It is a long established practice not to disclose contract prices.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Was not that practice established before the days of combines and telephones when manufacturers could not get into touch with each other as they do to-day and find out what each one is tendering?

    AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Miss Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has as yet decided to appoint a woman head of the auxiliary Territorial services at the War Office; and, if so, whether he is now in a position to state the name?
    Sir V. Warrender: No decision has yet been reached.
    Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand the matter is under consideration?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.
    Miss Wilkinson: May we have a guarantee that the lady in question will not be Lady Londonderry?

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CAMPS, WEYBOURNE AND STIFFKEY.
    Sir Thomas Cookasked the Secretary of State for War the number of claims for compensation for loss of trade due to the presence of anti-aircraft camps at Weybourne and Stiffkey, Norfolk, which are still unsettled for the year 1938; the amount of money involved; and the date upon which it is hoped to settle such claims?
    Sir V. Warrender: There are no claims outstanding in respect of Weybourne. Two claims in connection with Stiffkey, amounting to £27, are under investigation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and a decision will be made as soon as recommendations are received.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War
    284
    whether he will recommend the immediate embodiment of the Territorial force for three months intensive training in order to shorten the period of delay after mobilisation before effective assistance can be afforded to our allies?
    Mr. Sandysasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the announcement that the anti-aircraft units of the Territorial Army are to be called up for special service, he will, as soon as possible, give further particulars of the Government's plans in order to minimise the disturbance this will cause to civilian life?
    Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill.
    Mr. H. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War the strength of the Territorial Army on 30th April; and what increase this represents in the last 12 months?
    Sir V. Warrender: The total strength of the Territorial Army on 30th April last was 258,384, representing an increase of 83,325 in 12 months. These figures exclude men in process of enlistment.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. Leachasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will follow the precedent of his Department in 1916 in regard to the vaccination of recruits and suspend the vaccination regulations so far as conscripts are concerned?
    Sir V. Warrender: Yes, Sir.

    CHURCH PARADES.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will provide the fullest facilities for all religious de nominations to meet the needs of soldiers in the Regular and Territorial Armies and those to be conscripted; and whether he will take steps to abolish compulsory church parades or to reduce them to the minimum required for ceremonial or disciplinary purposes?
    Sir V. Warrender: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not disposed to vary the traditional practice common to the three Services.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that among the troops and outside there is a growing feeling that compulsory religion imposed upon troops is an anachronism which should be abolished, and in the interests of sincerity will he not ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter?
    Sir V. Warrender: I am not aware that there is any strong feeling of that kind, but if the hon. Member suggests that there is, I would remind him that in 1936 instructions were issued with the object of reducing the formalities connected with inspections which precede church parades.
    Mr. Hannah: Would it not be desirable to make attendance at prayers in this House compulsory?
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire of the troops what they think of compulsory church parades?
    Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not aware of any strong feeling on this subject, but has he ever served in the ranks of the British Army?

    EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the continuous increase in the number of His Majesty's Army, he will consider extending educational facilities other than for military or technical purposes; whether to this end he will consult and make arrangements with organisations dealing with adult education; and will he consider making arrangements with public and county libraries for the supply of books with due consideration of the frequent transfer of men and units from one centre to another?
    Sir V. Warrender: General education is compulsory in the Army up to the standard of the Army second-class certificate of education, which is approximately the standard reached in the top class of an elementary school; and facilities are provided, on a voluntary basis, for further education up to the standard of the Army special certificate of education, which is generally accepted as being equivalent to matriculation examination standard. In addition to books of an instructional nature, libraries of reference and other books are provided in each unit for the use of the troops.
    Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me some answer to the part of the question dealing with the connection between the Army and county public libraries; and in view of the fact that shortly we may have conscripts in the ranks who, in some cases, will be younger than those who have joined voluntarily, will he not consider the possibility of linking up with these libraries so as to provide cultural facilities for these younger people?
    Sir V. Warrender: I told the hon. Member that in addition to books of an instructional nature reference and other books are kept in each unit, and if he knows of a case where such books are not available, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that all that I am suggesting is that there might be some organic connection with the county libraries, so that as regiments move about these young, men will be in touch with books of a wider range than those provided?

    COTTON GOODS (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any approximate indication of the value of orders which will be given by his Department under the five-year rearmament programme to the cotton textile industry; what is the approximate value of orders anticipated during the current year; and whether arrangements have now been made to give these orders, as far as possible, directly to the manufacturers concerned rather than through agents?
    Sir V. Warrender: For cotton goods bought in the piece, the estimated value of orders over the period 1936–39 is £2,000,000; for 1939, £1,500,000. This excludes the value of orders for ready-made goods, such as sheets, pillow-cases, etc., figures for which are not readily available. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Burke) and Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and would add that, as has already been announced, Sir Frederick Marquis has been appointed to advise the War Office in connection with purchases of textile stores generally.
    Mr. Silverman: Are steps taken by the Department to secure that these orders are distributed equitably throughout the country?
    Sir V. Warrender: These contracts, like other contracts, are put out to tender and the lowest tender is accepted.
    Mr. Silverman: If that answer means that no such steps as I have suggested are taken, will the hon. Gentleman consider whether such steps should be taken?

    RECRUITS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to the men of 20 years of age to be recruited in Northern Ireland on a voluntary basis, it is proposed to call them up for a period of six months training as in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Sir V. Warrender: They will be on the usual terms of service according to the branch of the Service in which they enlist.
    Mr. Mander: Will the numbers who will serve six months be in proportion to the numbers raised in this country?
    Sir V. Warrender: It is a question of the service in which they enlist. If they enlist in the Regular Army they will serve a Regular soldier's engagement, and if they enlist in the Territorial Army they will serve a Territorial soldier's engagement.
    Mr. Mander: Then the conditions of the force being raised in Ulster will be entirely different from those of the six months conscripts in this country?
    Sir Ronald Ross: Of course they will be.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL.
  Mr. J. Morganasked the Prime Minister what duties have been allotted to the Lord President of the Council; who is performing such duties at the present time; and when it may be expected that the Lord President of the Council will be resuming those duties?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): In reply to the first two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar
  288
  question on 23rd February last. In answer to the last part of the question, the Lord President of the Council is expected to resume his duties on Saturday week.
  Mr. Morgan: May I ask whether the particulars which are being circulated set out duties which require the cancellation of business appointments in order that the duties can be carried through satisfactorily?
  The Prime Minister: I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "business appointments."
  Mr. Morgan: Directorships in connection with railway and shipping companies, and so on.
  The Prime Minister: The rule about directorships and members of the Cabinet is well known.
  Mr. Morgan: Has it been observed in the case of the Lord President of the Council?
  The Prime Minister: There is another question on the Paper about that.
  Mr. Parkerasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lord President of the Council is described in the current report and accounts of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company as a director on leave of absence, in the official return made on 24th November, 1938, to the Registrar of Companies by the Moor Line, Limited, as a director, and in the official returns of Runciman (London), Limited, and Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, dated April, 1938, and December, 1938, respectively, as a director of these companies; and whether he will require the Lord President of the Council to resign these directorships?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, as my Noble Friend informed me of his position in regard to these directorships before he accepted my invitation to him to join His Majesty's Government. In reply to the second part of the question, Runciman (London), Limited, and Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, are private companies. As regards the Moor Line, Limited, my Noble Friend is only technically a director because under a legal instrument the President of the Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, is ex officio on the board

  289
  of the Moor Line, Limited. In the case of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, my Noble Friend, though nominally still recorded as a director, has, since he took office entirely ceased to have any part in the direction of the company, nor has he received any emoluments as a director.
  Mr. Parker: Surely it is time that a clear statement was made whether a Minister was a director or not so as to make it clear as far as everyone is concerned?
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister regard it as desirable that the Lord President of the Council should remain even technically a director of the Moor Line in view of the contemplated legislation which will provide subsidies to shipping firms of that kind?
  The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I understand that the Moor Line is not applying for any subsidy.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the last tramp shipping subsidy it did obtain a subsidy and will be expected to receive a subsidy under the new legislation?
  Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not a fact that in 1929 hon. Members who were officials of trade unions and became Ministers of the Crown received leave of absence from their unions?
  Mr. Pritt: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know well that under modern company arrangements a private company is very often a very big company indeed, and will he consider at his leisure the general question of whether a Cabinet Minister ought to be a director of any company, public or private?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any reason, so far as I know, why the rule, which has been in operation for many years, should be altered, but I have ascertained that my Noble Friend has not since he accepted office taken any part in the direction of any of these companies, whether public or private.
  Mr. Pritt: I am not worrying about a personal point, but is not the reason why the rule should be altered that since the rule was formed private companies have fundamentally altered and that many of
  290
  them are no longer little private companies but that some of the biggest trusts in the country are private companies?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will send me a note on the subject and I shall be glad to consider it.
  Mr. Barnes: Is the Prime Minister aware that in similar circumstances I had to resign by position as a member of the Labour Government on this very issue?
  The Prime Minister: I should doubt whether the circumstances could be accurately described as similar.

  MINISTERS (PUBLIC FUNCTIONS).
  Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that heavy calls are being made upon the time and energy of Ministers of the Defence Departments in attending public functions of little administrative importance; that, in particular, the present Defence Minister attended public oratorical dinners on three evenings out of four last week; and whether he will recommend that all service Ministers should curtail their public appearances, especially those involving the preparation of speeches, until more propitious times.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Ministers are fully conscious of their responsibilities and regulate their engagements accordingly. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to make such a recommendation as is suggested in the last part of the question.
  Mr. Garro Jones: While recognising that the Prime Minister has given only a general answer to my question, may I ask him whether he is aware that certain Service Ministers, including the present Defence Minister and his predecessor, have spent three, four, five and, in some cases, six nights a week at public functions, and does he not consider that in so doing they are mistaking their function as defenders of the Government for their position as Defence Ministers.?
  The Prime Minister: I have no reason to think that my Noble Friend's presence at these dinners in any way interferes with his duty. It may be that he has greater facility in delivering speeches than the hon Gentleman.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the public appearances of all His Majesty's Ministers never fail to inspire confidence?
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentle-referring to the "Royal Oak" incident?
  Mr. Pritt: Would it not be better in these circumstances if Ministers devoted their whole time to public dinners and left their departmental duties to others?

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that he has remitted part of the tax on theatre seats, he will also consider equivalent remissions on cinema seats and seats for entertainments such as football matches?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I regret I am unable to consider any extension of this concession.
  Mr. T. Williams: Is not the minimum tax upon cinema seats costing above 6d., which is I½d., a diminishing tax, and, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that to reduce the I½d. down to id. would benefit not only the cinema proprietors but the cinema-goers and the Treasury?
  Sir J. Simon: I will gladly consider what the hon. Member has just said, but I have had these matters very carefully under review, and at present I am of opinion that I cannot make further modifications.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision as far as football is concerned? It is a working man's pastime and is followed by tens of thousands of people in this country.
  Sir J. Simon: I quite recognise that it is a very important pastime and one which attracts great crowds, and I do not think those crowds will be unwilling to make their contribution to the public need.
  Mr. Leonard: As the cinema is one of the mediums for the dissemination of Government propaganda, is it not desirable to have the audiences as large as possible?
  Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances he received that the full benefit of the recent
  292
  remission of the Entertainments Duty on theatre seats would be passed on to the general public?
  Sir J. Simon: I do not think that a hard and fast bargain of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member could be expected in this case. As I said in my Budget statement, the duty has aggravated the disability from which the living theatre suffers in its competition with the cinema, and my object in making the reduction was to lessen that difficulty.

  PHOTOGRAPHIC FILMS (DUTY).
  Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in drafting the Finance Bill, he will take into consideration the grant of a rebate to the banks in respect of films which they are now using by request in processing a photographic record of all transactions so as to avoid in case of emergency any financial confusion?
  Sir J. Simon: I am afraid that I cannot see my way to propose any special rebate in favour of photographic film which is used for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend.

  SCOTLAND.

    COUNTRY HOUSES (RATING).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider amending the law so that buildings in Scotland may be derated without the necessity of removing their roofs, in view of the fact that large country houses might be needed for evacuation?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am not satisfied on the information before me that the amount of accommodation available for evacuated persons in an emergency is likely to be affected to any material extent in consequence of the system of rating in Scotland.
    Mr. Hannah: Is not the present law extraordinarily wasteful by making it necessary to remove the roof if there is to be relief from rates?
    Mr. Colville: The question was put from the point of view of evacuation, and from that point of view I could not justify legislation.

    POLICE RESERVES, GLASGOW.
    Sir John Trainasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Glasgow police authority, notwithstanding the importance of adequate police reserves, have decided against the establishment of a first police reserve; whether he is aware of the reasons for this decision; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    Mr. Colville: The Glasgow Corporation have informed me that it has been resolved by a majority to take no action to form a first police reserve, but have not furnished me with the grounds for this decision. I am representing to the corporation the importance of giving further urgent consideration to the matter.
    Sir J. Train: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is tremendous dissatisfaction among the population of Glasgow with the manner in which this subject is being handled by the corporation; and is he also aware that Dundee has a new force of 100, Edinburgh 150, Paisley 50, and Lanarkshire County 80, while nothing is being done in Glasgow?
    Mr. Colville: The matter is the subject of correspondence between myself and the Corporation of Glasgow at the present time.

    PENSIONS.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland in receipt of old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions' Acts and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts?
    Mr. Colville: The number of persons in Scotland in receipt of pensions under the Acts referred to at 31st March last was 279,054.
    Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures separately?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir, but I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the totals. I will send him the figures split up between the different Acts.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the costs of maintaining persons in the poorhouses of Scotland vary from 4s. 10½d. per week to 17s. ¼d. per week;
    294
    that the allowance for all necessities, excepting clothing and fuel and light, at one institution in Dunoon amounts to less than 6d. per day; and whether he is satisfied that the allowance for food is adequate?
    Mr. Colville: I am aware of the figures quoted. The discrepancy is largely explained by reference to the circumstances of the two institutions to which they relate, which belong to the same local authority, and by the accounting methods adopted. I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a detailed explanation of the position.
    Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide, in future years, an alternative statistical basis for these tables, as they convey very little as they stand?
    Mr. Colville: If the right hon. Gentleman will read my letter he will see the way in which the figures come out. I shall be glad to discuss any possible alteration, if he so wishes.

    MILK ADULTERATION (PROSECUTIONS, ABERDEENSHIRE).
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can explain why 31 out of 56 test samples of milk examined during the year 1938 in the county of Aberdeen were found to be adulterated or not up to standard; whether this is the worst county ratio for Scotland; why it compares so badly with the samples tested in the city of Aberdeen, where less than 10 per cent. were found to be adulterated or not up to standard; and whether any and, if so, how many, prosecutions took place during the year in the county of Aberdeen for the offence of selling adulterated or under-standard milk?
    Mr. Colville: It is the practice in Aberdeen County to take test samples with the object of securing improvement in the quality of the milk from byres where formal samples, already taken for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Acts, have been found to be under standard. In these circumstances, a high proportion of samples not up to standard is to be expected, and the figures do not provide a basis for valid comparison with other areas. With regard to the last part of the question, seven prosecutions were carried through in the county of Aberdeen during 1938.
    Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why only seven prosecutions finally resulted, after 31 tests from the samples were found to be bad?
    Mr. Colville: I will look into the matter, but I imagine that all the samples did not actually justify prosecution.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state separately, according to the latest statistics in the possession of his Department, the number of occupied houses and flats in Scotland containing one, two, or three rooms; and will he give any information he may have as to the number of persons to each room?
    Mr. Colville: According to the reports on overcrowding made by local authorities in 1935–36, which contain the latest information available, the numbers of houses surveyed of one, two and three apartments were 97,300, 410,000 and 333,900, respectively. While I regret that information as to the average number of persons to each room is not readily available, the reports showed that of the houses surveyed 46 per cent., 47 per cent., and 22 per cent., respectively, were overcrowded on the standard laid down in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935.
    Mr. Day: When is the survey usually taken?
    Mr. Colville: The latest survey was at the date to which I referred.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Mrs. Ross, who has for 18 years been a tenant of a council house at 1, Preston Street, High Valleyfield, Fife, but who, following the death of her husband in March, omitted to pay one month's rent as she intended to move to smaller premises, and was paid up one month in advance; whether he is aware that on 18th April, a sheriff's officer and assistant visited her and forbade her to remove her furniture, and that now the county council are demanding payment from her of the expenses incurred by the sheriff officers; and whether he will take up with the county council this treatment of a tenant against whom no complaint had been made over a long period?
    Mr. Colville: I understand that the case to which the hon. Member refers has been the subject of an action before the courts, and I am not in a position to make any comment upon it. So far as the position of the county council is concerned, the hon. Member will be aware that the general management and control of houses erected by them is, under Statute, entirely in their own hands.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware of the very serious shock caused to a woman who has recently lost her husband when her house is entered by sheriff's officers and she does not understand the reason why they should come in and take control of her furniture; and will he not take up with the local authorities the question of avoiding action of that kind in future?
    Mr. Colville: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said about the way in which the case was handled, but I would point out that this matter is within the jurisdiction of the local authority.

    EDUCATION (DEAF CHILDREN).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaf children in Scotland over five years of age are not getting the specialised education guaranteed by the Education Act, 1936, through their parents refusing to send them to schools situated more than three miles from their homes; and whether it is proposed to take any special measures to ensure that every deaf child is provided with adequate educational facilities?
    Mr. Colville: The information asked for is not readily available, but I am making inquiries and will communicate the results to the hon Member.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Health Department of Scotland not keep, or arrange with each local authority to keep, a motor car for the purpose of dealing with cases of this kind when taking them from their homes to the school?
    Mr. Colville: The hon. Member asked whether I proposed any special measures and I said that I was awaiting information to see whether anything of that sort was necessary.
    Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it is time that the three-mile limit were reduced, in view of the danger to these scholars from the

    297
    traffic on the roads they have to use in going to school?
    Mr. Colville: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the result of my inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions on business? The first is how far he hopes to go to-night if the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried. The second is what arrangements he proposes to make for the remaining stages of the Military Training Bill?
The Prime Minister: We propose to take to-night the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution. We hope to make good progress with the Civil Defence Bill in Committee. We also propose to take the Report stage of the Military Training [Money] Resolution, which is exempted business, and the Motion to refer the Building Societies (No. 2) Bill to a Standing Committee. We decided to send this Bill upstairs because of the congested state of business on the Floor of the House.
With regard to the second question, in the opinion of the Government it is of the utmost importance that the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill should leave this House by Thursday, 18th May, with a view to their receiving the Royal Assent before the Whitsun Recess. To ensure this it will be necesary to ask the House to pass a Time-table Motion for the Committee stage and the remaining stages of both those Bills. The Time-table Motion will be handed in to-night and it will be taken as the first Order to-morrow. After the Resolution has been disposed of, we shall consider the Civil Defence Bill. I should mention, for the information of the House, that in view of the urgency of the Military Training Bill, we propose to take Private Members' time on Friday of this week.
I should like to say, in addition to that statement, that I dislike very much having to ask the House to pass a Time-table Motion, but in the opinion of the Government it is really essential that those two Bills should become law at the earliest possible moment, and not later than the
298
date which I have mentioned. If it were found possible to come to some voluntary agreement that would ensure that result, in the way that such agreements have been reached before in this House, I should be very glad indeed to adopt that procedure in place of the Time-table.
Mr. Attlee: May we hope that some Minister will be able to explain the Money Resolution of the Military Training Bill, because there was considerable difficulty in the Committee last night when no one seemed to understand its scope? With regard to the proposal for a Time-table, there is no desire to obstruct, but the Bill does touch the life of the citizen at very many points inevitably, and it needs very careful discussion. May I further ask the Prime Minister how many days it is intended to allot to the Bill and whether, as a matter of fact, it is so urgent that it must go through before Whitsun? In a matter like this it is extremely undesirable that the necessary Debate should be curtailed when it is a matter affecting the liberty of the subject.
The Prime Minister: With regard to the first question, the Secretary of State for War will be in charge of the Report stage of the Money Resolution this evening, and I am sure that he will do his utmost to answer any question that may be put to him in that connection. In regard to the second question, of course I quite agree that this Bill does raise a number of very important points, but I think that makes it all the more desirable that the Debate should be concentrated on those points, and that we should not spend time, as often happens without deliberate intention, on points which are of less importance. That is why I think that an arrangement, whether voluntary or whether by means of a Time-table, will conduce to the better understanding and the better discussion of the Bill. In regard to the number of days, the best plan will be for me to send the draft Timetable to the right hon. Gentleman and to the leaders of other parties in the usual way. Then the Time-table can be discussed.
Mr. Attlee: The Prime Minister will realise that on previous occasions when this arrangement has been applied it has often been found in the course of the Debate that unexpected points of great importance arose which did not get sufficient

299
discussion during the Committee stage, and I hope, therefore, that there will be ample time for the Report stage as well as for the Committee stage.
Sir P. Harris: While recognising the urgency from the point of view of the Government of getting the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not recognise how advisable it is that a Bill of this character, which makes such a fundamental change in our traditions, should have full and adequate discussion? Would it not be more desirable, though I do not like to suggest it, either to curtail the Whitsun holidays or even sit on Saturday, rather than that there should be a feeling in the country that there is danger of curtailment of discussion of a matter that affects so much the intimate personal lives of so many of its citizens?
The Prime Minister: I do not think it is necessary to assume that it is proposed unduly to curtail the discussion. We shall be able to see, when we have considered the Amendments and the time at our disposal, how the time can be distributed in the best way, and I think it will be found that there will be sufficient time.
Mr. Maxton: May I take it from the Prime Minister's statement that allowance is being made for a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss the Time-table to-morrow?
Mr. Silverman: At what stage, if any, of the discussions on the Military Training Bill will it be possible for the House to consider the question of the pay and allowances proposed for the conscripts, and to make any suggestions that the House may desire to make with regard to any alteration or amendment of the Government's proposals?
The Prime Minister: I understand that there has been a discussion already.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the Ruling given by the Chair last night—a Ruling with which, of course, we all must agree—that on the Financial Resolution it was impossible to discuss these matters. Quite clearly it was impossible
300
to discuss them on the Second Reading, and I anticipate, although I am not sure, that it may be impossible on the Financial Resolution to discuss them in Committee or on Report. Unless, therefore, the matter is further considered, it looks as if the Military Training Bill may leave this House without the House having had at any time an opportunity of considering a matter with which Members in all parts of the House are very greatly concerned, namely, the pay and allowances of those affected by the Bill.
The Prime Minister: I understand that the question of pay and allowances does not come within the scope of the Bill, It is the subject of a Royal Warrant, and cannot be discussed on the Bill, but of course it can be discussed on the Supplementary Estimate which will afterwards be brought in.
Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of placing on the Paper a Motion whereby this matter can be discussed while we are discussing the Bill, because obviously it is extremely undesirable that we should discuss the Bill without the opportunity of the Government stating their case on the matter and hearing the opinion of the House?
Sir P. Harris: Could not the Supplementary Estimate be brought before the House forthwith?
The Prime Minister: I should not like, on the spur of the moment, to give the assurance asked for by the Leader of the Opposition, but I recognise his difficulty, and will consider whether there is any way in which it can be met. I hope, however, that he will not press me for an assurance at this stage.
Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as an alternative, issuing a White Paper stating in detail exactly how these Militiamen are to be treated financially?
The Prime Minister The Prime Minister indicated assent.
Mr. Ede: Would the Prime Minister arrange for an opportunity for a discussion on the White Paper, if it is issued, before the House parts with the Bill?
Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask your guidance. The Prime Minister said that

301
an opportunity would arise for discussion of these matters on the Supplementary Estimate. Am I right in supposing that any Amendment to the Supplementary Estimate Amendment to the Supplementary Estimate which would have the effect of increasing the charge on the public funds would be out of Order?
Mr. Speaker: When the Supplementary Estimate comes before the House, it will come before it in Committee, and I Shall not be able to rule upon it then.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister to consider the possibility of bringing the matter before the House in Committee in such a way as to enable the House to increase the payments if it so desires?
The Prime Minister: I cannot add anything to what I have already said, but I will look into the matter.
Mr. Thorne: I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that this question will be before the Committee and you will not be able to rule upon it; but is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Committee will rule according to the Standing Orders?
Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I meant.
Mr. Silverman: May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the statement he has already made, whether he has considered the possibility that, if the matter is left until a Supplementary Estimate is introduced in Committee, it may not be
possible under the Rules of Order for hon. Members of this House to propose any Amendment to that Supplementary Estimate which would have the effect of increasing the charge upon public funds; and, if that be so, and he still leaves the matter until that stage, will not the effect of the whole proceeding be that the House will have been deprived in substance of any opportunity of proposing any Amendment to the Government's proposals?
Miss Wilkinson: As private Members, can we ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, in this matter? We had a great deal of trouble last night trying to find some way out of the difficulty, and surely private Members must be protected in their right to say what payment these men shall get?
Mr. Speaker: I am always prepared to protect private Members, or any Member of the House, but I cannot do so in any way that is contrary to the Rules of the House.
Miss Wilkinson: Are the Government to get away with a racket like that?
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, 274; Noes, 136.

Division No. 101.]

AYES.

[3.59 p.m.

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

Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G

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

Cox, H. B. Trevor

Albery, Sir Irving

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

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Bull, B. B.

Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

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

Bullock, Capt. M.

Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

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

Burghley, Lord

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

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.

Crossley, A. C.

Apsley, Lord

Burton, Col. H. W.

Crowder, J. F. E.

Aske, Sir R. W.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

Culverwell, C. T.

Assheton, R.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Davison, Sir W. H.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Cartland, J. R. H.

De Chair, S. S.

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

Cary, R. A.

De la Bère. R.

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

Castlereagh, Visoount

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Balniel, Lord

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

Denville, Alfred

Carrie, Sir C. C.

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

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

Channon, H.

Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

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

Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

Dodd, J. S.

Beechman, N. A.

Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

Donner, P. W.

Bennett, Sir E. N.

Chorlton, A. E. L.

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

Bernays, R. H.

Christie, J. A.

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

Blair, Sir R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

Dugdale, Captain T. L.

Boulton, W. W.

Colfox, Major W. P.

Duggan, H. J.

Boyce, H. Leslie

Colville, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, J. A. L.

Brass, Sir W.

Conant, Captain R. J. E.

Dunglass, Lord

Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

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

Eastwood, J. F.

Broadbridge, Sir G. T.

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

Edmondson, Major Sir J.

Brocklebank, Sir Edmund

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

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

Ellis, Sir G.

Elliston, Capt. G. S.

Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)

Emery, J. F.

Lloyd, G. W.

Salt, E. W.

Emmott, C. E. G. C.

Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Loftus, P. C.

Sandeman, Sir N. S.

Entwistle, Sir C. F.

Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Sandys, E. D.

Errington, E.

MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

Scott, Lord William

Erskine-Hill, A. G.

McCorquodale, M. S.

Selley, H. R.

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

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Fleming, E. L.

McKie, J. H.

Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

Fox, Sir G. W. G.

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

Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Fremantle, Sir F. E.

Magnay, T.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest

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

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

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

Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

Gluckstein, L. H.

Markham, S. F.

Smithers, Sir W.

Goldie, N. B.

Marsden, Commander A.

Snadden, W. McN.

Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

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

Somerset, T.

Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.

Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Medlicott, F.

Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

Gridley, Sir A. B.

Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)

Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.

Grimston, R. V.

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

Spens, W. P.

Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)

Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

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

Guinness, T. L. E. B.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Storey, S.

Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

Moreing, A. C.

Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

Hambro, A. V.

Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hammersley, S. S.

Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

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

Hannah, I. C.

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Harbord, A.

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

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

Munro, P.

Sutcliffe, H.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Tate, Mavis C.

Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hepworth, J.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Touche, G. C.

Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)

Palmer, G. E. H.

Train, Sir J.

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

Patrick, C. M.

Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.

Higgs, W. F.

Peake, O.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Peters, Dr. S. J.

Turton, R. H.

Holdsworth, H.

Petherick, M.

Walker-Smith, Sir J.

Holmes, J. S.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

Horsbrugh, Florence

Pilkington, R.

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

Howitt, Dr. A. B.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

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

Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

Hunter, T.

Procter, Major H. A.

Warrender, Sir V.

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

Purbrick, R.

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

James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.

Radford, E. A.

Wayland, Sir W. A.

Jarvis, Sir J. J.

Rankin, Sir R.

Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)

Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

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

Keeling, E. H.

Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

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

Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Wise, A. R.

Kimball, L.

Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

Wood, Hon. C. I. C.

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

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Rosbotham, Sir T.

Wragg, H.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.

Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

York, C.

Lancaster, Captain C. G.

Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

Rowlands, G.

Levy, T.

Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lewis, O.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Furness.

Lindsay, K. M.

Russell, Sir Alexander

Lipson, D. L.

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

NOES.

Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)

Chater, D.

Gardner, B. W.

Adams, D. (Consett)

Cluse, W. S.

Garro Jones, G. M.

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

Cocks, F. S.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

Collindridge, F.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)

Adamson, W. M.

Cove, W. G.

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Ammon, C. G.

Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

Green, W. H. (Deptford)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Daggar, G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

Grenfell, D. R.

Banfield, J. W.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

Barnes, A. J.

Day, H.

Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

Barr, J.

Dobbie, W.

Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

Bellenger, F. J.

Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Groves, T. E.

Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Ede, J. C.

Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

Benson, G.

Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Bromfield, W.

Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)

Hardie, Agnes

Brown, C. (Mansfield)

Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

Harris, Sir P. A.

Burke, W. A.

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

Hayday, A.

Cape, T.

Gallacher, W.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

304

305

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Montague, F.

Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

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

Smith, E. (Stoke)

Hicks, E. G.

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

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

Hills, A. (Pontefract)

Nathan, Colonel H. L.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Hopkin, D.

Naylor, T. E.

Sorensen, R. W.

Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

Noel-Baker, P. J.

Stephen, C.

Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

Paling, W.

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

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

Parker, J.

Stokes, R. R.

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Parkinson, J. A.

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

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

Pearson, A.

Thorne, W.

Kirby, B. V.

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

Thurtle, E.

Kirkwood, D.

Price, M. P.

Tinker, J. J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.

Pritt, D. N.

Tomlinson, G.

Lathan, G.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Viant, S. P.

Lawson, J. J.

Richards, R. (Wrexham)

Walkden, A. G.

Leash, W.

Ridley, G

Walker, J.

Leonard, W.

Riley, B.

Watson, W. McL.

Logan, D. G.

Ritson, J.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lunn, W.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Welsh, J. C.

Macdonald, G. (Ince)

Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

Westwood, J.

McEntee V. La T.

Rothschild, J. A. de

Wilkinson, Ellen

McGhee, H. G.

Seely, Sir H. M.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

MacLaren, A.

Sexton, T. M.

Williams, T. (Don Valley)

MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

Shinwell, E.

Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)

Mander, G. le M.

Silkin, L.

Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)

Marshall, F.

Silverman, S. S.

Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

Maxton, J.

Simpson, F. B.

Milner, Major J.

Sloan, A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.

Question put, and agreed to.

CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH (PREPARATORY PROVISIONS).
Mr. Mander: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make administrative preparations for making use, for war purposes, of the possessions of certain classes of persons, and for matters connected therewith."
The mind of the country, I think, has been particularly concentrated on this problem of late in view of the new Measure with regard to human life that is before the House, and many people have said, "What do you mean by conscription of wealth?" I shall try to lay before the House shortly what some hon. Members on this side of the House mean by conscription of wealth. At a moment when a revolutionary change is being brought into the life of young people in this country by conscripting them in peace-time, it is not unnatural that many people throughout the length and breadth of the country are thinking of the question of equality of sacrifice as between man and money. It may be that those who are most strongly in favour of the conscription of man-power will not be so enthusiastic about any scheme for the conscription of wealth. We shall wait to see that. But I do bring forward this Bill as a serious contribution to a question that must be in many minds. I do not say that it is the best method of dealing with the matter. There are alternative methods, and there may be far better methods. I notice that the military committee of the United States Senate has just approved a Bill to enable the United
306
States Government to conscript wealth in time of war. It may be that that is a better method of dealing with the problem.
I make no excuse for bringing forward this Motion now, because the Prime Minister has told us that we are not living in a time of peace, and measures of an exceptional nature need to be brought forward to deal with the grave situation which faces us all to-day. Owing to the procedure of this House, I as a private Member am not, of course, able to introduce any Bill which imposes a charge. Therefore, this Measure takes the form of making certain preparations for subsequent legislation. None the less I think it will make quite clear the object that I have in mind. To put it shortly, the Bill contemplates a situation in which the wealth of this country will be called up in just the same way as the man-power is being called up, and it takes as its basis the Military Training Bill that has just been introduced; and in so far as it is possible to correlate the two and adopt similar measures with regard to money and men, it endeavours to do that. First of all, the Government have fixed upon the age of 20 for calling up the young conscripts. It is necessary, therefore, to fix another age in this case. I must fix one arbitrarily, and I have, therefore, gone "40 years on" and I have taken the age of 60.
Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does the hon. Member include himself in that category?
Mr. Mander: The hon. and gallant Member is trying to make a personal point. If he will study the Bill he will see that neither he nor I will escape it, and if it will give him any satisfaction I am prepared in Committee to accept an Amendment substituting my own age. The Bill takes Surtax payers, of whom there are 95,000 in this country, and it says that those of 60 shall have their wealth called up over and above Surtax level, and that for six months, the same period as the period of training, it shall be placed at the disposal of the State for war purposes. Provision is made so that as the age of military service is extended—I do not believe for a moment that we are going to stop at the age of 20, for this is only the thin end of the wedge, and I have no doubt that the Government intend to make rapid expansion in the near future—we can alter the age from 60 under this Bill, either upwards or downwards, as the Treasury may consider most appropriate.
The Bill further lays it down that in time of war every Surtax payer who is not engaged upon active military service shall have the whole of his resources over and above the Surtax level placed at the service of the State for the purposes of the war. It may truly be said that there are many Surtax payers who have legal obligations and undertakings that they have entered into which it would be impossible for them to discharge under a strict application of a Measure of this kind. I, therefore, adopt the procedure of the Military Training Bill and authorise the Treasury to set up hardship tribunals. I do not know whether "hardship" is a very suitable word, but there would be grave difficulties, for which we must make allowance, which would confront the Surtax payer, and if the tribunal were satisfied that the Surtax payer had made out a case, then their legal obligations could be discharged out of the funds which had been taken by the State.
Mr. Radford: What about conscientious objectors?
An Hon. Member: And Northern Ireland?
Mr. Mander: If hon. Members will allow me to finish my speech they will see that I have dealt with those points. Northern Ireland is excluded. [Laughter.] I put this proposal forward in all seriousness
308
and am not treating it as a joke. It may be that there will be certain persons, possessors of wealth, just as there are persons who will be called up for military training, who have a perfectly sincere conscientious objection to their wealth being used for war purposes. In those cases, I again follow the Military Training Bill. There will be tribunals set up and those conscientious objectors could put their case before the tribunal, and in the event of the tribunal being satisfied, then their wealth could be diverted to social services, hospitals and so on.
I have endeavoured to keep as closely to the framework of the Military Training Bill as it is practicable to do. I hope that hon. Members will be good enough to give the Bill careful study and to bear in mind the great contrasts with which we are faced at the present time—the compulsory taking of young men to be trained, sent out and used for war purposes, and, on the other hand, the feeling that there ought to be taken from those who possess surplus wealth some very substantial part of it, under compulsion. I cannot believe that at a moment when we are making this tremendous change in our customs of life in this country the House of Commons would care to have it said that they were unwilling to allow the First Reading to be given to a Measure of this kind, in order that it may be printed and studied for what it is worth.
Mr. Petherick: I think we ought not to allow a proposal to bring in a Bill of this character to pass, without one or two comments upon it. It is a great pity that even a few minutes should be wasted at this time of national crisis on a proposal such as this. Nevertheless, the hon. Member, whose purpose is best known to himself, has sought the right to bring in this Bill, and I should like to say a few words about it. Much has been said recently about the conscription of wealth. I have always thought that that expression was nothing but a slogan, and a slogan which it was very difficult to explain. It is a slogan which is laughable when carefully examined, and the hon. Member, in the way he has explained the Bill, has shown that the elements of ludicrousness are not absent from it. I should like to make a few suggestions in case the House should give the hon. Member the right to bring in such a Bill.

309
He must carry it to its logical conclusion and apply it not only to those of 60 but to those of 60, 61 and 62.
He says that under the Military Training Bill there is to be a period of training for six months and that wealth is to be conscripted under his Bill for six months. I presume, therefore, that if he wishes to keep up exactly the same basis as the Military Training Bill this wealth will be used for the purpose of training only and that, for example, manufacturers of paint will have their wealth conscripted for six months for the period of training, in order that they will be able to learn during that period how to make more money. I very sincerely hope that the House will not give the hon. Member the right to introduce the Bill. We have a great deal of legislation before us at the present time, and there seems to be no reason why, in order to advertise an apparent or imaginary grievance, we should give any more publicity to slogans of this nature.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mander, Mr. Acland, Mr. Batey, Lieut.-Commander Fletcher, Mr. Foot, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Gordon Macdonald, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. W. Roberts, Mr. Ellis Smith and Mr. Tinker.

CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH (PREPARATORY PROVISIONS).
  CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH (PREPARATORY PROVISIONS) BILL,
  "to make administrative preparations for making use for war purposes of the possessions of certain classes of persons and for matters connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

MARRIAGE BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday. Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [Bill 119.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills(with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Miss Rathbone, and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Henry Guest.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

All Hallows Lombard Street Bill, without Amendment.

Willenhall Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, and the Government of Burma Act, 1935, in certain respects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [India and Burma (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill] [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Southampton Harbour Board and for other purposes." [Southampton Harbour Bill] [Lords.]

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.27 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  By way of explanation of the need for the Bill I cannot do better than recall the words used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he announced, on 26th April, its prospective introduction. He said:
  "His Majesty's Government have recently given fresh consideration to the procedure applicable to measures which they might consider necessary to put the country into a complete state of preparedness for defence. The result of their investigation shows that the present procedure for the mobilisation of the forces is antiquated in character and quite unsuited to modern conditions, based as it is upon the hypothesis that war could only come after such a period of warning as would give time to change from a peace to a war footing.
  Broadly speaking, under present procedure mobilisation, whether complete or partial, can only take place after the issue of a proclamation, which is different in the case of each Service, declaring that a state of emergency exists. The issue of such proclamations was, no doubt, originally contemplated as taking place when the outbreak of war appeared imminent. But in present times war may not appear imminent, and yet the general conditions may be so uncertain that it is desirable to take certain precautions without the publicity and the shock to public confidence which would be caused by the issue of proclamations. Accordingly, the Government have decided at once to introduce a Bill entitled the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill which will simplify the procedure and enable His Majesty by Order in Council to authorise the various Service Departments to call up any class or description of Reserve and Auxiliary Forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April 1930; cols. 1150–1, Vol. 346.]
  No, exception, I think, is taken to our proposals in any part of the House, and the Opposition, I understand, like everyone else, regard them as "merely a matter of introducing more effective machinery." The existing law on the subject of calling out the Reserves is contained in the Reserve Forces Act of 1882, and the relevant Sections are 12 and 13. These provide:
  "XII.—(1) In case of imminent national danger or of great emergency, it shall be law-
  326
  ful for Her Majesty in Council by proclamation, the occasion being first communicated to Parliament, if Parliament be then sitting, or declared in council and notified by the proclamation, if Parliament be not then, sitting, to order that the army reserve… shall be called out on permanent service.
  (2) It shall be lawful for Her Majesty by any such proclamation to order a Secretary of State from time to time to give, and when given to revoke or vary, such directions as may seem necessary or proper for calling out the forces or force mentioned in the proclamation, or all or any of the men belonging thereto.
  (3) Every such proclamation and the directions given in pursuance thereof shall be obeyed as if enacted in this Act, and every man for the time being called out by such directions shall attend at the place and time fixed by those directions, and at and after that time shall be deemed to be called out on permanent service.
  (4) A proclamation under this Section shall for the purposes of the Army Act, 1881, be deemed to be a proclamation requiring soldiers in the reserve to re-enter upon army service.
  XIII. Whenever Her Majesty orders the army reserve… to be called out on permanent service, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within 10 days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within 10 days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day."
  It will be seen that before action can be taken the King in Council must issue a Proclamation, and this declares—if one may cite the words used in 1914—that:
  "… Whereas the present state of public affairs and the extent of the demands on our Military Forces for the protection of the interests of the Empire do in our opinion constitute a case of great emergency within the meaning of the said Act. … Now, therefore, we do … hereby order that our Army Reserve … be called out in permanent service."
  This Proclamation, by the Crown Office Act of 1877, is not valid in law unless published in the "Gazette," and by custom it must be posted in Whitehall, at Temple Bar, and at various other places. Subsequently posters, drawing attention to the Proclamation and giving the Secretary of State's directions thereunder, are widely exhibited. So formal, so gradual, so stately, so deliberate, so overt and, in certain circumstances, so alarming a ritual was, as the House will agree, more suited to an age in which danger advanced with a tread correspondingly measured, premediated, and precise.

  327
  There is another aspect of the matter. A "great emergency," as contemplated by the Act, was defined as being an "occasion," which had to be communicated to Parliament, if possible before His Majesty issued his Proclamation in Council. A foreign fleet was assembling, or an army making ready. Such events in former days generally followed upon a period of diplomatic exchanges. They stood out conspicuously from the ordinary current of events. War itself had its recognised preliminaries, determined by age-long international usage. There were notes and warnings, an ultimatum, a declaration. While such conventions were not invariably observed, the character of transport and communications in themselves limited the likelihood of surprise, especially to an island nation. It was natural, therefore, that the Legislature should envisage "an occasion" as the mainspring of mobilization. We live, however, in conditions of enduring tension. Hostilities are undertaken without notice. Forces are brought by speedy and concealed processes to any required degree of strength. Indeed, most of the armies of Europe are now kept at varying stages of mobilisation. We alone are bound by a procedure which assures the maximum publicity for our defensive preparations and which, by its solemn terminology—"imminent national danger," "great emergency"—is calculated to be misunderstood abroad and to arouse disquiet at home.
  The Bill removes the disadvantage by which we are restricted. It assumes that a situation has arisen, and may for three years continue, in which His Majesty should be empowered to authorise the Admiralty and the Secretaries of State to call out the Reserves—or any part of them—I shall deal with the Auxiliary Forces later—to ensure our preparedness against external danger. If and when they are called out under this Bill, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been called out under the Statutes or other instruments under which they can now be called out. The conditions governing the Auxiliary Forces are in some respects peculiar. Under Section 17 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, the Territorial Army and the Auxiliary Air Force cannot be embodied before the issue of a Proclamation order-
  328
  ing the calling out of the Regular Reserves. Nevertheless, under the voluntary arrangement permitted by Section 13 of the same Act it is possible in advance of general embodiment to call our for purposes of defence those members of the Territorial Army who have undertaken this particular liability. This is the arrangement under which the anti-aircraft defences can at present be manned. The regulations provide for the personnel of these defences to engage to serve
  in case of national emergency when called upon to do so under the authority of the Secretary of State."
  Under Section 5 (1) of the Auxiliary Air Force Act of 1924 the Auxiliary Air Force can also be called out in whole or in part for the defence of the British Isles in advance of the Regular Reserves, provides His Majesty declares by Order in Council that a state of emergency exists.
  The machinery for calling out the various Naval Auxiliary Forces is in general similar to that governing the calling out of the Royal Naval Reserve. A Proclamation is necessary which must be communicated to Parliament if it is sitting. The Bill, while not essentially altering the circumstances in which the personnel of the various Reserve and Auxiliary Forces have undertaken to fulfil their obligations, enables their calling out to be effected without recourse to the more elaborate procedure, which at present obtains. The House will see, then, that in the case of the Auxiliary Forces as in the case of the Regular Reserves, calling out or embodiment involves a general notification in the most public manner of the occasion for measures, which in these times are only precautionary. The announcement of an emergency, however, or the declaration of an occasion to Parliament is liable to aggravate that feeling of uncertainty which prudent action, efficiently and quietly taken, is intended to allay.
  The House would now wish to know what steps it is intended to take under the Bill. Reservists in the British Army have not hitherto been called up for the annual period of 12 days' training for which they are liable, and many of them are unversed in the handling of modern weapons. It will be recalled that to remedy this shortcoming, I announced in my speech in introducing the Army Estimates that we would exercise our option in respect of 16,000 other ranks. We had no power to require the attendance of officers, but

  329
  we proposed to invite 1,000 to take a course of about 14 days. This project will now be replaced by a more comprehensive scheme, made advisable by the greater obligations since undertaken by the Army. It is now proposed to ensure our greater preparedness, call up in batches, and at convenient dates, a large proportion of our Regular Reserves, including officers, who are within the scope of the Bill. They will be required to serve, so far as can be foreseen, for not more than three months. They will enable the Regular Army to train at war strength in formations and put the Regular Army in a position, if necessary, to take the field at short notice. Further, they will make it possible to provide, either directly or indirectly, for the training of the Militia, which, as the House knows, is also being raised to ensure our greater preparedness to meet external danger.
  Personnel of the Territorial Army antiaircraft units will be called up this summer in rotation, so that no individual should be on service for more than a month. They will be at war stations. Arrangements will be made for gunnery personnel to train for a fortnight out of the month at practice camps, so that in their case the rotation of units at the selected war stations will be more frequent. The facilities given by Clause 3 for obtaining more rapid possession of land will be mainly used to acquire sites on which we can maintain our permanent defences—subsequently to be manned by the Militiamen who, it is intended will "hold the fort" in an emergency until the Territorials are deployed.
  Mr. Lawson: Does that period of not less than one month for the Territorials include the fortnight in camp?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes. As far as gunners are concerned. They will do a fortnight of that in their ordinary camp at gunnery practice. The searchlights will remain on their sites, because they can be trained on the sites. They do not normally go to practice camps.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: Not six months?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, one month. Huts will be erected on these sites, and it is hoped that in many cases these will be ready in time for use by the Territorials who will be coming out for their month's spell of duty.
  330
  The House will wish to know the use which the Admiralty desire to make of the provisions of this Bill. They are anxious to increase the readiness of the Reserve Fleet, including the anti-submarine and minesweeping units. To this end, they propose to call out the Immediate Class—Class D of the Royal Fleet Reserve (some 3,800 men)—in two batches for service not exceeding three months in respect of each batch; together with some 1,500 pensioners, also in two batches of 750 and for a like period of service. The pensioners will be those who have most recently finished their active service engagements. A smaller number—some 300—of the Royal Naval Reserve Patrol Service and also about 100 Royal Naval Volunteer (Wireless) Reserve ratings will also be called up. A number of retired officers will be required for six months' service.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air will be calling up a certain proportion of the Auxiliary Air Force at the same time as the anti-aircraft units of the Territorial Army and in a similar rotation for periods of one month.
  Everyone called out under this Bill, whether a member of the Reserve or of the Auxiliary Forces, will receive the protection of Clause 2, which provides for his reinstatement in his former occupation.
  Colonel Nathan: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes as far as Clause 2, is he able to say when it is anticipated the calling up will begin and for what period it will last? To put the matter in another way, can he say what proportion of the whole will be called up at each calling?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: We have to erect huts for the reception of those who are to live on these sites, and, therefore, anticipate that it will take about a month to make the necessary arrangements. That would bring us to about a month after the passage of this Bill, but the rotation will go on through the autumn to the beginning of October. That is as nearly as I can put the date.
  Mr. Riley: Are we to understand that this Bill will be applied to all the Territorial Force generally this year?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: It will apply to everyone in the anti-aircraft units of the

  331
  Territorial Army. Each member of such a unit will as long as he is a member of the unit bear his share of this tour of duty. I was saying that protection for the posts vacated by these Territorials is provided by Clause 2, but if experience be a guide, employers will be far more generous than any stipulation in an Act of Parliament could require. Other safeguards for the protection of the individual, should the Government so decide in such matters as his insurance and pension rights can be covered by Order in Council under Clause 4 of the Bill. Under the same Clause the administrative requirements, consequent on the calling out of the personnel, such as billeting and requisitioning of stores can be adapted from the Army Act and the Air Force Act to the present purposes.
  Hon. Members on the Opposition benches found themselves in some difficulty last night, with which I sympathise, but which was in fact attributable to a misunderstanding of the occasion on which the details of expenditure which might be incurred as a result of the passing of the Measure might be discussed. As I understand it, the Ruling of the Chair confines debate on the Financial Resolution to expenditure actually to be authorised by the terms of the Bill, such as enabling the Minister to remunerate members of tribunals. The discussion, on the other hand, of expenditure which may result from the passing of the Bill, such as building and pay, would, I apprehend, be relevant in general terms to the Second Reading, or in detail, to the Estimates or Supplementary Estimates of the Department concerned. The same, I take it, would apply to this Bill.
  In order to give some indication to hon. Members, in so far as we could, we gave an estimate in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum on the Military Training Bill, and we have followed this course, as far as we could, in connection with this Bill. If I make these observations, it is because I would not like hon. Members to feel they are debarred—and I am sure the Chair will permit me to say this—from having the appropriate opportunities, as they always have, in connection with Service matters of commenting on the pay, allowances and on the conditions generally of the personnel of the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Auxiliary. My right hon. Friend the
  332
  Prime Minister stated this afternoon that the Government would endeavour to find some means of accelerating the discussion desired and hon. Members, recognising how limited discussion on the Financial Resolution must of necessity be, will take that assurance from the Government. We shall endeavour to provide them with an opportunity which will allow what they had in mind to be fully debated before any Militiamen are called up under the Bill, or before any of the operations of the Bill mature.
  Mr. T. Johnston: When will the House have the White Paper or other communication which is to be made on this subject?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: At the earliest moment we can prepare it, it will be laid before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that assurance, he may depend on it that we will proceed with the greatest attainable expedition.
  Mr. Ede: Will that be before the House parts with the Military Training Bill? There is a very strong feeling on this side of the House that the discussion of pay and allowances should take place before the House parts with that Measure.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will understand the spirit in which I speak when I say that we shall make these arrangements with the utmost expedition. I cannot positively guarantee that the details will be ready before the Bill is through the House, but I undertake that they will be ready before the Bill is put into operation and the Militiamen called up, and that no one will be receiving a rate of pay which has not been fully discussed in this House.
  Mr. Johnston: Will these rates be subject to amendment by this House?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: The historic methods of procedure in this House are well known to hon. Members. Paradoxically enough, the way to obtain an increase is to vote for a reduction. That normal procedure, which has been effective through the centuries, will prevail.
  Mr. Ernest Evans: Am I right, then, in saying that the House is not to be given an opportunity of giving a vote on whether the rates of pay should be increased or not?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. That is not right. The House will have an opportunity, and if the hon. Member moves a reduction and carries his point of view, the effect will be an increase.
  Mr. Evans: That does not give the House an opportunity of saying whether the pay is to be 1s., or 1s. 6d. or 2s.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: There will be no restriction on Debate. If some hon. Members like to make the pay 2s., that point of view will be taken in the Debate.
  Mr. Evans: But we shall not be allowed to vote on it.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly, a vote on a proposed reduction can be taken.
  Mr. Johnston: There is a strong feeling about this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that if we allow the Military Training Bill to go through the House before we have learned the Government's views upon the question of training allowances, we shall be placed in a very difficult position?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the House is in possession of the Government's views—I do not think there is any need to make those more plain—and the Government is in possession of the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The rights of Debate, however, will be fully preserved, and we shall listen with attention and respect to any suggestion which is made. I hope that that, at any rate, indicates some improvement upon the position in which hon. Gentlemen found themselves last night, a position of which the Government were fully conscious.
  I have now described to the House the anachronistic methods which are imposed on us in taking measures for the greater preparedness of the State. The new machinery will enable us more smoothly and easily to adjust our pace to the speed of modern developments. I have also informed the House to what use we intend to put the powers now sought, and I have shown that we shall protect to the limit of practicability the individual on whom this burden of de fence will fall. It is possible, by viewing together the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill and the Military Training Bill, to discern the outlines of a system which will give to our country in the immediate future a more
  334
  secure protection. If we had had to-day a trained Militia in being, it might not have been necessary to ask Reservists and Auxiliary personnel to give their whole-time services for the periods which are contemplated. They will, however, in full appreciation of the necessity for covering an interval of transition, bear these burdens with the good will and keen devotion which has characterised the spirit in which they have come forward and trained themselves for the security of the country. The nation is not ungrateful to those officers and men who have vindicated the volunteer spirit of this people which we are now to supplement, but not to replace, by more permanent arrangements. A purpose of the more comprehensive measures foreshadowed in the other Bill is to spare them the additional sacrifice, which recurrently stopping the gap might otherwise entail.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is it not intended to give any Territorials extra training, except the anti-aircraft units?
  Hore-Belisha: My hon. and gallant Friend must realise that the terms upon which the Territorial Army engage are voluntary, and it is our desire to spare them increased burdens over and above those terms, as far as we can. The antiaircraft units have for long been in a slightly different position because they have volunteered, or agreed, differently from the rest of the Territorial Army, to come up in circumstances such as those contemplated by the Bill. The Field Army as a whole has not yet undertaken to do that. The Government desire to respect the contract which they have made with these men, and, therefore, this; is confined to the anti-aircraft units. That is one of the penalties one pays for a part-time Army. One must respect the particular conditions of those who are engaged in civil life.
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the inconvenience which is bound to be caused by uncertainty, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate how soon he will be able to tell them which units will be called out, and on what duties?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: As soon as the Bill is through we shall have authority to tell them that. I hope it will be in the course of the next few days. When the Bill

  335
  goes through it will not be long and, as I have indicated, there will be ample notice.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill was confined to the anti-aircraft units, but I understand that it gives the Government power to call up the Territorial Force for more than a fortnight.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: There would be power, but I have drawn a distinction based upon the existing contracts.
  That gap, to which I was referring, Reservists by law and A.A. Territorials by agreement, have undertaken to fill, leaving their civil avocations to this end when an emergency is formally notified or an occasion is formally reported to Parliament. The circumstances of today do not easily permit of isolating such contingencies, for the tension is enduring. Hence the need for this Bill which recognises the prolonged character of the stress under which we, in common with other nations, labour, and the need for more appropriate methods of instituting a state of preparation. This is a time when we must be unrestingly on the alert. We have been up all night discussing these measures of defence. It was a symbolic vigil. This is a time, I feel, when the nation must sleep on its haversack.
  Mr. McEntee: Will these pensioners whom it is proposed to call up retain their pensions plus their allowances?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, I understand that will be the case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty will answer any questions in relation to his Service.
  Mr. Lunn: Do I understand that the young men who are to be conscripted will be called up as a result of this Bill?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir; they will be called up as a result of the other Bill.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: In the Defence Acts, 1842 and 1860, there is a basis of compensation for land acquired for these purposes. Is it that basis which is to operate in this case?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir; exactly the same basis, except that we shall get more speedy possession of the land. The method of assessing compensation is not altered, and it takes place subsequently to our having taken possession.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement of the Prime Minister, when he described the procedure which is necessary for calling up the Forces as inadequate and quite unsuited to modern conditions. The House will have noticed that, contrary to his usual practice, the right hon. Gentleman, in describing the change that was taking place, kept very closely to his brief. The constitutional position has been such that it requires a layman, and certainly myself, to walk very warily in dealing with a matter of this kind. I am not sure that the situation is quite so plain from the House of Commons point of view as the right hon. Gentleman would have led us to believe. There was a time when the House would have been crowded for a Bill of this kind. It is intended to give the Government powers of which the House of Commons and the people of this country have been extremely jealous. While we see the need to increase the powers of the Government to meet new conditions, we have to go carefully lest we swing to the other extreme. It is possible that under this new procedure the House will be asked—in fact I think it is almost certain—to hand over old powers to the King and his Ministers without insisting on their taking the necessary steps to consult Parliament about their application.
  There is a Clause in the Bill which is very important. Under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, and the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, it would be necessary, if the Government issued a Proclamation calling up the Territorial and Reserve Forces, to call Parliament together within 10 days. Erskine May has a very important page upon this, and we all know that the position always has been that the House of Commons must be consulted before powers to embody the Forces were handed over to the Government, or immediately after they were called into existence. The Government are asking us to set aside those Sections of the Acts which make it necessary to call Parliament together within 10 days. Unless we can get some satisfaction on this matter, we shall want that aspect further considered at a later stage of the discussion on this Bill.
  The need for this Measure is said to arise from the external danger. What is the external danger? We all know, or we

  337
  think we know, what it is now, but the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, who, I am glad to see, has stayed for this Bill, must understand that there are other Acts giving emergency powers to the Government for civil purposes, which are not mentioned in this Bill. It would be possible for the Government to call these Forces together at a time of what they might call "civil danger." I know that the 1920 Emergency Act was a separate thing, but it must be understood that we are giving new powers to the Government and handing over powers which would enable any Government to call the Forces together if they thought there was external danger. It would be possible to have a Government who were out of tune with the country, who might use these powers for their own purposes. I do not want to carry this too far, because we want to see facilities provided for meeting any danger from abroad; but we want the Government to make quite clear what they mean by external danger. These powers are rather too wide to be handed over without some definite understanding on that point.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that he is going to call the Reserve Forces and the anti-aircraft sections together in rotation. I was very pleased to hear it made clear that the Bill actually includes the power to call up the whole of the Territorial Forces, including the antiaircraft units. I wonder whether he could give us any clearer description of what method they are going to take in calling up by rotation. Will the men have some proper information; will the Government take counsel with the various territorial associations on this matter; and what notice will be given to men who are Reservists and are likely to be called up? What will be the conditions of pay and allowances? Particularly does this apply to the Reservists, although it applies also to the Territorials. It is bad enough upsetting the conditions of the young recruits, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that there will be even greater difficulties for the Reservists and Territorials, some of whom are married men, with families, and are settled in their posts. Is there to be any compensation for the difficulties of these men? They will have mortgages or very high rents in some cases, and their domestic difficulties will need very careful consideration.
  338
  There is also the question of their reinstatement. Clause 2 contains a very dangerous Sub-section. Under the Clause a man is entitled to have his job back, unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practicable to have him reinstated. I wonder whether that qualification is necessary. Employers generally have been very well disposed to the men serving in the Territorials; in fact, in many cases, while I would not say that it has been a condition of employment that they should be in the Territorials, a man has been more likely to get a job if he is in the Territorials. Sometimes those men are not trade unionists. I am not going to say that all employers who are not trade union employers are evil men, but some employers can be rather ruthless where their men are not protected by trade unions, and the right hon. Gentleman will need to go much more carefully into the question of reinstatement. I am sure that the House would be very grieved if they thought that it would be possible that a man who met the country's needs in that spirit should, because his calling up caused some dislocation to the business of his employer, or for some other reason, be refused his job or frozen out when he returned to civil life. I am afraid that this particular Sub-section to which I have referred makes it possible, if reason can be shown by the employer that it was not practicable to reinstate the man, for him to refuse that man his job.
  There is another point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It has been mentioned to me by my hon. Friend who knows so much about agriculture. New huts are to be built, and I hope that the old practice of building huts on good agricultural land will not be repeated in this case. The Air Ministry and other Services have a record in this matter, and I hope that the land which is to be used for the erection of huts will not be agricultural land that is so necessary for the purposes of the nation. I have put these points in a reasoned way, and I hope that the Government will consider very seriously the possibility of external dangers. They can be dealt with effectively without a lot of feeling on the matter on this side, and if the right hon. Gentleman can assure us of the fact that men will get the return of their posts and not be left in obscurity to suffer in the future, if the right hon. Gentleman can meet the points about the pay, and the other questions of

  339
  finance as they affect each person, we shall have no objection to the passing of this Bill. But in the future stages we shall give attention to the exact powers that the Bill gives to the Government in order to see that we are not handing over a very precious heritage of this nation, namely, the right of the British House of Commons to control the Army.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. Sandys: I rise for a few moments to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I wish to make a few observations on the application of the Bill as it affects the Anti-Aircraft units of the Territorial Army. The reasons which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has given for the introduction of the Bill are varied. He gave three main reasons. The first was the need for the simplification of the procedure for calling up Reservists and Territorials in periods of emergency. This Bill will make the whole procedure very much simpler, swifter and more efficient, though when I heard my right hon. Friend narrate to us the procedure, and the picturesque ritual which was required to be followed according to the present Regulations, I almost began to regret that we were going to lose it.
  The second point the Minister mentioned was that this Bill will avoid creating the alarm which the issue of a Proclamation would cause. I think that that is the least important aspect of this question. Instead of posting up a Proclamation at Temple Bar, an Order in Council will be issued and presented to this House. It will be fully discussed. It will appear in all the public Press. Every bit as much publicity and attention is going to be drawn to it on all the posters and newspapers throughout the country as in the case of a Proclamation. What is more, in my opinion, it is right; necessary and desirable that the public should know when the Reserve Forces on the Crown are called up. All the country knows that there is a state of international tension and danger. The country should also know what is being done to increase our preparedness to meet that danger. It is greatly reassuring to the public to know that defensive measures are being taken. In that respect I would like to say a word of praise for the efforts which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central
  340
  Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) is making to bring home to the public what the Defence Services are doing for their protection.
  The principal reason for this Bill, however, and the one for which I welcome it, is that it gives us the means to meet the very real danger of a surprise air attack. There can be no doubt at all that that danger exists. It has existed for a considerable time. In the exposed and dangerous position in which we find ourselves it is imperative for us to provide for the permanent manning of our antiaircraft defences. This is one of the very serious gaps in our present defence system which the new Military Training Bill is going to fill. It is going to supply the personnel to carry out these duties. But we cannot wait, in these times of tension, until the new conscripts are registered, called up and trained. My right hon. Friend has announced that in rotation all the anti-aircraft units for a fortnight each will man their war sites. These fortnightly shifts will of course only provide the men for manning a small proportion of our total war sites. Nevertheless it will be a very great advance, and a very important addition to our security.
  I am sure that all the anti-aircraft units of the Territorial Army will very gladly undertake these new duties which the Bill will impose upon them. But I take this opportunity to refer to a matter which I raised at Question Time to-day. There will be, though perhaps they will not be very numerous, cases where this extra fortnight's training will involve serious hardships. There will be certain men who have commitments for rent, for the maintenance of dependants, and other matters of that kind, who will find it difficult to carry on their Army pay for the additional fortnight over and above the fortnight in camp which they are already prepared to undertake. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to see that some assistance is extended to those cases in these exceptional circumstances. There is only one other small point to which I want to refer, namely, the Government's powers of billeting. I do not see them in the Bill. I do not know whether they come under the Clause dealing with "consequential matters."
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: They come under consequential matters.
  Mr. Sandys: Does it cover compulsory billeting in peace time?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha Mr. Hore-Belisha indicated assent.
  Mr. Sandys: Earlier in this Debate my right hon. Friend in reply to an interjection of mine, assured me that the Territorials would be given ample notice before they were called up for this emergency service. It is, obviously, very desirable that they should have as long notice as possible in order that they can adjust their civilian life to the new duties which the Bill imposes upon them. At the same time, I would say to my right hon. Friend that we must not lose sight of the main purpose of this Bill, which is to see that these war sites are manned at the very earliest possible moment. There is grave danger in leaving these sites unmanned for a day longer than is necessary in the present international situation. If there is a possibility of a surprise attack—and if there were not the possibility of a surprise attack we would not be taking these measures at all—from some potential aggressor, that danger is for the moment intensified by the fact that we have proclaimed to any would-be enemy that now or never is his chance to catch us unprepared. After having given warning to the world that we are going to man our anti-aircraft defences it is extremely dangerous to dally or delay. These gun sites and searchlight positions should be manned, not in a few weeks' time, but now, at once.
  5.28 p.m.
  Colonel Nathan: The keynote of this Bill is to be found in its Preamble, "preparedness for the defence of the realm," and the keynote to the speech of the Secretary of State for War is to be found in the phrase "enduring tension." That object and that condition are amply justification for this Bill. It is a Bill, which, I think, the Secretary of State will agree, has a dual purpose. In the first place, it will enable the Auxiliary Forces and the Reservists to be mobilised at the will of the Government, when in the judgment of the Government the occasion arises. In that connection it is eminently desirable, in the situation of the world as it is and is likely to be, that the Government of the day should have that power, but it is equally desirable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said, and
  342
  indeed imperative, that Parliament should be able, even if only after the event, to exercise a measure of control. I am not at all sure that this is not indeed contemplated by Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, where it is provided that:
  "Any Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."
  There is always the contingency that Parliament may not be sitting, and there is also the contingency that if the Order is made in imminent apprehension of war and war follows, Parliament may not be able to sit in the circumstances in which we may find ourselves. In such a situation I think we should be prepared to judge by the event. The second object of the Bill is of a more limited character. In its practical application it is to give the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air and the Admiralty, the authority to call out certain forces required as a preliminary measure of precaution during a period of "enduring tension, "to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me eminently right that this should be within the power of the Government. I share the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), for whose generous reference to myself I am grateful. As an older man I can only do my part rather from the outside, which he as a younger man is doing from within the ranks of an anti-aircraft unit. I share his apprehension lest time should be lost in manning the anti-aircraft defences of London and our great cities.
  The right hon. Gentleman's programme, as I understand it, is to call out or embody immediately upon the passing of the Bill the units of the Territorial force which are anti-aircraft units, and for the Secretary of State for Air to call out certain Auxiliary Air Force elements. I should like to ask whether this relates to the Auxiliary Air Force, to the balloon barrage or to both? I do not ask for an answer now but it has some bearing on a point which I wish to put to the House. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what extra powers he contemplates getting under the Bill, so far as the antiaircraft units are concerned, which he has not already got under Section 13 of the Territorial Force Act, 1907. On a reading of that Section it seems to me that he may already have such powers as he

  343
  requires for the purpose of calling out the anti-aircraft units, and I should be glad to hear what in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment makes it necessary that he should have any additional powers given under the Bill. Under Section 13 of the Territorial Force Act, 1907, units which have undertaken certain obligations may be called out in priority to the main body of the Territorial Army, and in effect that is repeated under the present Bill?
  The right hon. Gentleman used the term "call out and embody," as if they were synonymous terms. In ordinary parlance they are, but I should like him to look into this point. I do not think that "calling out" entitles the soldier who is called out to his £5 gratuity, but "embody" does, so that the terms are not quite synonymous in the strict sense. I assume, however, that those who are called out or embodied under the Bill will be entitled to the gratuity. It is a matter of some little moment. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of huts. I assume that troops of the anti-aircraft units will be lodged partly in hutments and partly in tents, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not quite abandoned billets. Huts are not extraordinarily comfortable; they have their inconveniences, and those soldiers who are taken from their homes for the period of a month during a season of the year stretching from the early summer to the autumn will, I think, find a more comfortable atmosphere in billets than in hutments or under canvas. The battalion with which I have the honour to be associated was embodied last September with other antiaircraft units, and I went round myself to a large number of billets. I had previously been in camp with the battalion a few weeks earlier, and I have no hesitation in saying, from my own war experience as well, that a good billet is infinitely preferable, to a soldier, to hutments or tents. I hope that attention will be given to this point, quite apart from the fact that it tends to create good feeling between the general population and the troops.
  I want to point out some of the difficulties and hardships which the operation of this Bill may involve. I know the right hon. Gentleman will believe that I am not doing so by way of criticism, still less in a spirit of opposition to the Bill. Indeed, I support the Bill. The numbers
  344
  affected by the Bill, theoretically, may be very much larger than the numbers affected by the Bill which was under consideration yesterday and to which so much discussion was devoted. It will affect the whole Territorial Army as well as the Reserves. So far as the age groups are concerned, it affects practically every age group available for the Territorial Army and the Auxiliary Air Force. If I am right in thinking that the Bill is to apply to the Auxiliary Air Force, we shall have youngsters coming in at the low end of the scale, so far as age is concerned, and older men coming in at the other end, from the anti-aircraft units, because the anti-aircraft units are pre-eminently for older men over the age of 25.
  It will be common ground I think that for a man to be taken from his ordinary occupation for a month, at a period in the year not chosen by himself, to undergo this military training—however patriotically and willingly the obligation may be accepted—the hardship which will fall upon the older man is very much greater than the hardship which will fall upon the younger man. His habits are more settled and his responsibilities are in all likelihood greater. There is also this point, that he has made arrangements both as regards his own family and his employers, so far as he is an employé, to take his camp during what I would call the ordinary summer holiday season. It has been well understood that the camp should be for a fortnight at the most convenient period of the year, that is the latter end of July until the middle of August. He is now to be called upon, without any choice left to him, to go when he is called and to go not for a period of a fortnight, which was the maximum contemplated before, but for a period of a month.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that the question of pay and allowances will have to be considered. I apprehend that "pay and allowances" normally speaking will be the pay and allowances to which he is entitled for a fortnight's camp or if he is embodied for the purposes of war. If he is embodied for the purposes of war it must be assumed that liability for rent and mortgage payments was taken into account when accepting the obligations in the Territorial Army, but an extra fortnight's camp in peace at a period of the year unexpected to him and not selected by him

  345
  might impose financial penalties greater than he has any reason to contemplate, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the question of making some allowance, if need be, in special cases of hardship. It must be borne in mind that a great number of those who will be called up in the anti-aircraft units will either be employers or persons in independent work or businesses; they will not all be employés at all.
  May I refer to the unit with which I am associated and to actual cases which have been brought to my notice. There are in that unit a number of solicitors and a number of barristers serving as private soldiers. A young barrister, a junior at the Bar, striving to make a precarious living in a difficult profession, has relied upon being able to take his fortnight's training during the Long Vacation. He may now find himself bound to leave his chambers, throw up his briefs, and take his month's training compulsorily during the legal term. He is going to suffer very great hardship not merely in an immediate loss of income but also the chance of possible clients at the Bar.
  Sir Robert Tasker: Does not that apply to every professional man?
  Colonel Nathan: The hon. Member who graces another profession will realise that I was only referring to members of the Bar as a practical instance which comes within my own experience, and I will add this further. The hon. Gentleman's son, who is an architect, serves in the same battalion, with great usefulness, if I may say so, in a position of responsibility, to which he has devoted himself. Similarly, he will run the risk of losing largely as an architect by being called up in the ordinary working months of the year. The point I wish to make is that if it is hard on employés, it is also hard on those who are what I may call independent contractors—who are their own employers—that they should be called up, not at the convenient season of the year that was first contemplated and not for the 14 days that have always been understood to be the term, but at any time of the year at which it may be the will of the Government that they should be called up and for a period double that which was at first contemplated.
  I mention these points not by way of criticism of or in opposition to the Bill, but as casual points to indicate the hard-
  346
  ships and difficulties that may be inflicted, which are paralleled by the public spirit, and are instances of the public spirit, of the Territorials and the men in the Auxiliary Air Force, who have given voluntarily so much of their time and energy to being of public service and to being ready, if need be, in advance of their fellow citizens. I hope—indeed I am sure, for I think I understand the mind of the Secretary of State in these matters—that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those who have taken the initiative of making themselves ready should receive in such matters as this, treatment which will ameliorate their difficulties and hardships as far as may be.
  5.48 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I do not intend to follow the excellent speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan), with which I sympathise very largely, but there are one or two practical points with which I want to deal briefly. First of all, as far as the men are concerned—and as I am associated with a battalion, I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge in this respect—they want to be called up, and if there could be a vote, it would be 90 per cent. to that effect. They want also to be called up for a longer time than the usual training, and a great many of them think that in the country's interest they ought to have been called up a long time ago.
  There is one point that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth developed with which I agree. It is intended, under this Bill, to keep a job for a man wherever it is possible, and I think the Minister has produced provisions that are most capable of carrying out that purpose; but undoubtedly there is a certain number of unpatriotic employers, and one of the problems that my right hon. Friend will have to consider is not so much how to keep a job open for a man, but how to ensure that the patriotic employer who employs men who are soldiers is not abused. At the present time, there may be some employers who will not take on a man who happens to be a Territorial soldier or under 20 and, therefore, liable to be called up for six months. My right hon. Friend will have to consider that very grave problem. During the last 12 months, all sorts of suggestions have been made for dealing with that matter. There

  347
  have been, for instance, suggestions that the patriotic employer should be given a rebate on taxation, that an additional tax should be inflicted upon employers who refuse to take on a Territorial soldier, that the privilege of tendering for Government contracts—which is a very valuable one—should be given to patriotic employers, or that they should be allowed to join a roll, such as the King's Roll, and stamp their notepaper in the same way as firms who now employ ex-service men or men wounded in the War. All these suggestions are valuable ones which have not been given the weight that they ought to have been given in the past. I hope the Minister will consider them, because I have no doubt that if he does so, he will be able to devise some means by which he will not only ensure that the men are employed, but also that, "wherever possible, their jobs are kept open for them when they return.
  The next point to which I wish to refer concerns training. There has been a great deal of criticism of the training of the Territorial Army, and much of it has been very largely undeserved. The standard of training is a great deal higher than many hon. Members seem to imagine, and in saying that I am not seeking to pay a compliment to the Territorial Army, but merely stating a fact. The compulsory number of drills bears no relation to the work the men have to do. Last night I checked the number of drills the men have done in my battalion. They have an average of about 100 a year, four or five weekends, and Easter training in addition to annual training. Those men are giving about one-third of their time to the job, and they do it very well. They have enthusiasm and keenness, and they will welcome the opportunity that is being given to them.
  I am very pleased to have had one assurance from my right hon. Friend this evening. It has been whispered about, by people who are perhaps not of a helpful kind of disposition, that this Bill was being introduced not to widen the scope under which the Territorial Army could be called up, but to avoid the payment of the £5 embodiment grant, the 10s. for the man who turns up with a tooth-brush and a shaving-brush, and the £7 10s. for officers who have not had camp equipment before. I gather from my right hon. Friend that that is not true, and it
  348
  is a very good thing that it is so, for if the men are treated generously, you will not get the same amount back, but ten times the amount in service.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to consider another problem which is raised as a result of the increased training that is likely to take place. Under the increased training, the younger non-commissioned officers in the Territorial Army, men who have served for a year or two and have been promoted to the rank of corporal before they were 20 years of age, men who are proud of their stripes, will be called up under the Military Training Bill, their stripes will be removed, and they will be put into the rear ranks. In this distinguished assembly, the rank of corporal may not seem a very important one, but the men are very proud of it, and if these men have earned that rank by their ability, merit, keenness and efficiency—all these being points which my right hon. Friend says are so important—then they ought not, when called up, to have their stripes removed and to be put into the rear ranks of the conscripts. If this is done, it will cause a very great deal of harm and there will be a great loss of good will. I suggest that when these non-commissioned officers are called up, they should be put into specialised classes where their ability could be made use of, and that during their six months' training there should be an opportunity for further advancement, so that when they go back to the Territorial Army, they will have benefited to the fullest possible extent.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that, in my opinion, my right hon. Friend, during the last few years, has introduced some of the most beneficial reforms that the Territorial Army has ever seen. He has followed in the footsteps of Haldane, and his efforts and battles have been more than rewarded by the keenness and efficiency of the Territorial Army and the Auxiliary Forces. I hope that he will consider the points that I have made tonight, and do his utmost to meet them. We all want to see the great voluntary movement continued, linked arm-in-arm with the compulsory system, which is foreign to this country and in my opinion is adopted only because of the grave national danger, and which I hope will be wiped out as soon as that danger is

  349
  over. I do not want to see the voluntary system hurt during this difficult time. Let the voluntary system and the compulsory system go arm-in-arm, and then when the country has come through its difficulties, let us return to the old system which has served us very well in the past.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. E. Evans: Every hon. Member who has spoken so far has been in favour of the Bill, and I do not want to oppose it, but at the same time, it seems to me to be a Bill that calls for comments, not only in regard to its form, but its scope. I should like to say a word or two about its form, in the first place. I assume that the Bill imposes no fresh obligations on those who come within it, but at the same time it proposes to vest in the Government powers which they do not now possess. It is equally clear that the powers which the Government now require are powers which are designed to increase the authority of the Government and to curtail the rights of individual citizens. That may be right or wrong, but let us face the fact. The Government are now inviting the House to give them powers of which they are not at present in possession. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, has said that it is very largely a matter of procedure. That is so. Questions of procedure may be of very small importance, but in certain circumstances they may be of great significance and of very great usefulness to those in authority—it all depends upon the use that is going to be made of the powers of procedure that are vested in the Government. I venture to say that there are very few hon. Members who until this afternoon were better informed than I was as to the contents of the Bill. Like the majority of hon. Members, I was in very great uncertainty as to what it was that the Government were asking us to entrust to them, and I looked forward to the speech of the Minister to enlighten us as to what was wanted.
  When the Government come to the House and ask for increased authority, as they constantly do, let them be frank. What is the position in regard to this Bill? The Government simply ask us to give them power, by one procedure or another, to do certain things which they have power to do under various Acts of Parliament of 1840, 1850, 1860, and so on
  350
  —whatever the dates may be. How many hon. Members know what is contained in the provisions of the various Acts involved? When did the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, first know what was contained in them? Not until he introduced the Bill, or prepared it. When the Government ask the House, which is the custodian of public opinion and the public conscience, to entrust them with further powers, let them not do it by this silly system of simply referring to old Acts of Parliament, of which they themselves had never heard until they became Ministers of the Crown. Let them tell the House what it is they want. They should tell the House what they want, because in telling the House they are telling the country. If I may venture to add a word of advice to this Government in particular, it is that if they want to proceed satisfactorily with their programme they should go out of their way to allay natural suspicions and to create a greater sense of confidence in the House and the country. It is important that we in the House of Commons should know what the Government want.
  If it is important to us, it is still more important to those persons who are affected by the Bill. It may be answered that they know already in the obligations that they have undertaken. They know in a general way, but they do not know in a particular way, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are hundreds and thousands of people affected by this Bill who are anxious to know what it means to them. It is no good presenting them with a Bill which refers to Acts of Parliament of 1842 and 1853. They want to know what the Government are going to do with them. What are the Government going to do with them? We expected the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, but he has not told us. The only thing he has told us is, "Pass this Bill and then we will tell you what we are going to do." Is that quite frank? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but what has he told us this afternoon? He did not tell us how, or why, or when, or at what cost he will use the powers for which he is asking in this Bill. Will he tell us? Will he tell me now? Will he tell us at any time? Will anybody else among the Members of the Government tell us? They will not, because they do not know. That is why it is so unfair to bring in a Bill like this under

  351
  the stress and the tension which exists and in the conditions of anxiety which are oppressing everybody.
  In those circumstances it is unfair to come to the House and say, "We think we must have this power and we will tell you, not what we tell you in the Bill, but what we tell you in the Memorandum." That is that in existing circumstances—those are the circumstances which have been brought about by the policy of the Government—it may be necessary at any time to take the steps authorised by this Bill. Is that quite good enough? If this Bill is put into operation it will affect thousands of people who are now pursuing their ordinary avocations. Is it unfair for them to ask the Government to give them some idea when they will be called up and under what conditions?
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: I did say that.
  Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman did not. The only answer he made was, "Give me this Bill and I will tell you afterwards."
  Mr. Spens: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have been in the House when my right hon. Friend was speaking—
  Mr. Evans: I am willing to give way to a Minister of the Crown, but I am not prepared to give way to anybody else. I do not think I am unfair in saying that those people who are affected by this Bill do not know anything more than that the Government say, "When we feel it necessary to call them up we will call them up." Is that an unfair interpretation of the policy of the Government as it has been declared up to the present? I have said we do not know at what cost this Bill will be put into force. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not give the cost because he did not know when the Government would need the powers.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Was the hon. and learned Gentleman in the House when I spoke?
  Mr. Evans: Yes.
  Mr. Hore-Belisha: Then he could not have heard what I said.
  Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman correct me now? Is he now in a
  352
  position to say what it will cost? We do not know, and I agree that it is impossible to give an estimate. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for an estimate of what this Bill is likely to cost? We are told that the expenditure on armaments is adding to the difficulties of the Chancellor and I would like to know whether there has been any consultation with the Treasury in regard to the cost of this Bill. Has there been any consultation with other Departments about what the Bill will involve in strain upon the industrial life of the country, upon the armaments industry, and upon Civil Defence? All these are matters of the greatest importance on which we are entitled to ask for information. It is not right to leave the country in a state of confusion. I do not think the Government have any idea of the feelings of anxiety and uncertainty which prevail among the citizens of this country in regard to their policy, and I would ask them to give clear guidance to the country.
  Major Procter: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether he or his party are for or against this Bill, or are they both for and against?
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: When the Prime Minister told us that this Bill was to be brought forward it appeared to be a very small thing that he was asking the House. He pointed out the effect of the cumbersome machinery of the Proclamation and said that in these days it was necessary to avoid the difficulties arising from it in calling up the forces. When we got the Bill and when I heard the right hon. Gentleman to-day I found that it was much more than it seemed to me when we had the information about the changes that were to take place. We were told that it was just a little thing. It reminded me of the baby in Uncle Tom's Cabin about which the mother said, in defence of what she had done, "It is only a little one." We had somewhat the same sort of assurance with regard to this Bill. All that was said by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) was fully justified, for there are big issues involved in this Measure. I agree with him in his protest about the way in which the Government are handling this matter. It is not right for them simply to take

  353
  advantage of old Acts and then make it impossible for the House to discuss the conditions which will affect so many hundreds of thousands of men in the new circumstances which have arisen, and without giving the House full opportunity to say what those conditions are to be. The Government would have been better advised if they had given the House a fuller opportunity than is being given by the procedure which they are adopting of applying old Acts of Parliament to the men who will be affected to make fresh statutory provisions for them in the new circumstances which have arisen.
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke first drew attention to some of the fears and misgivings which he had about the Measure. As I listened to him I felt it would not be necessary to say anything because he was expressing what I felt. He pointed out that this Measure might be used effectively by a Government during an industrial dispute. There are all these men being put under new conditions by this Bill, and in the event of an industrial dispute the Government can call them up. When that is done the opportunity will be presented in the House to challenge the Government and to refer them to the assurance that has been given that no such thing would be done. The Government's answer would be obvious. They would only have to say that military exigencies were directing their action and that it was only an unfortunate coincidence that it occurred during a time of industrial dispute. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept an Amendment that will lay down in black and white in statutory form that in an industrial dispute the men engaged in it will not be called up under this Bill? If he will give us a statutory guarantee it will be worth while, for I have no faith in the pledges and assurances that Prime Ministers and other Ministers give us when they say that we can rest assured that this will not happen.
  I have a certain amount of admiration for the technique of the Government in the way they are working this Bill and getting it across to the public. Little by little they are militarising the nation by taking powers and giving assurances that those powers will not be used in a certain way, and then afterwards saying, "When we gave those assurances we did not intend they should be used in this way, but look at what has happened in certain
  354
  parts of Europe and at the position in which we find ourselves to-day." I see in this Bill one other step in the direction of industrial conscription in this country. I am convinced that it is part of the technique which is being applied by the ruling class to rivet industrial conscription on the workers.
  In dealing with other sections of the community involved the Minister takes up a very different attitude from that which he adopts in regard to the working classes. There are provisions in the Bill for the taking over of land and for simplifying the procedure under which it is done. I notice that the Government are not taking additional powers to deal with the exorbitant demands of landlords, of which we have had experience in the past; powers to facilitate the procedure for taking over the land but none to protect the public from being bled, as they have been in the past. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary working class people have been pledging themselves to undertake certain military service to protect the interests of the country. They are being put under so many disadvantages in order to protect these lands, but nothing is done to see that the landowners are not allowed to exploit the situation in their own interests. Could not the Secretary of State give us a pledge to accept an Amendment which would give power to the Government to fix the price of the land at a fair price, not leaving the price-fixing to the existing machinery, which acts only too strongly in favour of the private landowner?
  Clause 2 puts the employer under an obligation to take back his workmen when they return from doing their service, but there is no real force in that Clause as it stands. It is pure eyewash. The Government are taking all these people away from their jobs and knew that there would be a tremendous public outcry unless there was a promise of something being done to prevent them from losing jobs after they had finished their training, but this Clause is only eyewash and gives no real protection. I ask specifically for an assurance that the Minister is prepared to go much further and will provide compensation for the man whose employer does not give him back his job, because, in the words of the Bill, it is reasonably impracticable for the employer to do so. There will be thousands of men who will not be able to get back their jobs, but

  355
  if an appeal is made to the provisions of Clause 2 the employer will bring forward good reasons, or alleged good reasons, for not being able to take the men back, and those reasons will be accepted. Then the men will be unemployed, but why should men who have given service in the armed forces be at a disadvantage when they return to civil life? If a man cannot get his job back, is it not the duty of the Government to provide him with employment or with adequate compensation? When the legislation dealing with the electricity industry was being put upon the Statute Book provision was made that where there was a merger of undertakings people who lost their employment should be granted financial compensation. Why are the Government not prepared to put into this Bill a provision for financial compensation to these men, so that they will not be in a worse position because, through no fault of their own, but because of new circumstances which have affected their employers, it is impossible for them to be re-employed? Is not that reasonable?
  Then, I do not think the House realises how hundreds of thousands of people who will be called up for a much longer period than was contemplated will be affected. It is true that at present the Minister does not contemplate calling up the Territorials generally for the period of four weeks. That is to apply at present, I understand, only to the anti-aircraft service, but he has powers to call up the whole lot. It was a contract to go to camp for a fortnight into which they entered, but under this Bill it is possible if things get a little worse in Europe that it will be considered necessary to call up so many more thousands of these Territorials, and there is no provision in the Bill for dealing with the obligations which they have to meet in civil life, such as their rent. Those who have volunteered to give four weeks in connection with antiaircraft service will expect, obviously, that their civil liabilities in the matter of rent and the like will be dealt with by the Government, so that they will not be in a worse position by reason of giving this voluntary service, but there is no statutory provision to deal with the matter, and I think that is a formidable objection to this House agreeing to this Measure.
  356
  We want something more than an assurance that everything will be all right. The overwhelming majority of the people concerned are in comparatively humble circumstances and do not realise the position in which they will be left by reason of their patriotic efforts to serve the country. If there were a bigger percentage of well-to-do people involved much greater care would be taken to see that they were not penalised. I am very much disappointed that the Government are not dealing with this problem de novo with a Measure which would provide for the difficulties that will result and which would give this House an opportunity of seeing that provision is made to ensure that those who give this voluntary service will not be put in a worse position than the other members of the community who are not prepared to give such service.
  There is a further point, and that is, what will happen to the man who is called up for this four weeks' service and becomes ill as a result of it? He may get wet and may have uncomfortable surroundings and may develop tuberculosis. I have had experience of many cases in which men who have been for some years in the Army have developed tuberculosis and afterwards the War Office has said that they must have been weak constitutionally and has refused to give them any pension. The present system, under which the War Office require the most meticulous proof that the disability was attributable to the man's service, acts most unjustly in the case of men in the Regular Army, and I can see that there will be thousands of cases in which men who give this voluntary service will become disability subjects as a result of harsh weather conditions and insufficient shelter, yet there is no adequate provision to ensure that they will not suffer because of their patriotic service.
  I myself never claim to be a patriotic individual in the ordinary sense. A great deal is said about patriotism, but I always remember the saying of Dr. Johnson, in which he described patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrelism, and while I certainly believe that the great aim of everybody should be to seek to give to the community all the service possible, in order to make life richer and fuller for all, I hope that in regard to the patriotism which is expected to-day of the poor people the Government will deal much more justly than have Governments in the

  357
  past with those who have acted patriotically. I fear very much the powers which the Government are taking under this Measure. Their proposals should be made statutory provisions. I believe that the Bill as it stands may be one step on the way to industrial conscription, that it may be used in the most unjust fashion in days to come against people who are taking part in an industrial dispute, and I hope the Minister will agree to provide statutory safeguards before the Bill receives its Third Reading.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member who has just spoken asked the Minister to provide some statutory undertaking that the Bill will not be used in industrial disputes. I cannot feel that the danger of that occurring is real, but I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that it would possibly be worth while looking into the point in order, not so much that the country should be reassured—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend that the point is adequately met in the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"] I hope that it will not only be in the Bill but that it will be made clear that the suspicion is quite unfounded, and that persons who wish to work up suspicion where no ground for suspicion lies should not have that opportunity.
  At the beginning of his speech the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) complained that the Bill went much further than he first thought. I would not make that complaint. I welcome the scope of the Bill, and I think I am right in saying that the great majority of those who are affected by it will welcome its provisions too. The point upon which I should like to say a word concerns the ex-Regular soldiers. The ex-Territorials have been spoken of from first-hand knowledge by a number of other Members. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend should see fit to call up more than the 16,000 Regular reservists who are at present being called up. I am pleased that he should consider calling them up for a longer time than a fortnight, because it always struck me as asking too much of reservists who have left the Colours, even for quite a short time, to pick up within a fortnight knowledge of new equipment and how to use it, especially in view of the present pace of mechanising the Army
  358
  and the introduction of new weapons. A period up to three months would be much more useful.
  In opening the Debate for the Opposition the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) laid great stress on the necessity for reinstatement. I would assure him that hon. Members on this side of the House are equally anxious that the provisions for reinstatement in employment after service are as watertight as they can possibly be, but we must face realities. Although I do not want to go into Committee points I must remind those hon. Members who complain about a provision that men should be given re-employment where reasonably practicable, that they must face the very simple position. Suppose an employer had died; it would not be reasonably practicable for him to give his old employés their jobs again. That position can be magnified a hundred times. One must face realities.
  Mr. Buchanan: Although an employer has died there is still the business, and it is an asset. Is it not possible for the employés to be compensated out of the business and the assets?
  Mr. Macquisten: Suppose the business has died with the employer?
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I understand from the Secretary of State for War that that is covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. Gentleman has got imagination. He is sitting down there imagining it.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: If my point does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman I will put another. Suppose a business goes bankrupt, and the assets are nil at the end of six months?
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member seems to be standing up there finding every excuse for not paying the men. Surely an insurance policy could be taken out on this matter, the premium paid and the men compensated out of the money. If the hon. Member wants excuses I will give them to him. I will give him far more excuses why the men should be paid.
  Mr. Anstruther-Gray: I do not want excuses at all. I welcome the suggestions of the hon. Member. If he has any plan

  359
  how employers can be prevented from avoiding their obligations to take back reservists who have returned to civil life I am sure that the House will be on his side. There may be differences on detail, but we all agree that it would be intolerable that men should be penalised when they return from serving their country.
  I would take up the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about employing in the first instance men who are Territorials. It has been suggested that some employers might hesitate to employ Territorials fearing that the men will be taken away from employment when they were wanted particularly. That point may apply equally to people who are considering employing ex-Regulars, as alternatives to ordinary employés who were not under those obligations. I do not think that employers on the whole are so black as hon. Members opposite paint them, but it is our duty to make every possible provision to prevent employers being tempted to differentiate unfavourably against the Service man whether he is an ex-Regular or an ex-Territorial. The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth mentioned a method by which the good employer who seeks to employ an ex-Service man or a Service Territorial in preference to another man should be rewarded. I know that the Minister has looked into the question of enlarging the "King's Roll. That suggestion was examined by his predecessor, but hitherto it has been found impracticable.
  This is a time when one should reiterate the request that the question should be looked into again. It cannot be said too often that the scope of the King's Roll system can be enlarged without hurting the disabled ex-service men who should benefit by it. The scheme as it stands confers a preference for Government orders on those who undertake to employ disabled ex-service men as 5 per cent. of "their staff. I see no insuperable difficulty to saying that in future, in addition to 5 per cent. being disabled ex-service men, a further 5 per cent. should be employed consisting of serving Territorials or ex-Regular soldiers. I commend that point once again to the consideration of my right hon. Friend.
  360
  I would comment upon the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) relating to the method in which we make our announcements, such as that in future we shall have our anti-aircraft guns permanently manned. I commend to the House the suggestion that we might be well advised to remember the analogy of the Budget and the provision that is made to prevent anybody from forestalling the Budget. When the Chancellor intends to impose a duty it is not usual for him to announce his intention, because persons in whose interest it was to do so might seize the opportunity by acting quickly to take advantage of the position before the duty could take effect. I would much rather that we discussed such things as the manning of the anti-aircraft guns when we were prepared to say, "From six o'clock to-night this shall be done," instead of looking some way ahead into the future.
  A further point is that when the Reservists return to service they should be properly treated as regards their issues of dress and equipment. It was the practice when some men were called up for a couple of weeks to lay it down that they should only be issued with suits of canvas and not with service dress. It is unreasonable to expect a man to come back from civil life to be a soldier, even for so short a time as a fortnight, and to be content with a suit of canvas. Before the introduction of the Bill it was impossible for many Reservists who wanted to rejoin and to train in case of trouble, to get vacancies for their reserve training. Surely now, when there is a clamour for everybody to do his job, it was most unreasonable that ex-Regular soldiers, even those who were most anxious to be given a course of training, should be denied the opportunity of that service. This Bill will remedy that. I have raised certain points of detail, but I am sure that the country will welcome the Bill in general, not as a mere gesture, but as another indication and a proof, with a great deal of weight behind it, that we are undertaking our Defence measures with resolution.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. George Griffiths: I have listened very attentively to the Debate. Many speakers who have taken part have been officers, some officers of experience and others younger officers. I was very in-

  361
  terested in the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans). He thrilled me by the way he talked. I had in my pocket a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT and I looked to see where he was last night. I cannot find his name anywhere. He sat on the fence in the moonlight with his party. A week before, one part of them went with us, another part went into the other Lobby and another part went to sleep upstairs. Last night, on this vital issue, we did not have one wee little Liberal lamb with us. Then the hon. and learned Member comes here, and he is not half angry with the Minister of War. He told the right hon. Gentleman that he did not say anything; as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has been saying a lot. He can talk better grammar than myself. I left school when I was 11J years of age, and I started school in the pit. His grammar is very fascinating until you come to dissect it.
  I am going to take an attitude on this Bill different from that which has been taken by any other speaker except the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I say that Clause 2 is nothing but eyewash and camouflage. I am speaking from experience, not from what I have read in a book, and I say that Clause 2 is not worth a threepenny bit. An employer can do almost anything he likes to prevent a man from getting his work back, and, unless drastic Amendments are promised, and something much more definite, I shall go into the Lobby against the Bill to-night. To begin with, the Clause is not clear or definite enough, and it also gives the employer a good chance of getting rid of my people—trade unionists. The employer can makeH3most any excuse under the Clause. He has sufficient rope to starve to death a good trade unionist before he is called up. An employer can get rid of a man simply by giving him four weeks' wages. That is all the compensation a reservist can get, and the Minister is expecting to call up the reservists for not less than three months. The employer can say that there has been a change of circumstances in the interval of three months before the reservist comes back.
  The employer whom I served—the managing director himself—said to me, "George, if you go to New Zealand I will pay every penny of your passage and be glad to get rid of you." Why did
  362
  he say that? Because I and a couple of other chaps were preventing the managing director from wringing hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the men by means of the price list. Some employers would pay anything to get rid of certain men who are looking after the interests of their comrades. We in the mining industry understand victimisation far better than the Minister of War. He has not had any victimisation; he has never had held over his head the industrial sword that, if he loses his job, his security is gone. In Clause 2 I can see the disappearance of a man's security by excuses.
  There is an old adage that the Devil will never die for want of excuses, and Clause 2 has any amount of excuses. The Minister is going to call up the reservists for not less than three months, and in the mining industry, for which I am speaking at the moment, the management can make a change in the workings in a day. They can say to a man who is a good sound trade unionist, and who has gone out for three months, "Your place is finished, George; we have stopped that district, and we have no more work for you"; and the next day they can get another fellow from another pit, or even another district, and put him on to work similar to that which George has been doing. That is being done in scores of cases in the mining industry, and no doubt the same applies to other industries. Then the Clause has a provision about applying within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? One employer might say, "You have been out of the Army for three days; why did you not come here before—the day you came out? You have been skulking about; you have had two days' rest at Blackpool or somewhere else; I do not want you—clear out." We do not want a provision like that, because it is possible to twist round on it.
  The Clause also speaks of a change of circumstances. An employer who wants to get rid of a man can change anything he likes. Another condition is that it must be reasonably practicable to employ the man; and then it says that he must be given a job that is not less favourable than before. This is all in Clause 2—reasonable time; change of circumstances; reasonably practicable; not less favourable. What is "not less favourable"? Does it mean not less favourable as far

  363
  as the pay ticket is concerned, or not less favourable in regard to the work? A man in the pit can have a job that is not less favourable than his previous job, but he can go home with £1 a week less than he got before. The job would be not less favourable as far as the work was concerned, but less favourable as regards the pay ticket. The Government do not understand humanity at all.
  I have spoken about a man being starved. He gets four weeks' wages; he is out of a job; and when he is out of a job at the pit there is no chance of his getting a job at another pit, because he has been a good trade unionist and is marked down—branded like Cain. We have had men in the mining industry who have been out of work for years because they were victimised in this way. The man has his four weeks' wages, and when he is finished with he is passed over to the Employment Exchange; and when he gets there, I say he is on the point of starvation. He has joined the Army; he has been called up as a reservist; and a lot of reservists to-day have a good deal of iron in their soul against the Army, because, when they were on unemployment assistance and drew their 65s. at the end of the quarter, it was taken into account, and 33s. of it was deducted at the Employment Exchange. They were stopped altogether for three weeks, and had only 7s. at the fourth week-end. They have said to me at the pit, "I have done with it, George. If this is the way they are treating me after I have served in the Army, I am finished with the Army altogether." But the Minister says, "No; I have got you now; with this Bill I am calling you up, and you have got to come." And when the man comes and loses his job, he goes back again to unemployment.
  The Minister is looking at me as though I were not telling the truth, but what I am saying is the naked truth; it is too true; and, unless Clause 2 is altered, hundreds of men will have that feeling when they come back. If these men are brought out of industry, their employers must be told that they are to go back to their jobs without any clauses as to reasonable time, change of circumstances, not reasonably practicable, or not less favourable, which give the employer the opportunity of cold-shouldering a man after he has served his country. We ask
  364
  the Minister, or whoever is going to reply, at least to tell the employers definitely that, when a man has been taken, so to speak, by the scruff of the neck, he is to go back to his job when the Army has finished with him.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I hope the Secretary of State for War will pay very serious attention to the speech to which we have just listened. I want to tell him, as representing a mining community in another part of the country, that, from conversations I have had with young men who will come under the other Bill, which has a Clause word for word like this, I gather that they have the very gravest apprehension about the ability of the Clause to safeguard the man's position. The very human way in which my hon. Friend has put this point before the Minister will, I hope, indicate to him the feeling that I know exists very largely in the mining community. I do not know whether it is due to the degeneracy of this Parliament, or to the general deterioration of world affairs, that we are discussing this Measure in the calm way that we are. It is really astonishing that this Parliament, which has always been so jealous of allowing the Executive the power to raise easily, without the consent of Parliament, armed forces, should be giving the Executive these powers in the easy way in which they are being given. If Parliament is not sitting, Parliament is to be told as soon as possible, but I was rather alarmed, if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) will allow me to say so, when I heard him state that of course Parliament may not be able to meet owing to the circumstances of the time.
  I sincerely hope that we are not going to assume beforehand that the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will very easily allow any circumstances, external or internal, to lead it to abandon its functions in time of emergency. It may be that Parliament will have to meet in circumstances of great danger. It might perhaps not be thought wise that it should meet at Westminster. It would not be the first time that Parliament has me elsewhere than at Westminster, and I have thought for some years that, if we were a rather peripatetic Parliament, which occasionally met in the distressed areas, and enabled Members who repre-

  365
  sent prosperous and comfortable divisions in the South of England to see what the conditions are really like in "Durham, South Wales or on the Clyde, it might be a very good thing for the public administration of the country. I hope that nothing that has been said to-day on any side of the House will be taken as indicating that Parliament might be considering abrogating its functions if either external or internal affairs become too difficult, because the more we arm the Government with these huge military forces which they are now asking us to put under their control, the more essential it is that the old British tradition of the civil control of the armed forces should be enforced.
  I am not too sure that this phrase in the Preamble about external dangers is really of any great value to us in the fear which some of us have that the Measure might be used in time of civil disturbance. Let us assume that some power such as this had existed when the Liberal Government had difficulties at the Curragh. We know, from memoirs and histories which have been published since, that the existence of trouble at the Curragh was one of the things that encouraged the Germans in 1914 to think that they would find the country divided and an easy prey to what in these days we call aggression. I think, that, although that Liberal Government would not have done it, a suitably courageous Government armed with these powers might have said, "In view of the fact that this internal trouble is encouraging the King's enemies and creating external danger we will call out the Reserves and the Territorials." I could imagine a Conservative Government, masquerading perhaps as a National Government because it had a few people in it who had got good jobs for deserting their Liberalism, seeing that in the event of difficulty in the coalfields or in some other industrial sphere there might be an encouragement of aggression abroad and using this Bill on that ground as a reason for calling out the Reserves and the Territorials. I think there ought to be a quite explicit statement in the Bill—although in view of the effect on my mind of the desertion of pledges by the Government it would probably be a broken reed to rely on—that these forces shall not be called out, embodied or used in time of
  366
  civil commotion. That is the least that the Government could do.
  I want to speak as an ex-Territorial when I say that I believe the hon. Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) was speaking the mind of the Territorial rank and file when he spoke about their attitude towards this Measure, viewing it now as a purely military Measure. I am sure that a good many of them would be just as alarmed as I and my friends are with regard to some of the implications of this Measure. But, regarding it purely as a military Measure, I am sure that the Territorials desire to be treated as what they are—soldiers. I have been very perturbed at the language that has been used during the past month by people who have been pressing for compulsory military service about the valour and the efficiency of the Territorials. I believe that the British civilian soldier has a way of tackling military problems which the professional soldier has never understood. I believe that during the last War he was not properly used because the General Staff never understood him and his attitude towards their problems. It was civilian soldiers who won the liberties of this country, and I can well imagine Lord Manchester and Lord Essex, the brass hats of the seventeenth century, when they heard that a certain Colonel Cromwell was going to be given an army, saying, "A very good leader of irregular horse, a nice fellow in a little scrap in guerilla warfare, but God help him if he ever meets Prince Rupert." He met Prince Rupert. Cromwell prayed before the battle. Rupert prayed after it.
  A House which has itself produced so wonderful a civilian army as the army of the seventeenth century ought not to allow speeches to be made in it without reproof like those which have been made in the last month by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and others who have in their endeavour to get compulsory service been belittling the value of the Territorial Army. I believe that the Territorials will meet any reasonable demand that the House and the country like to make upon them, but I believe they want to have the very strictest attention paid to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) dealing with those men who come out of industry.

  367
  I should like to bring a few other points to the notice of the Secretary of State with regard to men who serve in clerical and professional occupations. I hope that, when he makes his Orders under Clause 4, the Clause under which he proposes to safeguard the existence of those men, he will take particular care to see that such things as contributory and recognised service towards superannuation funds will be safeguarded, that any service with the Colours will be treated as fully recognised and contributory service for that sort of thing, that where men are on incremental scales of salary, with an increment due at the end of a certain period of satisfactory service to the firm or corporation, he will see that their rights to have this service regarded as recognised service for incremental purposes will also be safeguarded and that where promotion schemes exist—a man's professional future very often depends upon length of service—he will take steps to see that it is made obligatory that this service rendered with the Colours shall be regarded as qualifying service for this purpose just as if the man had been at his job all the time. It is astonishing how sometimes it is possible to find excuses, after patriotic service has been rendered, for belittling the work that has been done.
  We know now, when there were posts going and men were asked what they were doing in the last War, it was said they were passed as not medically fit, and you say "Of course you can hardly expect us to take you on now," but, curiously, after nth November, 1918, a steady recovery took place, which has been continued and they became perfectly all right. I have seen men with a tale such as that getting jobs in preference to ex-service men in the service of an authority which had undertaken to give ex-service men prior consideration. Unless these things are made very definite and statutory, the very best of intentions on the part of the Secretary of State may quite well prove to be a great illusion.
  At a quarter past five this afternoon, just 12 hours after the House rose this morning, the right hon. Gentleman was expressing his sympathy with us in the difficulty that we had found ourselves in last night. I rather felt that his sym-
  368
  pathy would have had a greater ring of sincerity if we had had a little help from him last night when I appealed on behalf of these men. They have a right not merely to sympathy but to a very sound Clause to secure the utmost possible safeguards. In the other Bill the penalties to be imposed on an employer who is proved to have wrongfully got rid of a man are actually less than the penalties to be imposed on a person who makes a false statement under the Bill. I suggest that the penalties should be at least equal, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to see that the protective Clauses in both Bills are reworded so as to give these men as great security as the laws of the country can provide.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Macquisten: There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has shown us the great harm that might be done by employers, of whom we hope there are not very many. These ought to be provided against. There is no doubt about that. You may have a man in charge, with the power of dismissal, a man who himself ought to have served, and if there is one thing that came out at the conclusion of the last War it is that the men who ought to have been serving bore a grudge against the men who had served. I found it very often. It was some kind of feeling at the back of their consciences that the other fellow was a better man than they were, and they were anxious to take it out of him. I should like to suggest a simple measure which might put it right. If the onus of proof were put on the employer, who would have to justify his action in not taking a man back when he came before some tribunal, that would be a stumbling block in his way and we would not hear very much of the evils that the hon. Member for Hemsworth so graphically described. The employer would have to explain and justify what he has done. He would have to do that if the burden were put upon him. I am told that that provision is in the Bill, but I cannot find it. If we put the burden of proof upon him, it will stop him, but if we allow him to operate the Clause in his own way and the man is to have the onus of proof put upon him, we shall make it very difficult for the man. The employer should be the one who has to justify himself.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. Mander: I regard the introduction of this Bill with a great deal of suspicion. I cannot help thinking that it is one further step in the restriction of our liberties in this country. It is placing increased power in the reactionary and incompetent hands of a number of well-intentioned gentlemen who happen to be His Majesty's Government. We ought to look with the greatest care on any proposal brought forward by them for placing the people more securely and strictly under their charge than is the case at the present time. It may be perfectly true that it is necessary and desirable that the Government should have certain powers to call up troops without going though the procedure of Proclamation, but I cannot help wondering whether there is something else behind it. The Government have seemed to be most anxious in many things they have done in the last few years that nothing should be done to which any exception could be taken by either of the Fascist States. It is considered bad form to do anything openly to which Hitler might object, and I cannot help thinking that there may be some feeling of that kind in this matter.
  One remembers the uproar that was caused when the First Lord of the Admiralty made what seemed to me a perfectly proper and useful statement to the effect that the Fleet were ready for any enemies that might be thinking of coming forward, but the Government were so shocked that they immediately attempted to silence the Press in a most ineffective and incompetent way. They showed a state of mind of unwillingness to do anything to which exception could be taken by the two totalitarian States. I seriously think that there may be some objection of that kind behind this Bill. It may be thought that it is more effective and less offensive from the Government's point of view to do things quietly and stealthily, without making it clear what is being done, whereas the best thing that we could do would be to state in the most open and clear way precisely what action we are taking in order to protect ourselves. The more our intention is stated openly, the better for the safety of this country.
  Mr. Wise: Can the hon. Member say what there is stealthy about an Order in Council?
  Mr. Mander: I should have thought that it was a very much quieter way of doing things than by the machinery that has been adopted up to the present time. I should like to say a few words on the question of industrial disputes, because I agree with hon. Members above the Gangway that we cannot be certain that the words in the Bill are satisfactory. It may be argued by the Government that to allow an industrial dispute on a large scale, such as a coal mines dispute or a railway dispute, to develop, might so weaken the prestige of this country as to increase the danger of external attack and that, therefore, troops might have to be used. They say that nothing is further from their minds. I am glad to hear that, but I want to see it in the Bill, because we have come to a stage when one cannot believe the spoken word of the head of this Government. We are told when pledges are made that they can be overridden by the majority sitting on the other side of the House, because it is said that circumstances have altered. A solemn pledge repeated time and time again can be treated as if it were of no importance. In these circumstances we must have precise language in the Act, and I have no doubt that Amendments will be put down to secure that anyone called up under this Measure cannot be used in any industrial or political dispute. If that can be done the Government will be giving a great deal of reassurance to many of those who have considerable anxiety on this point. One cannot but remember the way in which a certain strike was dealt with in France. The men were mobilised in a way that was probably never contemplated when the Act was originally passed, and the strike was broken by means of calling up the men and turning them from civilians into soldiers.
  With regard to the question of employers, the position is extremely difficult. It is so easy for an employer to say that something is not reasonably practicable. We know that is so, and the Clause ought to be very much strengthened. It is wrong to put the responsibility of reinstatement on the employer himself alone. It ought to be the employer or his successor. The employer may go out of business, or he may died and be succeeded by his son. Under the Bill there would be no obligation for his successor to take back the

  371
  man. I think further that the offence of not taking on the man again should not be met by the payment of a fine but that it should be a continuing offence, and the employer should go on being fined until he does take the man on again. On Clause 3 it may be necessary to consider putting in certain safeguards.
  From the amenity point of view, we know that the defence Services only look at these problems in order to get the land at the earliest possible moment. It ought to be borne in mind that sometimes a very beautiful site is destroyed because the amenities point of view has not been adequately considered. I feel also that the Act ought definitely to come to an end in three years time and should only be extended by the introduction of entirely fresh legislation. As a result of the catastrophic foreign policy of the Government in the last few years the people of this country have been brought into such a state of fatalism and despair that they are driven to accept one thing after another in a way that they would never have accepted a few years ago. That makes it all the more necessary that we should watch very closely legislation of this kind.
  I attach the greatest importance to Parliament meeting whenever any grave situation arises. No doubt the Government attach great importance to Parliament not meeting, because it enables them to do things which would not be permitted if the House was sitting. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply would be good enough to say to what extent Parliament will not have to be called together to deal with callings up contemplated under this Measure, as compared with the extent that they would have had to meet under the old procedure. It is of the greatest importance to our keeping strict control of the situation that we should have a definite assurance on this point, and I am confident that that would be the desire of every hon. Member.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: I think this Debate has shown how useful a wide and general discussion can be, because the result of this examination of the Bill has undoubtedly brought to light certain defects and dangers which were not apparent by just reading the text of the Bill by itself. There
  372
  have been two main features of the Bill to which further attention must be devoted. There was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), pointing out how many loopholes there are in regard to reinstatement in civil employment. Clause 2 of this Bill is identical with Clause 6 of the Military Training Bill. Last night we handed in on Clause 6 between 12 and 20 Amendments? covering particular features to which the hon. Member for Hemsworth called attention, and those Amendments will all be put down again on Clause 2 of this Bill. Therefore, I would call the attention of the Government to the necessity of considering very carefully what their policy will be, because this subject creates immense feeling in the country. Owing to the very nature of the procedure there is opportunity for a double discussion on every point that we raise.
  The other point was the constitutional point to which attention was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). Here the Government are making a departure for which no justification was given in the speech of the Secretary of State. The Government propose to call up the Territorials and the Reserves, when necessary, by Order in Council, but in the previous Act of Parliament when an Order in Council of that sort was issued it was necessary that Parliament should meet within 10 days so that it might give its verdict upon the subject. Even in the Emergency Powers Act, which deals only with civil disturbances, when an Order is issued under it Parliament, has to meet within five days. Under this Bill no provision is made for the meeting of Parliament and when Parliament does meet there is no provision by which the Order in Council is to receive the sanction of Parliament. It is merely to be laid before Parliament, and there is an end of the matter. I hope that some statement will be made by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, for we shall require far better safeguards than that.
  I share a good deal of the general apprehension which has been expressed by the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander). I feel that we are in a situation of considerable danger. It has been said in these debates that other countries, like France, are as democratic as ourselves and that we should accept Bills like this because they are

  373
  accepted in France, but I have always thought that there is a considerable distinction between the kind of democracy that we have in this country and the kind they have on the Continent of Europe. We in this country have a way of looking at things which makes our democracy of a very different character, and this House is an example. There is no other Parliament in Europe which has the same temperament, outlook, and way of dealing with each other as we have in this House. Therefore it is really a fallacy to say that the democracies on the Continent of Europe and in this country are identical.
  What I would call our heritage, our way of looking at things, has depended on two great institutions, namely, this House and our system of military service. In one week we have destroyed the one, and when I realise how rapidly it can be done, and when I realise some of the very sophistical arguments which can be used by the Secretary of State for War, I realise that we might equally rapidly be faced with the other. That is why I attach more importance to a Clause like this than on the face of it appears to be necessary, because if the Government propose 10 take these extraordinary powers into their hands, we must insist that Parliament shall consent, in order that never at any moment shall we allow the Executive of this country to get out of the control of the House of Commons. The greater part of this discussion has been, quite rightly, upon the military aspects and results of this proposal, and there is one such point with which I would like to deal. The Secretary of State said that so far as that great body of Territorials outside the anti-aircraft units was concerned, there was no intention at any rate of calling them up for more than the two weeks which they had expected.
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): The ordinary training.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: He said that, although this Bill gave them the power to call them up, that power would not be exercised. That is an important statement which I should like to have repeated on consideration, because there is a considerable movement afoot that the whole body of the Territorials should be embodied now for at least two months. The "Times," in its leading article yesterday, put forward
  374
  that proposal. Therefore I hope I may take the Secretary of State's statement as the considered reply to those suggestions, because we do not want a situation repeated in which there is a sudden change of policy and in which we find that we have allowed this Bill to pass without dealing with that point because we have been under a misunderstanding as to what the intentions of the Government are. I therefore take it that unless there is a denial, we have the assertion by the Secretary of State on the Second Reading that outside the anti-aircraft force the Territorials will not be called up for more than their ordinary two weeks' training.
  I come now to that part of the Bill which enables the anti-aircraft units to be called up for a month instead of the two weeks' camp. The Secretary of State explained that that was part of the general scheme by which, at the end of, say, September, these new recruits under the Military Training Bill would come in and take their place, so that it is a part of one scheme. Therefore, I wish to discuss the scheme as a whole and to explain what are the views which I and a number of my hon. Friends who have considered the subject hold as to the proper way of dealing with it. The anti-aircraft force is a force for older men. The work could be done equally well by men of over 25 or 30 in the Territorial Army, and it is work which is popular and interesting. Further, if war should break out, the men in that force would be in an almost privileged position as against the field force, because they would have all the comforts of living in this country and they would be directly defending their own homes. Therefore I have always thought that there will never be any difficulty in getting sufficient recruits for the anti-aircraft force.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There are two qualities, as I understand it, that we must have in the anti-aircraft units. We must be prepared to do without our night's sleep, and we must be prepared to handle-heavy weights.
  Mr. Lees-Smith: A fairly elderly man can carry heavy weights, and as to doing without sleep, the older you become the easier you find it to do without sleep. For the reasons that I have given, I do not think there will be great difficulty in

  375
  obtaining sufficient recruits for the antiaircraft force from within the fairly close vicinity of each of the battalions and brigades. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that this would have been a better way of dealing with this problem, that you should have used the ex-Service men, retired Regulars, men of our coastguard type, as a nucleus for the antiaircraft defence, and then depended for the rest upon Territorials living in the immediate vicinity, who, in return for the great privileges which they enjoy as against the field force, would accept the obligation of coming up quickly, like the observer corps in the Air Force already does, or like the lifeboat men do all round our shores. I notice that some time ago the War Office took some steps towards meeting that suggestion and appointed 1,000 men of the type that I am describing to form the key men of the anti-aircraft force, and I am told that as a result of that it is already the case that in a considerable number of key positions you can get your volunteers within less than two hours. That is the kind of scheme that we should like to see developed.
  The right hon. Gentleman tells us that these conscripts will be ready by September. They will come in in June and will get about three months' training, and then they will take over the anti-aircraft defence work. Under that scheme you will have these young men being trained for the work, and doing the work, and then going out, and another batch taking their places. Where is the training of these 88,000 men for anything but antiaircraft defence? They will have no training for the work of the field force, and I cannot believe that you want 88,000 men trained every year for the work of anti-aircraft defence. What will the position be two or three years hence? If those men are to be wanted for the field force, they will have to be trained anew, and the very difficulty because of which this scheme is evolved will apply again to nearly half the men. If you say they will be used for anti-aircraft work, I say that in times of emergency it is not right that men of that age should be so used and that you will be using them for inappropriate duties. I hope there is some explanation of the matter, and I put that question—I do not expect the
  376
  Civil Lord to answer it—to the Secretary of State, who will have many opportunities of dealing with it in future Debates.
  I will conclude by making a reference to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower). We, on these benches, appreciated the spirit of that speech, and one of my hon. Friends behind me said that he thought it was the spirit of the Territorial Army. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member said he believed that the voluntary system and the compulsory system could be worked in together, but that he hoped that at the end of this period of emergency the compulsory system would go and that the voluntary system by itself would be depended upon. That was wise, because I believe that after a few years it will be impossible for the two systems to live side by side. Let us be quite clear about that. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour was quite specious when he answered my argument on that point by saying, "Look how many men we are recruiting to-day, just after the Bill is introduced." But I began by saying, "I know that you will have for some years all the men whom you are recruiting to-day"; yet the fact remains that in the years to come the Territorial Army will die out, must die out, unless you can get the young men of 18. What will the position of these young men be? Every one of them will know that at 20 he is to be a conscript, and that for four years after that he will be a Territorial. Then, why volunteer? It is clear that the only volunteers who will be left will be non-commissioned officers and others who stay on for the four years. I repeat that unless the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion is carried out and this conscript system is brought to an end rapidly, this Bill signs the death warrant of the Territorial Army as we have known it hitherto.
  7.44 p.m.
  Colonel Llewellin: No doubt the House will think it right that on a Bill which concerns the Royal Navy Reserves equally with those of the Army a representative of the Admiralty should join in the discussion, and I hope that in the course of my reply I shall be able to deal with the great majority of the points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. With regard to the last point put by the

  377
  right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), that this Bill is the death of the Territorial Army, I think he must have been referring to the Military Training Bill and not to the Bill that we are discussing. The sole object of this Bill is to simplify the procedure of calling up the Reserves and make it quicker than it is under the old Statutes. One hon. Member said that Ministers themselves had not known until they read the Bill, of these complications. Whether we had all learned of them before last September or not I will not say, but certainly during last September we all realised that each one of the Reserves was called up under a different Act and a different form of procedure, and what we are trying to do in this Bill is to simplify and accelerate that procedure.
  The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who put such clear and concise questions in such a moderate manner, realised, I think, that we were right to try to accelerate the procedure. He said, however, that Parliament was handing over all its powers. I do not think that is so. When we deal with this matter, as we shall, by Order in Council, it will be necessary, as I think the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wands-worth (Colonel Nathan) was the first to point out, to lay that Order before Parliament as soon as may be after it has been made. True, there is no provision in the Bill that Parliament must assent to the Order, but no one with any knowledge of the procedure of this House could conceive the Government of the day "getting away with it," if that expression is permissible, if they issued an Order in Council in unwarrantable circumstances. There is always the procedure by which the Opposition can put down a Vote of Censure. The Government by long practice always find time for such a Vote, and as soon as an Order has been laid before Parliament, if Parliament disapproves of it, then Parliament will soon find a way of showing its disapproval of the Government's action.
  The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and other hon. Members raised the point of whether this Measure could be used in connection with internal disputes. It is not intended to do anything of the sort, and in my belief it could not be so used. The opening words of the Bill are that the Government have to be satisfied that the service is urgently re-
  378
  quired for "ensuring preparedness for the defence of the Realm against any external danger." Those words were put in to show that there was no intention of using the Measure for internal purposes, and it is not intended so to use it.
  Mr. Ede: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgotten the Official Secrets Act and the use which was made of it against the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys)?
  Colonel Llewellin: I do not know anything about what was said in the House when that Act was passed. It was passed before the War, when a Liberal Government was in office, and I do not know whether anything was said about its possible application, but in this case we have clear words in the Bill providing that the Government must be satisfied that a state of preparedness against external danger is necessary. If it is not made clear enough in that form, certainly the intention of putting in these words was to show that this will not be used for any kind of internal trade disputes, and hon. Members can rest assured that it is not and never has been the intention to use the Territorial Army or any army of that sort, in industrial disputes in this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite put several questions as to the method of calling up. He asked first about the period of warning. I am authorised to say that the best part, if not the whole, of a month's warning will be given to each unit. He also asked whether Territorial associations would be taken into consultation. The answer is, "Yes, they will."
  Mr. Sandys: Does that mean that these anti-aircraft sites are not to be manned for a month at least?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, that is what it means, unless, of course, they have to be manned in a great hurry. Under the intention which is held at the moment they will not be manned for another month. Of course if it were necessary to man them much quicker, they would be manned in the ordinary way by the whole of the Territorial anti-aircraft units as they were in the September crisis, but under this scheme, it is not intended at the moment to man them in advance of a month at least from now. With regard to the question of pay and allowances, I think the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street had in mind the Army, but perhaps

  379
  I may be allowed to give some information for all three Services. Class D, Royal Fleet Reserve, Royal Naval Reserve, and Royal Naval Volunteer Wireless Reserve ratings will get the full pay of their ratings and they will also get a £5 bounty when called up under this Measure. The naval pensioners will get the substantive pay of the last rank held by them on the Active List. They will also continue to receive their pensions.
  Mr. Amman: Do I understand that they will get their pensions plus the full substantive rate of their former ranks?
  Colonel Llewellin: They will get the substantive rate of their last rank on the Active List and their current rate of pension.
  Mr. Lawson: With allowances for married men?
  Colonel Llewellin: Naturally, when they are called up, married men get their allowances if qualified to receive them. With regard to the Army, the position is that they get the full pay and allowances of their rank, and that also applies to those of the Territorial Army who are called up. We all recognise the tremendous interest taken in the Territorial Army by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth and the tremendous amount of work which he has done for it and he will be glad to hear that the Territorial Army is to be—to use that rather odd phrase—"embodied." If I may make a passing reference to myself, I was "embodied" during the War, and at the end of the War I got a curious note from the War Office telling me that on a certain date in 1919 I had been "disembodied." Perhaps I do not look like it to hon. Members now, but at any rate what might seem from its name an unpleasant process, is accompanied by a £5 bounty and the Territorial Army members will get that. The same thing applies to members of the Auxiliary Air Force who, incidentally, are part of the balloon barrage—another point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth. They will get the pay and allowances of their rank while they are doing their duty, and they also are eligible for the £5 bounty.
  Colonel Nathan: My point with regard to the balloon barrage was merely
  380
  whether the Auxiliary Air Force meant fighters plus balloon barrage, or one or the other?
  Colonel Llewellin: The present intention is balloon barrage alone. At the moment there is no intention of calling up anybody else. It is not the intention at the moment to call out any of the flying personnel except the balloon barrage personnel in rotation. The same thing applies to the Royal Navy. Although afterwards we may have to call up more under this Bill, the present intention is to call up only those classes of persons of whom the House was informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. In the same way, the intention at the moment is to call out only the anti-aircraft part of the Territorial Army. That does not mean that if other eventualities arose, it might not be necessary to call out the Territorial Field Army, the coast defences or other persons of that sort under the terms of this Bill.
  The next point raised by several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen was with regard to Clause 2, and I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) was the most emphatic about it. Let us see what the problem is. I want to show that this Clause is meant to be as watertight as it can be made, but before doing so let me make it clear that employers as a whole have been extremely good both to members of the Reserves of the Regular Army, of the Royal Navy and of all the other Services when they have been called up. Of 27,000 men called up last September for the Royal Navy, you could count on the fingers of both hands the number who did not get back into their own jobs, and I think exactly the same remark applies to the Army.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: For how long were they called up?
  Colonel Llewellin: The period varied. We kept some rather longer than we kept the Territorial Army. As a rule they were away for about a fortnight.
  Mr. Griffiths: But this is three months?
  Colonel Llewellin: It is three months for Reservists and a month for Territorials. I make that remark only by way of preliminary so that we should realise that employers on the whole have been extremely good. Let us see what we are trying to do in this Clause. First we lay down definitely:

  381
  "It shall be the duty of any employer by whom a person called out for service under this Act was employed when he was so called out, to reinstate him"
  Nothing could be clearer than that. The Clause proceeds:
  "in his employment at the termination of that service in an occupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those applicable to him when he was called out.'
  Nobody could have any objection, so far, to this Clause. It goes on to provide:
  "If he fails to do so the employer shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds; and the court… may order him to pay to the person whom he has failed to reinstate, a sum not exceeding an amount equal to four weeks' remuneration."
  Mr. Mander: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says no one could have any objection to the Clause so far, but there are objections which can be urged to it. When the man comes back to industry he will be six months older, and may be entitled to a higher wage.
  Colonel Llewellin: When I said that nobody could object to it, I overlooked the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mander: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that the whole of the Opposition have objections to urge against it.
  Colonel Llewellin: I am going on to deal with that.
  "It shall be the duty of any employer… by whom a person called out… was employed, to reinstate him."
  Would the hon. Member have any objection to those words?
  Mr. Mander: No.
  Colonel Llewellin: And to reinstate him
  "under conditions not less favourable to him than those applicable to him when he was called out."
  Mr. Mander: Perhaps they ought to be more favourable.
  Colonel Llewellin: Does the hon. Member mean that he ought to be reinstated in every case under more favourable conditions?
  Mr. Mander: In certain cases, where men have reached the higher age.
  Colonel Llewellin: That is covered by the phrase. It means that in some cases he might be reinstated under more favourable conditions; in no case, under less favourable conditions.
  Mr. Mander: I want to make every employer reinstate a man at the rate of wages to which he will be entitled according to his age when he comes back to work.
  Colonel Llewellin: What we provide is that the man shall not be less favourably employed.
  Mr. Ammon: The hon. Gentleman surely means that the increase should automatically follow?
  Mr. Hicks: I think the point raised relates to the case of a young man who is indentured, and who, between the time when he is called out and the time when he is released, reaches the age when ordinarily he would complete his indentures. He will then be entitled to the craftsman's or journeyman's wage. The point is whether he should be reinstated on the terms of the apprenticeship or at the journeyman's rate.
  Colonel Llewellin: The hon. Member must be thinking that last night's sitting is still going on. A large number of people in respect of whom that point can quite properly be made are those between 20 and 21, who would be called up under the Military Training Act, but the majority of the men affected by this Bill would be older men.
  Mr. Hicks: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his statement, because it is very clear and informative. But take the position of the casual workman working for—I will mention my own trade—a builder. Usually the terms of employment for such a man are the length and size of the job. During the time th man is away, the job may be completed. He may have been working in Cornwall, where he lives, and his employer may have taken on a contract at Aberdeen. Are you proposing to compensate that man or to pay his expenses to Aberdeen?
  Colonel Llewellin: I do not think I can be led into discussing individual cases,

  383
  which, obviously, must be considered in the light of general principles.
  Mr. Kirby: I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that, under the terms of the Bill, anyone called up in these circumstances will be entitled to conditions not less favourable than they? had when they were called up. There are certain classes of employés, for instance, clerical workers and shop assistants, whose wages increase year by year. Assuming that a man is called up at 22 years of age, and in the meantime his birthday intervenes; when he goes back, would he be given the rate which he had when he left or the rate applicable to his age when he returns?
  Colonel Llewellin: Take the case of the vast majority in the agricultural industry. There the wages alter as a man gets to a different age. It is quite clear there that he will have to go back at the rate for the age which he has attained. I think we are clear on the point that it is the duty of the employer to employ a man under terms not less favourable than those applicable to him when he was called up. Then we get to the penalties. It may be said that they are too low. That is a very simple point on which to move Amendments. It is always left to the discretion of the local tribunal. We have a provision here which I do not believe appears in any previous Act of Parliament; that a man may get, by order of a court of summary jurisdiction, four weeks' wages.
  Mr. Leslie: This imposes no penalty on the employer in some cases. A large number in the distributive trades are paid monthly and are entitled to a month's notice according to their agreement; and so they would get this four weeks' wages in any case.
  Colonel Llewellin: Such a man is no worse off. [Interruption.] I did not say "no worse off" because he loses his job, but because, in the ordinary way, the employer would have been able to give him a month's notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "He would not have given it."] In most industries the usual standard practice is for the employer to give the man, or the man to give the employer, a week's notice. Here we give power to the court to provide for a month's wages.
  Mr. Sloan: Would it not be better to fix a minimum penalty?
  Colonel Llewellin: Let me come to the part of the Clause to which people have taken the greatest exception:
  "Provided that in any proceedings under this Sub-section it shall be an offence for the employer"—
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) has left. He said it would be all right if the employer were made to appear in court. But he has first to come to court before he can make a defence. He is summoned for failure to employ a man who is called up for National Service. Not a great number of employers want to be put in a position of being summoned before a court on that charge. Then he will have the opportunity to prove that the person formerly employed by him did not apply for reinstatement in a reasonable time. The reasonable time is not what the employer thinks is a reasonable time, or what the employé thinks is a reasonable time, but what the magistrate thinks is a reasonable time. I do not think you can let a man go away and get another job, perhaps for a year, after being called up, and then to come and say, "Please take me on, because I left you to go into the Reserve." I do not think that is reasonable, and I do not think that hon. Members would say it was reasonable.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: If a man comes out of the Army and gets another job somewhere else, he has left that employer, according to the law.
  Colonel Llewellin: Then, perhaps, I put a wrong case. Let us assume that he spent some months doing nothing after coming out of the Reserve. I think it is only right that, within a week or two after leaving the Reserve, he should come to be reinstated in his job. The employer may have kept the place open or have said, "This man is going to be away for one month, or it may be three months; I will take another man on just for that period." I think it is quite right that a man should not be convicted and fined for not reinstating a man who has not applied.
  Mr. Griffiths: Within what time?
  Colonel Llewellin: Within what the court think is a reasonable time. We may rely on the magistrates to decide what is a reasonable time.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is no definition of the court in the Bill.
  Colonel Llewellin: He will appear before a magistrate, as the ordinary person who sits in a court of summary jurisdiction is a magistrate.
  Mr. Shinwell: I see nothing in this Clause which refers to a court of summary jurisdiction. All it refers to is summary conviction. Nor does it give any indication as to how an action is to be brought before such a court—whether a man requires to come before the court and take out a summons against an employer.
  Colonel Llewellin: There is nothing mysterious in this. The only court that can convict a man summarily is a court of summary jurisdiction. There is a very easy and well-known way of bringing cases before a court of summary jurisdiction, and that is by summons.
  Mr. Shinwell: He has to bear the cost of a summons, and perhaps employ a solicitor.
  Colonel Llewellin: I think it will be quite unnecessary to employ a solicitor.
  Mr. Pritt: Shame.
  Colonel Llewellin: In spite of the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in 99 cases out of 100 it is far better to conduct your case yourself. Another defence for the employer is
  "that by reason of a change of circumstances (other than the engagement of some other person to replace him)—

  (a) it was not reasonably practicable to reinstate him; or

  (b) his reinstatement in an occupation and under conditions not less favourable to him than those applicable to him when he was called out, was impracticable, and that the employer has offered to reinstate him in the most favourable occupation and under the most favourable conditions reasonably practicable."

  I believe that here I part company with hon. Members opposite, but it is necessary, when an employer may go bankrupt or close down his business in the meanwhile, to have some Clause of this sort. It is only a defence for the employer. He has to satisfy the magistrate that he could not reasonably reinstate the man, because perhaps he is bankrupt or has gone out of business altogether or because of some reason like that. It can only be set up
  386
  in defence before the magistrate, and some provision of this sort is necessary to prevent a man being brought before the court and convicted of not employing a man in a business which by that time may have ceased to exist.
  I will follow up one other point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made on this Clause. He asked about the undertaking being carried on by somebody else. That is provided for by Sub-section (2):
  "In relation to any person called out for service under this Act, references in this section to an employer shall be construed as including references to any person for the time being carrying on the undertaking or service in which he was employed when called out for service, or carrying on any undertaking or service with which that undertaking or service has been amalgamated or in which it was comprised on the date on which he was called out."
  I think that even the hon. Member will agree with that, but we have gone further. We have also put in Sub-section (3):
  "If the Minister"—
  that is the Minister of Labour—
  "is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing evasion of the provisions of this section he may make regulations for preventing employers from terminating the employment of their employés by reason of their liability to perform any obligation imposed on them by or under this Act."
  I will tell the House exactly what that is intended to mean. It is intended to mean that the Minister of Labour, in order effectively to work this Bill and the other Bill, which is its counterpart, to protect the young man of 20 whom the employer might get rid of before the obligation came upon him to re-employ him. It is to deal with the case of the employer, who, before he thinks that a man can be called up in one of the Reserves, gets him out of his employ a little before that service is due. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members opposite that the Government have made a sincere attempt to deal with this matter in the Clause as it now stands, and I hope that after the explanation which I have given some hon. Members opposite at least will give us credit for trying to do our best to do this thing which we all want to see done.
  Mr. Lawson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the point which I put as to why the Government have taken the opportunity of abolishing cer-

  387
  tain Clauses which have hitherto laid down the responsibility of the Government for calling Parliament together. There does not seem any reason at all for this, and I warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, unless we get a satisfactory answer on that point safeguarding the rights of Parliament in respect of these powers, we shall deal with the matter in Committee.
  Colonel Llewellin: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I dealt with it in this way. The hon. Member said that Parliament was giving up all its powers, and I said that there was, after an Order in Council had been made, a provision in Clause 1. I was quite frank and stated that the Order in Council had only to be brought before the notice of Parliament, but that it did not need, as the phrase is, an assenting Resolution of Parliament. I went on to say that Parliament had its own method of dealing with the matter. If we did a thing outrageously a Vote of Censure could be put down, and it is clear that Parliament would be safeguarded in that way.
  Mr. Lawson: The definite safeguard against that in the past has been contained in sections of the various Acts which have made it imperative on the Government to call Parliament together within a certain time, and the present Order in Council method does not at all meet our objection to the operation of this Clause.
  Colonel Llewellin: The answer is that the hon. Member does not like the Bill as drafted in that particular case, but I cannot alter the Bill while I am speaking. We are all agreed that we want some measure of acceleration and of getting rid of some of the archaic forms that we have had. It is a point that can, if necessary, be remedied in Committee or on another stage of the Bill.
  Mr. James Griffiths: Clause 2 is the only thing about which I am bothered. Suppose, after the employer has been to a court of summary jurisdiction and the man in his employ has been refused his job, that employer, within a fortnight, sets on another man, what are you going to do?
  Colonel Llewellin: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Griffiths: In my industry it is very often the case that a man is stopped because it is said that there is no job for him, and yet within a fortnight another fellow is set on to do the particular job. What do you intend to do in the present case if another man is set on after a court of summary jurisdiction has found that there is no job for the applicant for reinstatement? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman follow me now?
  Colonel Llewellin: The court of summary jurisdiction does not make an order that an employer shall take a man back into his works. It has long been the principle of the law of this country not to allow criminal courts to enforce obligations of personal service. I think that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) would bear me out that it is very difficult to ensure that these obligations are performed, and the court does not like to be put into the position of making an order which can be ignored. Therefore, the penalty that the court can impose is a fine, as I have said, and, also in this case, the additional penalty of paying the equivalent of four weeks' wages to the man aggrieved.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: It is not a question of the employer paying £50 and a month's wages; it is a question of getting the man out altogether, because he has been a thorn in the side of the employer. The man is thrown away inside a fortnight and his job is filled. What do you intend to do about that?
  Colonel Llewellin: The hon. Member is suggesting that if the man has been a thorn in the side of his employer he can get rid of a man with a month's notice.
  Mr. Griffiths: Not if he is in a good trade union.
  Colonel Llewellin: If he cannot do it when the man is in a strong trade union, I do not see how he will be able to do it if it is a case where the man has given his services to his country. Surely the strong trade union will take back the man.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth raised a question about huts and billets. If it is possible these men will be put in billets, but as a lot of the sites for anti-aircraft guns are in country districts some miles from houses, I fear that there are men who

  389
  will have to go into huts. I am afraid that I did not quite follow the speech of the hon. Member for the Welsh Universities (Mr. E. Evans). He started by saying that he did not wish to oppose the Bill, but as far as I could understand him everything else he said was opposition to the Bill. At any rate, I hope he will now think that the Bill is not so bad. I can assure him that there have been consultations with the Treasury and that the effect on industrial life has been considered. Some of us believe that our first duty to the country is to see that it is so defended that our industrial life may be able to be carried on; and that is what this Measure is designed to achieve.
  He also questioned whether we shall be taking too many men from air-raid precautions to ordinary Civil Defence. I do not think he realises that everybody taken under this Bill is already in the Reserve of the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. They ought not to have Civil Defence responsibilities as well, because if they have undertaken an obligation for anti-aircraft or some other defence in the event of mobilisation, it is absurd to suggest that they should undertake any obligations in the matter of Civil Defence. In regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think he will find that Clause 4 deals with them. The hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton also put certain points, and I hope I shall be able to clear away some of the suspicions which seemed to have clouded his mind. It is rather amusing, because he said that these guns which ought to be put up should not interfere in any way with amenities. I am afraid that for a long time since I have been unable to follow the hon. Member. One day he is very pugnacious and the next would deny us any of the powers for which we ask, and which his pugnacity would make even more necessary.
  Mr. Mander: The hon. and gallant Member is not intentionally misrepresenting me. All I claim is that the question of amenities ought to be taken into consideration in selecting sites.
  Colonel Llewellin: I think so too, and for once the hon. Member and myself are in agreement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me a number of points. He seemed to go back to the old idea of some kind of village green principle of manning anti-aircraft guns. It is
  390
  not as easy to do as many people think. I have been a student of the methods, at times when I have been employed on my Territorial duties, and not in my ministerial capacity, but, at any rate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War assures me that the training of these 80,000 Militiamen on anti-aircraft defence will not be wasted, but that a very large number of these men will be wanted in any future field force as antiaircraft gunners and that it will also be helpful to give them anti-aircraft training as potential gunners on some other type of gun. It is quite easy to change from manning one type of gun to manning another.
  I think I have answered nearly all the points which have been put to me; at any rate, I have done my best. I am glad to speak to-night as a member of the Board of Admiralty on a matter which affects the Royal Navy almost as much as it does the Army, and more than ft affects the Air Force, but I am also glad to be able to speak because I happen to be one of those who will be affected by the Bill. The Secretary of State for War will be able to call me up under its provisions. So diverse are the avocations of those who form the Territorial Army that I am in that position, and I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth, with the hon. Member for South Shields and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth and others who have praised the spirit of the Territorial Army and our other Reserve Forces, and join with them in saying that I am quite certain that the men in these Reserves will willingly do their duty under this Bill.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Will they take you back in your job after they have called you up?
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Batey: When I first heard of this Bill I thought it was a simple and an innocent Measure. I have sat here for three hours listening to a Debate which has changed my opinion. I now regard it as a dangerous Bill, which can only be linked with the Bill we discussed last night. On the former occasion we were only able to grasp the full meaning of the Bill when we came to debate the Money Resolution. We realised then just what the Bill meant, and in the case of this Bill we have only been able to grasp its

  391
  meaning by listening to the Debate. I want to recall the answer which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty has given in regard to Clause 2. He has not met the point raised by the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths). Clause 2 makes it essential that a man shall be reinstated when he returns to industry, but what hon. Members on this side complain of is that while the Bill says that the employer shall reinstate the man, it leaves many loopholes for the employer to escape paying the fine if he does not employ the man. We believe that if the Government had really meant that men should be reinstated on returning to civil life, they would have seen that there were no loopholes in the Bill, and would have left it to the court to decide whether the employer was justified in not reinstating a man. I was not satisfied by what the Civil Lord said with regard to the loophole contained in the provision:
  "It shall be a defence for the employer to prove that the person formerly employed by him did not apply for reinstatement within a reasonable time after the termination of such service."
  Why need there be that loophole? Why could it not have been left to the court to decide whether a man had applied for his reinstatement within a reasonable period of time?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is a matter which is obviously a Committee point. While I cannot allow the hon. Member to debate it at length—[Interruption.]—Order!
  Mr. Batey: No, it is not going to be order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure the hon. Member has no wish to be guilty of disorder. While I am anxious and willing that, when such a Committee point is put, it should be answered, I cannot allow the hon. Member to make a long speech on it.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to the point of Order. My hon. Friend's point deals with a very important Clause in the Bill, and the point he is raising is really the heart of the Bill for the bulk of the men who will be called up. May I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is an important Second Reading principle rather than a Committee point?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think there is any point of Order. I was merely giving a warning to the hon. Member as to what was going to happen.
  Mr. Batey: I am not satisfied, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Civil Lord has dealt with these points for half an hour, and now, after the Civil Lord has spent an half an hour on them, you say that we cannot discuss them. If you are going to rule me out of order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not ruled the hon. Member out of order.
  Mr. Batey: Then why did you interrupt me?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not think that I am ruling him out of order because I rise. What I said was that he must not make a lengthy speech on the matter. I expressly said that since the question was asked, I had no objection to its being answered.
  Mr. Batey: I will leave this point, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth dealt with these questions so effectively that I had expected a better reply from the Civil Lord. My hon. Friend pointed out that these questions affect an industry in which we are interested. They affect the mining industry perhaps more than they affect any other industry, and it is for that reason that I want to labour them. I want now to draw the Civil Lord's attention to Sub-section (3) of Clause 2, which states:
  "If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing evasion of the provisions of this Section he may make regulations for preventing employers from terminating the employment of their employés by reason of their liability to perform any obligation imposed on them by or under this Act.'
  I cannot understand why it should be necessary to make regulations, and why it cannot be stated in the Bill. I am opposed to these regulations being made by the Minister. I think it would be much better to state in the Bill what the Ministr means, and not to leave it to the regulations. With regard to Clause 4 the Civil Lord gave an explanation of Sub-section (1), but it seems to me that Sub-section (2) of this Clause gives to the Secretary of State power to assume the powers of Parliament if Parliament is not sitting. I object to any Clause in any Bill that gives power to the Secretary of State to assume the powers of Parliament.

  393
  I come now to Clause 1. This Clause means far more than one is inclined to gather on first reading it. It seems to me that by taking power to call out these Reserves for service, the Government are leading the country very rapidly to industrial conscription. I think the Government have taken three steps towards that; first, by the Voluntary Register; secondly, by the Military Training Bill; and thirdly, by this Bill, which gives the Minister power to call out these men for service. The Civil Lord tried to explain that it would be done only when there was any external trouble, but that does not satisfy me. Some of us remember 1926. We believe that under this Clause the Government might, when there is trouble in some country on the Continent, say that they cannot allow a trade union in this country to call a strike because of that external trouble. It was said last night that we had to have the Military Training Bill because France demanded it.
  Some of us have recollections of what France has done in calling up reserves in order to break strikes. Some of us remember, too, 1926, when the Navy was called out to man the pumps in the collieries. It was one of the things which gave immense annoyance to the miners. We want it made far clearer than the Civil Lord has made it to-night that this power which is given to the Minister will not be used to break strikes. The present Ministers may be prepared to promise that it will not be so used, but other Ministers who will follow may regard it as within their power to call out the Reserves in order to suppress strikes. It ought to be made clear by being put in the Bill that the Reserves will not be called out for this purpose. It is because of my fears of what may happen under this power that I am strongly opposed to the Bill.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie: I want to confine my remarks to Clause 2, and to speak on behalf of a class which will be more affected than any other class by this Bill. I refer to the distributive workers. Knowing what happened in the last War I cannot help being somewhat suspicious as to what will happen under this Bill. Promises were made to reinstate men and they were never fulfilled. Thousands of men were never able to get back into the
  394
  distributive trades again. I am afraid that employers will be able to drive a coach and four through Clause 2. Take, for instance, the penalty which is to be imposed if an employer fails to reinstate a man. It is to be a sum not exceeding an amount equal to four weeks' remuneration. In the distributive trades, where men are engaged and paid by the month they are entitled to a month's wages in lieu of notice. If a man is not reinstated will he be entitled to receive not only the month's wages in lieu of notice, but the penalty which is imposed by the police court on the employer? If that is not so, there will be no penalty on the employer, for he will be giving only what the employé would be entitled to in any case.
  Then an employer need not reinstate a man by reason of changed circumstances. What can be called "changed circumstances?" We were told in the last War that a change of circumstances was a reorganisation in a business. If centralised buying were introduced and departmental buyers displaced, would that be regarded as changed circumstances which would justify an employer in not reinstating an employé? There is the further provision that an employé is to be reinstated under conditions not less favourable to him than those applicable to him when he was called out. In the distributive trades wages are paid according to age. Is the period during which a man is on service to be taken into account so that when he returns he will be entitled to the wage according to his age, or will he be entitled only to the wage of the age when he was called up?
  8.52 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: There is an old saying that everything comes to him who waits, and I am glad that even at the end of the Debate I am allowed an opportunity of expressing my views on this Bill. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government evidently place so much importance on this Measure—a Measure which will call upon men who have already proved that they are willing to make sacrifices to make further sacrifices—that there are on the Front Bench only four Under-Secretaries, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman who has just come in, one supporter behind the Ministerial quartette, and two others well in the back row.

  395
  Last Sunday, which was generally accepted as the May Sunday of the Labour movement in this country, trade union leaders, Labour leaders, front-benchers and back-benchers, were attacking the Government, were describing the Ministers as men who could not be trusted, were telling the people that the Government were making a mess of the country's affairs and were bringing in legislation that was not good legislation. I trust that after last Sunday our party has been so revived with enthusiasm that it will not pass legislation which is brought forward by those people who were described as lacking in brains and as people who do not legislate for the good of the country but betray the interest of the working class.
  Therefore, I trust that, after the speeches we have heard on this Measure and the criticisms that have been directed to it, the Opposition will carry their views to their logical conclusion and will not place themselves in the position of being accused of sham fighting, but will carry their objections to the Division Lobby against the Government which we attacked last Sunday and have attacked ever since we came here in 1935. It looks as though the Financial Secretary to the War Office has again been left with the baby to hold. I do not know whether he is expected to reply to the later criticisms. I trust not, because obviously he was very much responsible, by reason of the sparseness of the information he gave last night to Members on this side, for the all-night Sitting and for raising feeling which could quite well have been avoided.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has now been speaking for over five minutes, and I do not think that more than half a minute of his speech has been devoted to the Bill. He must apply himself to the Bill instead of engaging in general denunciation of the Government and of individual members of the Government, when that is not the subject of the Debate.
  Mr. Davidson: Of course I recognise that general denuciation of the Government is not agreeable in many quarters, but I was pointing out my primary reason for ob jecting to this Bill. I will come to the Bill itself, but I was merely saying in passing that I regretted that one who had previously made such a bad job—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will not attempt to repeat something which I have already told him is out of order. If he does so I shall have to ask him to resume his seat or else leave the Chamber.
  Mr. Davidson: Of course I accept your Ruling. I did not understand at first. I thought you were advising me. I did not know that you had definitely ruled this out of order. Knowing that now I certainly will not again refer to the regrettable circumstances that I did desire to speak of. We have had a discussion on Clause 2, and I listened very carefully to the hon. and gallant Member who replied for the Government and tried to explain how responsibility was definitely placed upon the employer who desired to appeal against a case in which a workman claimed re-employment. I suggest to the Under-Secretaries who are gathered on the opposite benches that if they had wanted the Clause worded correctly instead of saying that the employer is required—
  "To reinstate him in his employment… under conditions not less favourable to him than those applicable to him when he was called out,"
  the Clause should read:
  "to reinstate him under conditions not less favourable than those that would be applicable to him if he had not been called out."
  That would make the position perfectly clear, and would meet the desires of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because if during the interval when the man was away he would, in the normal course, have been entitled to a rise in salary, or promotion, or to transfer to some different work, he should be entitled to the advantage on his return. It surprises me that very little comment has been made regarding the clear, concise and definite wording of the Clause which calls up the men for service. Not one word is out of place, there is not one grammatical error, not one single qualification. They are being called to give unqualified sacrifice. Clause 1 states definitely and clearly, within the understanding and comprehension of the most simple Member, what is expected of those who are being called up.
  There is a difference when we come to the Clause dealing with the return of the man from his service and sacrifice—because, remember, we are not dealing now with men who were unwilling, but with

  397
  those who have testified their willingness to share in the nation's burden by joining either the Territorials or the Auxiliary Reserve. The Clause does not say that the Minister shall set up a committee which will decide that a man who has been away for a certain period "must" be employed, in the way that Clause 1 says that he "must" do his service, but says that if the employer can prove that it is not practicable to bring him back into employment, or can offer him a job which, though not the job he had when he went away, is a reasonable job, and can prove that it is all he can possibly do, then the employer will have made good his case.
  What is the worker to do? There are thousands of working-class people who, unfortunate though it may be, are scared of the law, and when they receive a legal document—sometimes even an insurance policy—are unable to deal with it because of their lack of education. But the returned soldier must issue a summons. The responsibility lies, in the first case, with him. Either through an agent or by his own act he has to issue a summons to call the employer into court. Of course, after leaving the Forces, with all the savings that have accrued to him, he will be able to afford legal help. I expect he will be able to hire some of the hon. Members of this House, whose fees are very extensive indeed. But, apart from that, the whole thing is just a farce. It is an indication that the Government are prepared to take everything and give nothing.
  I come to the Clause dealing with the acquisition of land. What is it that the Government is asking of these young men, this Government which says that it desires fair play? Though many of them recognise that the international situation has been brought about by the stupidities of this Government they are prepared to make a sacrifice and have indicated their willingness to be called up for a definite period. They are prepared to give their service and, if necessary, their lives, because the ultimate objective of willingness to serve is willingness to make sacrifices, and these men can make only one sacrifice in their capacity as soldiers, and that is the sacrifice of life. In the case of land the Government say that if the nation in its dire peril, in its extremity, desires land from some landowner he shall be paid compensation based upon the Act of 1842—and that is ample compensation. They
  398
  do not go to the landowner and say, "Look here. You have got land, the nation is in peril, we want you to give it, even though it may be dear to you." They say, "We want your land and we will take your land, but rest assured, old man, that we will compensate you amply and handsomely for it." That land is to be used for the training and housing of working-class men who are prepared to give everything they have got, to leave their homes and their families, and give up their industry.
  I say, therefore, that this Bill indicates to me that the Government desires this National Service without giving national service. I am going into the Lobby against this Government until they are prepared clearly and definitely to give decent conditions to men who are prepared to make the sacrifice. Until the Government are prepared to give national service for National Service I will vote against their Measures.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Pritt: I would speak about certain matters of some little importance, and the first is contained in Clause 2. I do not disguise from myself that it is a little difficult, under that Clause, to protect the returning workman. It would be strange if it were not so. For several centuries we have built up a system in which the workers have as few rights as we can decently give them, short of a revolution, and it would be odd, when the Government are seeking to give them a little protection, if it were not found difficult to fit some measure of protection into the existing framework. With the greatest respect to the Government I say that this is not an honest effort. The idea is that you must protect the employer from losing several pounds or several shillings. Fancy a waste of several pounds or several shillings of an employer's money when all that the other fellow has to do is to protect the first fellow's skin. Employers can short-circuit the whole thing. They can say on the returning Service man: "Come in on Monday. The terms of your job will be as favourable as they were before. Those terms will include a week's notice, and if I give you a week's notice on the following Friday that is exactly what I could have done three months before."
  Colonel Llewellin: Sub-section (3) is meant to deal with that point.
  Mr. Pritt: I did look at that Sub-section, but I did not think it was worth mentioning. The Sub-section says:
  "If the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing evasion of the provisions of this Section he may make regulations for preventing employers from terminating the employment of their employees by reason of their liability to perform any obligation imposed on them by or under this Act."
  If it is possible to legislate, why do the Government not do it? If it is impossible to do so, why fob off the unsuspecting public—which is not to be found on these benches, I am glad to say—by pretending that the Minister may make some regulations to do something which the Government are either too lazy or too incompetent to do now? Has anybody the faintest doubt that it will be necessary to prevent evasion? It might be said that 90 per cent. of the employers of the country are filled with patriotism, and that their desire to assist their employés will actually survive the disappearance of the crisis. It may be so, but what about the other 10 per cent.? Why should their employés suffer? Instead of legislating about the matter the Government say: "Later on, if there is a horrible row about it, the Minister may make some regulations"—which are likely to be no better than the Measure itself.
  As the Civil Lord says, there is a whole series of things. There is the provision in regard to reasonable time; that is not very easy. There is "practicable"; that is not very easy. To whom do you commit the trial of the question as to whether it is practicable and whether the time is or is not reasonable? You commit it to the magistrates. The two distinguishing features of the magistrates are, first, that they are utterly incompetent to decide almost anything except the simplest possible questions of fact. Anyone with practical knowledge of the matter knows that one can read judgment after judgment by the Lord Chief Justice, before whom their grosser sins are brought, if the people who suffer from them have the good fortune or have enough money to be able to bring them up.
  Mrs. Tate: Would the hon. and learned Member state the number and the proportion of the case with which the magis-
  400
  trates deal that are brought up in that way?
  Mr. Pritt: The proportion which is brought up on appeal is very small because—
  Sir John Haslam: I would like the magistrates' opinion of barristers.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member cannot pursue this question of the qualifications of the magistrates.
  Mr. Pritt: I submit to you. Sir, that this is a vital point. It has wakened up three elderly Members of the House and has provoked a perfectly proper and reasonable interruption from the hon. Lady, who is a justice of the peace, and against whom I do not desire to make any comment as a justice of the peace.
  Sir J. Haslam: Is it not a fact—
  Mr. Pritt: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Member. I hope that the hon. Member will go to sleep again soon. If you do not want me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take too long, I must proceed with this matter. The number of cases brought up on appeal is infinitesimal because the number of people who have the money, the technical knowledge and skill involved in this thing is also infinitesimal. If the hon. Lady wants any confirmation, I suggest that she asks anybody who has had experience in the bringing of appeals.
  Lieut.-Colonel The Marquess of Titchfield: We all know that the Clause is not very watertight and we should all like to make it so. Would the hon. and learned Member tell us how we can make the Clause absolutely watertight? Will he give us his advice? I am sure we should be very grateful for it.
  Mr. Pritt: The Noble Lord has unfortunately brought forward a very intelligible suggestion about making the Clause watertight after that part of my speech—which must not be too long—dealing with the point had passed away and I had gone to the second part of my objections to the Clause.
  Marquess of Titchfield: Would the hon. and learned Member really tell the House, because it is very important, how the

  401
  Clause can be made watertight? The hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing about what he would do. Honestly, we should like to hear his suggestions. I am sure he has had great experience in this matter.
  Mr. Pritt: As Parliamentary draftsman I have had little experience. With great respect to the Noble Lord—if you do not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—I will come back a little later to what he is saying. At the moment I am dealing with the point with which I propose to deal. I am not going to have my speech rearranged for me as the Noble Lord and other Members have been tending to do, even those who have been out of the House between Eight o'clock and Nine o'clock. These things are committed to the magistrates. There are two features about the magistrates. The first is that they are incapable of dealing with anything except the very simple kind of case. I was pointing out that the case we are considering is of necessity an extremely elaborate kind of case and is not merely a question of fact. The other feature is that, with certain exceptions where you get stipendiary magistrates—who are not by any means all satisfactory—or where you get a Labour bench, magistrates are definitely employers. It is a sheer farce and an insult to justice to bring before a group of magistrates, all of whom are employers and half of whom grudge any increase in their weekly wage bill, this kind of case, and to say to them: "Now, will you please deal with a charge"—[Interruption.]
  Mr. A. Reed: That is a lie.
  Mr. Pritt: I do not know whether you desire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call to order those strange noises which say that I am telling a lie. By the fact that I am getting these interruptions I know that I am both getting under their skins and, what is much more important, that I am telling the truth. I heard an hon. Member say several times, "It is a lie."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not hear any hon. Member use that expression. If I had, I should have required him to withdraw immediately.
  Mr. Pritt: I think it is just as well to teach the gentlemanly party a few manners now and then. I heard a shout, "It is a lie" repeated three times—
  Mr. A. Reed: The hon. and learned Member was charging the magistracy of this country with being people who cannot carry out their duties properly, who, when cases of this kind are brought before them, do not do their duty or administer justice. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to charge a class of people in this country, who are appointed by a commission because of their ability to discharge such duties, by proclaiming that they cannot do their duty honestly or decently?
  Mr. Pritt: I will deal with that counterattack very willingly, and I will not call it a lie, but will only explain in what points it is wrong.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member told me that he heard a disorderly statement, but he did not identify any hon. Member as having made that statement.
  Mr. Pritt: The noise came from behind me, so I could not identify it, but I am now able to identify the hon. Member who said that twice with the hon. Member who has just made a counter attack against me.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Reed) accused the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) of being a liar, I must ask him to withdraw the words.
  Mr. Reed: I withdraw that statement, but I would like to add—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member desires to raise another point, but he has withdrawn the statement, and I cannot allow him to qualify that withdrawal in any way. I have been for some time proposing to interrupt the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to say that although, as he knows, the magistrates are not quite in the same position as judges, it is the accepted tradition of this House that reflections should not be made on justices of the peace.
  Mr. Pritt: If it is suggested that I have charged magistrates with dishonesty, I have done nothing of the kind. I claim however, my right here, speaking before this House, to say it is well known that magistrates are not competent to decide

  403
  difficult questions of this kind. But I had passed from that, and was saying, and I claim my right to say, that magistrates, and, indeed, a good many judicial persons, are not capable of dissociating their own minds from the interests of the class or group or profession to which they belong. That is an accusation which is made by persons of all kinds against my own profession all day long, and it is a perfectly proper accusation to make. It is known to everyone who does not wrap his head in a blanket that, if you get a number of magistrates who are all employers of labour and put them to decide a question of fact in which an employer of labour is charged with having attempted, shall we say, to cut down his wage bill, they cannot bring to that matter the complete impartiality which they ought technically to bring to it. The Lord Chief Justice has said that time and again.
  Captain Heilgers: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to describe benches of magistrates as being in the main all employers? I happen to be a member of a bench of magistrates myself, and I can testify to the fact that they are not all employers.
  Mr. Pritt: That is not a point of Order, and, incidentally, it wholly misdescribes what I said.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a point of Order, but I really must ask the hon. and learned Member to observe the traditions of the House a little more carefully. It is not in accordance with our traditions in speaking of magistrates, to make a general accusation against benches of magistrates that they are not impartial in administering justice.
  Mr. Pritt: In answer to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who may not have heard me correctly—I do not complain of that—I would point out that what I said was that magistrates, subject to a number of exceptions, were generally in that position. But far more important than courtesy towards magistrates is—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. I did not refer to courtesy towards magistrates; I referred to the traditions of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Pritt: Surely, one of the most important traditions of the House of Commons is that the privilege of Members should enable them to speak to the elementary facts of life. To pretend that the human mind is so carved up into watertight compartments that a bench of magistrates consisting wholly or mainly of employers of labour can come to a question concerning an employer of labour who is charged with having dismissed an employé when he should not have dismissed him—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member is not sufficiently acquainted with the opportunities which the House of Commons has for preserving its rights and doing what is necessary. If the hon. and learned Member has serious accusations to make against benches of magistrates as a whole, there are proper methods of doing it. It is absolutely against the traditions and practice of the House of Commons to make general accusations of partiality or unfairness against benches of magistrates in the course of a Debate in which there is not a definite allegation made against the magistracy.
  Mr. Pritt: It is good of you to remind me of my non acquaintance with various matters, and I accept your description of my mind, with which you are very imperfectly acquainted.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is another very strict rule of this House, and that is that respect must be shown to the Chair.
  Mr. Pritt: I think that all Members on this side of the House do their very best, in the very difficult circumstances involved, to show respect for the Chair when it is occupied by yourself, and equally, of course, at least, when it is occupied by others.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I regard that remark as one of extreme disrespect, and must ask the hon. and learned Member immediately to withdraw it.
  Mr. Pritt: Since you regard it as such, although I am unable myself so to regard it, I accept your Ruling on the matter, which will be more impartial than mine, without a moment's hesitation of any kind, and unreservedly withdraw the statement and ask you to accept my

  405
  apology for having made a statement which struck you in that way. Nevertheless I desire to say that it is grotesque to describe as a general accusation against magistrates a statement of an elementary fact relating to human nature—the statement, which has been made over and over again by the Lord Chief Justice in far stronger language than I am capable of using, that no man can be expected to bring to the decision of a question of fact which is of a type likely to affect him in his own business, profit-seeking life, the complete impartiality of a highly trained judge. It is a matter which the courts have recognised in varying degree over and over again, and, the moment such a position becomes at all acute, there is a large body of law, as you, Sir, as a lawyer will know, laying it down that, so far from the courts having to deal with the case, they are regarded for that reason as being utterly without jurisdiction to try the case. It is a great misfortune that gentlemen are brought, by the accident of their situation, to try cases which would appear to affect their own interests in a semi-direct, but very nearly direct manner, and a proposal which I would say is much more satisfactory is that the whole of these questions should not be committed to magistrates at all, but to county court judges, and that will enable me to say something which the Civil Lord invited me to say, because the two things rather hang together, how this could be very much better done.
  If, instead of saying it should be a punishable offence to do this, we stated, as it has been stated in other Statutes, that "it should be an implied term in every employment contract," and then set out the various implied terms, which could be nicely adjusted to ensure that they give a man real security when he comes back, the whole matter would be solved. The court, which while not perfect, for no court is perfect, would nevertheless come to the matter impartially, that is to say, it would not be likely to be composed of a particular class directly affected by problems of this kind, and the whole matter would be very much better operated in that way.
  The other point to which I would refer is Clause 4, which practically commits to legislation by Order in Council as much more legislation as any Government wants to do. It is an increasing tendency. De-
  406
  partmental legislation, of course, we must all endure. It is absolutely essential and, if properly administered, can be very good indeed, and some of it is very good, but to say that His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for such consequential matters as it appears to him expedient to provide for by reason of the passing of the Act, and may modify any enactment relating to such matters, is setting up a very nearly independent legislature side by side with this, enabling the Government to govern by Order in Council on anything which might fairly come under the long title of this Bill, and is a very serious inroad indeed on normal legislative procedure. It has been safeguarded by Sub-section (2), which says that such an Order shall not be submitted to His Majesty unless it has been approved by Resolutions passed by each House of Parliament. If the Clause stopped there, while I should not like it, I should regard it as an evil so closely safeguarded as to become a minor instead of a major evil, but unfortunately there is a proviso that if at any time when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or adjourned for more than 14 days, and the Admiralty, or a Secretary of State alone, without any interference from anyone else, regards it as necessary, such legislation shall come into force and remain in force, perhaps for many months, and there is no sort or kind of provision for bringing the House together to deal with it. The actual implications of that would lead one into Committee points and, therefore, with these very important matters in the Bill, I can only now express my very great anxiety.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and temporary provision for enabling the reserve and auxiliary forces of the Crown to be called out for service as may be found necessary, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it

  407
  is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of an Order in Council there under." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  I move this Motion in order that I may make a statement, for the convenience of the House, on the alteration of the business for to-morrow. In order to give more time than was contemplated for the Committee stage of the Military Training Bill, we shall begin the Committee stage to-morrow, after the Time-Table Motion has been passed. Further consideration of the Civil Defence Bill, previously announced for to-morrow, will therefore be postponed.
  Mr. Ede: We were told that Private Members' time was to be taken on Friday. Can the Patronage Secretary say anything on that point? Shall we continue the Military Training Bill on Friday?
  Captain Margesson: Perhaps it would be well if we awaited the Motion which is being put on the Order Paper tonight, which will deal with that point. This Adjournment Motion is only moved so that I may inform the House that instead of proceeding to-morrow with the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill, we shall carry on with the Committee stage of the Military Training Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 24th April].
  [Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair].

  CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Duty of occupiers and owners of factory premises, mines and commercial buildings to make reports.)
    9.37 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to
    408
    move, in page 9, line 36, after "or" to insert "commercial."
    This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that these are commercial buildings.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 39, to leave out paragraph (a).
    The Committee will see that this is also a drafting Amendment. The words, "the passing of this Act" are surplus to the requirements of the Clause, because one of the relevant dates referred to in the Sub-section is the making of an Order, which cannot be done until after the passing of the Act. It, therefore, assumes that the Act has been passed, and the words which I move to leave out are not required.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Power of occupier or owner to execute works.)
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, after "type," to insert:
    "or for the purpose of providing living and/or sleeping accommodation for his employés in cases in which during an emergency it is expedient or necessary to make such provision."
    This Clause enables the owner of certain premises to provide shelters of an approved type on the premises, notwithstanding anything in the restrictive covenants on the premises. Sub-section (3) relieves them in certain circumstances from the effect of these restrictive covenants. One of the duties that may very well fall upon persons who employ a considerable number of people in cities and large towns, which may be regarded as particularly liable to aerial attack, may be to provide in some place outside the city or town an office where the administrative work of the firm can be carried on. For the purpose of carrying on that work, especially for large undertakings such as electricity undertakings, banks and similar bodies, housing for a considerable number of staff may have to be provided. We have been told by the Government that firms moving out their staff should not occupy any accommoda-

    409
    tion that has been reserved by the Ministry of Health for the children and other people who will be evacuated under the civil evacuation scheme.
    A good many firms now have in what may be called, for want of a better term, country districts, places which are sometimes used as sports clubs by the employés and sometimes as branch establishments. It has been the practice during the last few years for firms to take some of the older mansions in the country and use them for their purposes, but occasionally they are restricted in the use to which they can put such premises by the restrictive covenants held by the surrounding owners, or perhaps by the National Trust and other people. I have one such case in mind, where I happen to be the chairman of the undertaking involved. If it is proposed merely to erect a shelter for the people who are already employed on the premises, this Clause will enable us to secure release for this purpose from the restrictive covenants. We shall be doing good work for the carrying on of essential industry if we can at a certain place house a number of the administrative staff and provide them with living and sleeping accommodation.
    One idea of the Government in this matter is that all this will be dealt with when the emergency arises, that everybody who is in the position I have just described will be armed with very ample powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, that we shall be able to do a great many things that we cannot do now and nobody will be able to prevent us, with the law as it will then be. I would, however, point out that my proposal involves a certain amount of preparation. One cannot erect even hutments that are likely to be of any great use for a long period unless they are placed on concrete and footings. In consequence, if we are to be able to use these premises in the way described when the emergency arises, a certain amount of preparatory work must be done. In the case I have in mind the owners who can exercise restrictive covenants, although they will suffer no injury at all, are taking steps to prevent the putting in of the concrete and the footings, although they have the assurance that no hutment or anything that can be seen in the way of an elevation will be erected until the emergency actually arises, but
    410
    that the hutments will be provided in sections readily available for use when the time comes.
    It is essential if this thing is to be done properly, adequately and without confusion, that firms in the position I have indicated should be able to know now that they will be able to provide this accommodation. Unless we can secure hutments in advance, provided in sections, which can be stored, it may very likely be impossible to get them at the time of the emergency. The Government may want them for military purposes and they may take all the available stocks in the hands of the manufacturers, and we should then be unable to proceed with the making of the essential provision. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this subject as one of the things the position in regard to which must be known well in advance, and if he looks at it in that light, I am sure he will be able to give us, perhaps not quite this form of words—I am not wedded to these particular words—but a power that will enable us to be ready in advance to deal with what, on the day of an emergency, may prove almost an impossible problem to solve unless he has given us such a power.
    9.46 p.m.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I fully appreciate the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the purpose which he has in view in raising it. I suggest to the Committee, however, that his proposal is not appropriate at this point. We are dealing now with a Clause which has for its object the provision of shelters, a specific and rather narrow object, and this Bill is one which is concerned with provision which has to be made in time of peace, not with provision which might be required in time of emergency. For these reasons, without in any way belittling the importance of the point raised, I suggest that this is not an Amendment which could possibly be accepted here.
    I would like to add one further consideration. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that for the purpose that he has in view, to enable employers to provide living and sleeping accommodation for their employés in the case of emergency, all restrictive covenants should be disregarded. Well, that logically would mean that in regard to any Measure which can

    411
    reasonably be represented as required for the purposes of civil defence, restrictive covenants, and possibly also restrictions of other kinds imposed under local bylaws or planning schemes, should go by the board. I think that is a very serious proposition. I agree that it is put forward to meet a situation which may be serious, but I think the Committee would be ill-advised to accept, just in that form, here and now, a proposal so sweeping in its character. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should regard his purpose as having been served by his having called attention to the point, that he should now withdraw his Amendment, and that the matter should be considered in the light of what he has said. I do not think I can possibly accept the Amendment.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am flattered by the suggestion that my merely ventilating a point in the Committee ought to satisfy me. I do not flatter myself that I am so important a Member of the House as all that, and I was hoping for at least one kind word from the right hon. Gentleman, which would be far more valuable than anything that I could say, in recognition of the desperate nature of the problem that some firms will have to face, and some promise from him that would be willing to consider at some stage, if possible before the day of emergency, some form that will enable them to deal with this problem. Am I to understand that I have to wait until the Defence of the Realm Act deals far more severely with restrictive covenants and by-laws than he is prepared to do to-night?
    9.50 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Member has not fully understood me. The point which he has raised will arise later in the course of our discussions on the Bill, in connection with provisions concerned with dispensing with restrictive covenants, and also, as I indicated, dealing with the position under local by-laws. I think the proper course is to let any Amendment that may be raised on those provisions be discussed, and if any hon. Member has a view to put forward then, that he should put it forward, and then let the whole question of how far it would be reasonable to go in the direction of suspending such provisions be considered as a whole in the light of what may pro-
    412
    ceed on this Bill. But this is not, I suggest, the appropriate point at which to make such provision as the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for what he has said, and, in view of that statement, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for the Withington Division (Mr. Fleming), is, I understand, one of a series, and I think the discussion should take place on this Amendment and not on the subsequent Amendments connected with it.
    9.51 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 10 line 19, to leave out "Before commencing any such works," and to insert:
    "Unless any such works have been commenced or completed before the passing of this Act."
    As the Deputy-Chairman has said, this Amendment is connected with four or five others standing on the Paper in my name and in the names of several other hon. Members, and it will be simpler to take them together, because they all deal with the same point, namely, the case of an owner of a commercial building who has instituted air-raid shelter works prior to the passing of this Bill. As the Bill is drafted, such an owner cannot recover from his tenants any proportion of his expenses unless, before executing any such work, he notifies them of what he proposes to do and gives them an opportunity to appeal, which is quite a right proceeding in the ordinary way. But it cannot possibly apply to any owner of a commercial building who has already acted on the advice and at the request of the Government, and actually started or completed air-raid precautions of an approved type. He has no right whatever, as the Bill is drafted, unless these Amendments are accepted, to recover from his tenants any of the expenses involved, and it seems unfair that where the owner of a commercial building—one of the biggest in London has already done it—has actually carried out the very things that the Government want him to do before this Bill becomes an Act, he should then be estopped from recovering any of the expenses from the tenants, as he would be entitled to do under the Bill if he had waited until the Bill became an Act.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I think—to use an analogy which is justified by the circumstances—we ought, in this matter, to treat the Territorial at least as well as the conscript. It would be unfair if people who had neglected their duties as landlords were to be placed in a position vis-a-vis their tenants relatively better than the position of those who have visualised the necessities of the situation and have taken action in advance of this Bill. Some of us who are tenants in office buildings, have wondered when the landlords of those buildings were going to wake up realising that in the case of landlords who wait to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill, we shall probably be compelled to pay our quota, whereas those tenants who have already derived advantage from the fact that their landlords have visualised their responsibility, will escape all such liability. I think the case for the Amendment is one of great strength and if the Lord Privy Seal is not able to accept this group of Amendments, I hope he will indicate that he is prepared at a later stage, to meet that case, perhaps in other words.
    9.57 p.m.
    Captain Sir William Brass: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friends who have preceded me. I think it only right that those landlords who have already started to do something to meet these requirements, should be in a position to claim back under this Bill in the manner provided by subsequent Clauses in just the same way as they would be able to claim back if they waited until the Bill came into operation before doing anything. There is only one point which I wish to raise and that concerns the use of the words "accommodation of an approved type." I am rather concerned at the possibility that some of the accommodation which has been or is being provided may not be found to be according to the approved type. I should like a little more information on that point.
    9.59 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I should like to say at once that the Government fully recognise the strength of the case that has been made for dealing in some suitable way with the problem with which these Amendments seek to deal. They are concerned with the case of works which have,
    414
    commendably, been carried out in anticipation of the Bill, and the object which is sought to be achieved is the establishment retrospectively of the sort of relationship which the Bill will establish for the future as between the owners and occupiers of commercial buildings. It is not, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Fleming) pointed out, an easy matter to devise a suitable provision for this purpose, but my advisers, with Parliamentary counsel, have been considering the problem, and I think I can promise that it will be possible to bring in at a later stage a Clause which will substantially achieve what the supporters of the Amendment wish to secure. The general line on which we contemplate proceeding is to provide that where work has been done in anticipation, the whole matter may, in default of agreement, come before the official arbitrator, who shall make such award and allocation as in the circumstances appear to be justified. I can promise that either on Report or by recommittal, a provision carefully designed to carry out this purpose will be brought forward.
    As regards the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), this arises also in the case of factories where work has been carried out in anticipation of this Bill and in anticipation of the publication of the code. It is recognised that a provision will have to be inserted later covering the case of shelter accommodation which is substantially equivalent to that laid down by the code, but which may not, in all respects, conform exactly to the provisions of the code. On that point also I think I can give my hon. Friends an assurance.
    Mr. Fleming: On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 10, line 19, after "the," to insert:
    "occupier of any factory premises who is not; the owner of the whole of the premises and the."
    Subject to your direction, Colonel Clifton Brown, I would suggest that the Committee should consider in conjunction with this Amendment subsequent Amendments standing in my name to

    415
    Clauses 12, 13, 14, 59 and 73 dealing with the same point as also the new Clause—(Provisions as to factory premises occupied under short leases)—all of which are concerned with the same point, namely, the question of short-term leases. As the Bill is drafted, even though a lease may have only a few months to run, the occupier of the premises which are subject to that lease has to bear the whole cost of providing shelters. But the benefits of that expenditure will eventually, on the termination of that lease—that is within a few months—accrue entirely to the owner. The occupier, at the termination of his lease, has no guarantee that his rent will not be raised or that his leave will be renewed. These Amendments are intended to cover that point, provided that in such cases, if the occupier notifies the owner of what he is proposing to do, or is compelled by the factory inspector to do, in the way of providing air-raid shelters, the owner is given an opportunity to appeal. If the appeal is not upheld the occupier is put in a position, at the termination of his lease, to obtain from the owner repayment of a proportion of the expenses incurred on the provision of air-raid shelters.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. A. Reed: I should like to support this Amendment, which is only bare justice. In previous Amendments we have looked after the landlord; now we are looking after the tenant. It would be unfair that a tenant with only a month to run should have to bear the cost of these air-raid shelters. This Amendment will make the Bill fair to both sides.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) was prevented from getting here to-night, and asked me to express, on his behalf, strong support for this Amendment. In his constituency there is a trading estate where there are 300 factories. They would be in difficulties, because in some cases the factories are so close to each other that it would be impossible for the owner alone to do what is necessary. In the case of these short leases the occupier must not be unfairly treated. I have received a letter from the Slough Urban Council on the matter, and on reading the letter I
    416
    discovered—what I did not know before—that I am indirectly an affected person, because I happen to be a director of the Treforest Company in South Wales, where the circumstances are somewhat similar. I do not think my directorship of that company would be sufficient to prevent me from taking part in the discussion and even voting on the Amendment, but I think it is always better to mention when one is affected in such a way. I think these Amendments are admirably conceived, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will accept them; or if the Parliamentary draftsmen want them put in other words, I am quite willing that that should happen.
    Mr. Dodd: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will accept these Amendments. They affect a great many people up and down the country, and in many cases it is the smaller people who are affected.
    10.9 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I agree that the point that these Amendments are designed to meet is a good point, I think that they are well conceived to carry out the intentions of those responsible, and I am prepared to accept them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. Fleming: I beg to move, in page 10, line 21, after "shall," to insert "before commencing any such works."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 10, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "(4) Before commencing any such works the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building shall serve upon every person to whom he pays rent in respect of such premises or building a notice in writing stating his intention to provide shelter of such approved type as is specified in the notice, and each person upon whom such notice or a copy thereof is served shall within seven days from the date of the service of the notice or a copy thereof on him serve a copy thereof upon every person to whom he pays rent in respect of the premises or building to which such notice relates."
    This Amendment relates to the restrictive covenants to which my right hon. Friend referred and that appalling system in London under which you may have five or six leases between the freeholder and the occupier. In practically all those

    417
    cases there is a restrictive covenant that no structural alterations shall be made to the premises without the consent of all the landlords up to the freeholder. As between the occupier and the freeholder, there may be four or five of these. The person who is the owner has to do the work, according to the Bill. It is suggested that, in order that we may avoid all prospect of disputes in years to come over these covenants, the owner, who is going to do the work, should give notice to all the others. It is purely a matter of preventing a great deal of trouble in future. It is not proposed, by this Amendment or by a later consequential one, that people should have any right to interfere with the work or hold it up in any way.
    10.13 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: My hon. and learned Friend has explained very clearly the purpose of this Amendment. He has pointed out that these notices for which he proposes to make provision will carry no consequences whatsoever, but will serve merely to convey information which it may be convenient to certain people to have on record. I confess that, aiming at the greatest degree of simplicity in the framing of these provisions, which, unfortunately, necessarily reflect some of the complications of modern life, we did not think it wholly necessary to provide for the circumstances which have been explained. But I do not wish to raise any pedantic objection to the Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, at the beginning, to insert, "Subject as in Section fifteen hereinafter provided."
    The point here is that the last three lines in Clause 12 provide that the person exercising the right under this Clause shall not be liable to pay any damages. When we get to Clause 15, the obligation is put on him to pay compensation to the tenant. The Amendment is designed only to prevent the two Clauses being conceivably in conflict. I raise it only as a matter of draftsmanship. I want it put on record.
    Sir J. Anderson: This is more or less a drafting point, and I am prepared to have it looked at to see whether some words
    418
    are needed to avoid the difficulty to which my hon. and learned Friend has called attention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Ede: I do not move the Amendment standing in my name, in page 10, line 42, at the end, to add a new proviso.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. Johnston: I wonder whether this is the appropriate place where the Lord Privy Seal can tell us whether there is power vested in him in this Clause to expedite the passing of alterations by appropriate local courts. There are local courts dealing with alterations of buildings. In Scotland we have the Dean of Guild Court, and in England there are local committees. It is possible that these courts are being cluttered up with work and that extraordinary delays are taking place in getting powers to make the necessary reconstruction of buildings. I am sure that it is not the desire of the Lord Privy Seal that unnecessary delay should take place, and I am authorised to ask him whether there is any power vested in him to expedite the passing of these works?
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: There is one point which I should like to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. It appears from the discussion that has taken place during the last half hour that a condition has been inserted in the Clause by which nearly everyone appears to be entitled to plenty of information and knowledge of the proposals before they are executed, with the exception of the people who are most concerned, namely, the employés who are to be protected. I suggest that between now and the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman might look at the Clause again to see whether he cannot go a little further and make provision for the prominent exhibition of the proposals in the factories or mines, so that the people whose lives we are endeavouring to protect shall themselves have some knowledge of what is going to be done.
    10.18 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I want to raise a point on this Clause. The Minister has undertaken to consider an Amendment of mine

    419
    at a later stage of the Bill. He did not indicate the Clause on which he proposes to bring it up, and I believe that the only Clause which deals with the matter is Clause 66, which at the moment contains no reference to restrictive covenants. There are by-laws and regulations, but restrictive covenants are not mentioned. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said this evening that, when we get to that Clause, he will be prepared to consider the points I have raised, and which are raised in the second Amendment which I did not move on this Clause, to see whether it might not be extended to include restrictive covenants, which are only mentioned in the Bill in the Clause that we are now passing.
    10.20 p.m.
    Sir W. Brass: This Clause gives power to an occupier or owner to execute work. As I read the Clause, the owner may do certain works. There are quite a large number of commercial buildings where it is almost impossible to provide these shelters owing to the nature of the buildings. It is stated here that the owner "may" execute certain things. I take it, therefore, that the Clause is permissive and not compulsory, because there are cases where this work could not be done.
    10.21 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: As to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston), the Government are fully alive to the disadvantages which may result, from the point of view of the effective carrying out of the purposes of the Bill, from undue delays or formalities in connection with approval of the work. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an institution which I know is held in the highest esteem in Scotland, the Dean of Guild Court. It is peculiar to that country, and I have had in connection with the Bill alternative and conflicting suggestions. In the first place it is suggested that there should be a reference to the Dean of Guild Court, so that the court may be in a position to exercise control. The other suggestion is diametrically opposite; that as far as possible the delays incidental to supervision by such a body as the Dean of Guild Court should be eliminated. I do not think the point arises on this Clause, because the Clause is designed to ensure that owners and occupiers having
    420
    occasion to make shelter provision shall be free to make such provision notwithstanding restrictive covenants. There is a provision in Clause 66 which deals with the application of the local by-laws, but this is a provision designed to free the owner or occupier who wishes to make such shelter provision from restrictions in regard to the nature of the work he proposes to carry out and the notices which must be served. At a later stage the question will inevitably arise as to the position of a body like the Dean of Guild Court, and I suggest that that is the appropriate point to consider the matter.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman make the point, with which I most emphatically agree, that we should seek to avoid by every possible means unnecessary delays and causes of unnecessary delays in the carrying out of these provisions. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) raised a point in regard to the notices that are required to be served on various people in connection with this work. The hon. Member will appreciate that these are notices which concern people who have specific legal rights, and who ought to have these notices. As regards the workers, of course it is quite clear that they are closely and directly interested in the provision which may be made or which is proposed to be made for shelter in places where they work, and while I do not think that notices to the workers are on quite the same footing as the sort of notices with which we are dealing on this Clause, I think we may certainly consider, as a matter of administration, what can best be done to ensure that the workers have timely notice of what is proposed and an opportunity of making representations if they think fit to those who are carrying out the work. I do not think it is a matter for specific legal provision, but is really a matter for common sense and proper administrative provisions.
    In reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think Clause 66 will be the appropriate point at which to raise the whole question of restrictive covenants, by-laws, and so on, provisions which may have a restrictive effect on the carrying out of work which is essential from the standpoint of Civil Defence. The hon. Member will realise that while I said in my earlier remarks that I thought

    421
    the question of restrictive covenants and local by-laws ought to be considered together, because they may have the same effect in delaying or obstructing work that may be of importance, I did not indicate any specific solution as being in the mind of the Government for this particular problem. It is a very difficult one and it merits close study, and if in collaboration we can devise some suitable method of dealing with it, no one will be more pleased than I shall be.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) made a point with regard to the owner who, under this Clause, is authorised to carry out works of a certain kind. The word "may" in this Clause means "may." The Clause at this point is permissive, and I think its purpose will be seen clearly if Clause 12, Sub-section (4) is read with Clause 12, Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) states that the occupier, and in the case of mines and commercial buildings the owner, may execute works for certain purposes. Sub-section (4) makes it quite clear that his authority to do so is unfettered by any agreement, restrictive covenant and so forth. That is the purpose of the Clause.

    Clause 13.—(Power of factory inspector, mines inspector or local authority to require provision of air-raid shelter.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 38, at the end, insert:
    "(5) Where a notice is served under this Section on the occupier of factory premises who is not the owner of the whole of the premises, he shall, within 14 days from the date of the service of the notice on him, serve a copy thereof on his immediate landlord, or, where he holds different parts of the premises under different landlords, on each of his immediate landords."—[Mr. Fleming.]
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to add:
    "(6) If the council of a county district fail to serve a notice upon the owner of any commercial building in accordance with the provisions of this Section, the council of the county in which the building is situated may, if they think fit and after consultation with the council of the county district, either themselves serve such a notice or require the council of the county district to do so."
    422
    This Amendment deals with a somewhat difficult point that may arise, although one hopes only very occasionally, in the practice of administration. The county councils are, of course, scheme-making authorities for the greater part of England and Wales outside the county boroughs, and there will be local authorities under them and associated with them in the administration of this Act who have given to them in this Clause the power of serving certain notices. It is, of course, essential that the scheme for the county should be a really well coordinated one, and that as far as possible where equal circumstances reign, equal conditions shall prevail. There have already been encountered in the course of the administration of these matters, as the Lord Privy Seal knows, occasions—I think one can say that up to this stage very rare occasions—of difficulty between county councils and the non-county boroughs, urban or rural councils as the case may be. Up to the present, these difficulties have been got over by a spirit of good will and sweet reasonableness being displayed on both sides. But we are now reaching a very important stage of the Bill, and judging by the Measures which the Government are introducing in respect of other matters, some of these things may now be of the utmost urgency. In view of the fact that there have been occasions when it has been difficult to get one of these county district authorities to move, it may be desirable that there should be given to some appropriate body or person the power to issue a notice in cases where, for some reason that is not sufficient, the county district authority fails to do so.
    The words of the Amendment deal with this matter in as diplomatic a way as it is possible to arrange. It is essential that the lives of the people in these buildings should be properly protected. There are on occasion other interests involved which do not believe that there will ever be any trouble. I am astonished at the number of people whom I still meet who think that all this activity on the part of the Government is bluff, and some people go so far as to say that we are using the time of this House on these matters so that we should not be engaged on other matters which they regard as more useful. One still finds people who are not prepared even at this stage to do anything in the way of getting ready for eventuali-

    423
    ties. Where these people are able, as they sometimes are, to exercise considerable pressure on the council of some small county district, it is essential that somebody should have the power to see that adequate steps are taken. We suggest that the method proposed in the Amendment is one which, in view of the general relationship between county and county district councils, will work reasonably well and will afford an opportunity of getting things done in cases where, for some reason or another, nothing will be done unless there is some body who is able to put pressure to bear on the county district council in order to get them to move.
    10.32 p.m.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: The question which is raised in this Amendment is purely one of co-ordination. The county councils do not wish in any way to usurp the powers of other authorities, but they think that there should be co-ordination and that, as the premier authority in the county, they should undertake this duty.
    10.34 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: I feel in some difficulty about this matter. I am naturally somewhat diffident about expressing disagreement with the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in support of the Amendment, familiar as they are—far more than I am—with the details of local government, but this Amendment, though it may be wrapped up in what the hon. Gentleman described as diplomatic language, is a form of default. It does, in fact, provide that where a district council—it may be the council of an important municipality—has, in the opinion of the county council, failed to serve some notice that it ought to have served, the county council can step in and, apparently irrespective of their views and wishes, except that the Amendment provides that there shall be consultation, serve a notice or require the council of the county district to serve a notice. That is to say it could give orders to the council of a county district which that council would be required to carry out.
    Before expressing any opinion upon this proposal I should like to hear the point of view of representatives of the smaller bodies which may be affected. I do not feel that it would be right on behalf of the Government to give support to a proposal of this kind on the arguments we have heard from the two hon. Members.
    424
    There is already in the Bill a default Clause, Clause 58, which enables the Minister, after proper inquiry, either to take over the functions of a defaulting authority himself or, in a case where the defaulting authority is the council of a county district, to give the power of that council to the county council, and from the point of view of the Government I should prefer to rely upon Clause 58 in the case, which I hope will be a rare one, of a county district showing itself incapable of carrying out its responsibilities in an adequate manner.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Having sat through some portion of the Debate carried on earlier this afternoon and on the previous day, I cannot help contrasting the slow, deliberate, careful way in which we are proceeding with this Measure and the hasty legislation which we did last night, and which will accupy us on some other night. Here we have two Bills, both concerned with what may be necessary in certain unfortunate eventualities which everybody hopes will not occur. In the one case we are dealing with what may be necessary for the protection of civilian life at home and in the other case are dealing with what may be necessary—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that what he is saying has little relation to the Amendment which we are discussing.
    Mr. Silverman: I hope that I am in order. I am dealing with the attitude of the Minister to the Amendment. He thinks it is not right to deal with this matter until a long series of checks and counter-checks have been taken in order to see that every point of view has been expressed and every detail of every interest properly inquired into and protected, and I am saying that that is symptomatic of the way in which this Bill is being handled, and that it is too slow. Either there is an emergency or there is not, and if there is we have to prepare for it quickly, and it cannot possibly be right in the one case to act with such haste that we are legislating to conscript an army of boys without—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment deals merely with the position of a county council, and the hon. Member is not addressing himself to that point at all.
    Mr. Silverman: I am endeavouring to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who desires that certain precautions should be taken and that the Minister should have certain powers, and am commenting upon the Minister's refusal to take those powers until a whole series of precautions, which might be advisable if there were plenty of time, had been taken. I am contrasting that with the haste with which we are pursuing another form of legislation designed to meet the same emergency.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with the Amendment which we are now discussing.
    Mr. Silverman: I submit, with respect, that it has a great deal to do with whether we ought to accept the Minister's attitude towards this Amendment or support the attitude of those who moved it and supported it. I will not proceed if you think there is something wrong with it, although I should have thought it was eminently in order.
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has withheld a decision on this Amendment until he has had representations from what are called in Scotland the small burghs. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know that these bodies in Scotland exercise, and cherish almost fiercely, certain rights of independence. In my constituency are perhaps more of these small burghs than in any other constituency in Scotland, and I know the intense feeling of pride that exists in them. If it were put to these small burghs that the county council could, if it thought fit, take certain steps—
    Sir J. Lamb: Only in form—
    Mr. Stewart: Quite, but certain steps to bring the small burghs up to scratch, I am sure that instead of getting the things done which we desire there would be the waste of a lot of time and a great deal of acrimonious discussion. I would remind the Committee of the Minister's powers under Clause 58. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has received representations from the small burghs upon that Clause. I warmly support my right hon. Friend. If the
    426
    hon. Member for South Shields will see the Scottish point of view he will not be losing by withholding his Amendment, but would be strengthening the representations which they will make.
    10.43 p.m.
    Sir W. Brass: I support the Minister, because local district councils are obviously much nearer to matters than are the larger councils. The Minister has pointed out that under Clause 58 he has power to ask the larger authority to deal with this matter if he is not satisfied that the smaller authority is dealing with it properly. He has already such power under Clause 58 that it is unnecessary for the larger authority to be able to override the smaller, which is much closer to matters and is able to judge whether it is necessary to put shelters to these commercial buildings or not.
    10.44 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. Its introduction would lead to the very friction between authorities that we are seeking to avoid. Power is with the Minister, and before an authority can be an authority for the purposes of the Bill, it must have the staff necessary for carrying out the duties, and any default on its part will come to the notice of the Minister, who can transfer its duties to the county council or take them over himself. The smaller authorities are very jealous of the powers they have and in many instances are complaining now about the overriding powers possessed by the county councils with regard to air-raid precautions. The Amendment would create more friction than it would provide for anything that might arise in the future.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: If a district authority—presumably a rural or an urban district council—fails to do its duty, surely there ought to be a reserve authority, namely, the county council which can do it after consultation with the local authority if it thinks it necessary. The point is a perfectly simple one, and my own inclination is to support the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: As representing both the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association, I should like to say

    427
    that we would much rather deal with the Minister than with the county council.
    10.46 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I must say that, the more I hear from the Lord Privy Seal on this matter, the more I am astonished. I feel bound to warn him that he is not helpful towards the progress of the Bill. At a very full conference that was held in his room, including a large number of people from Scotland, who took up the greater part of the time, this was one of the things put forward by the County Councils Association of England and Wales, and it was not demurred to by anyone at the meeting. I gathered that it had been agreed. These words have been on the Paper from the very first day that Amendments appeared, and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has received no representations from the associations who look after the interests of these other authorities—not even from the Scottish associations; and, therefore, I am surprised at the line he has taken towards the Amendment. I do not, however, want to do anything that will introduce friction between the local authorities—after all, the Minister himself is the cause of friction enough, without any well-wisher desiring to introduce more—and, in order that further negotiations, if he desires them, may be carried on with the other associations, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.48 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "(6) Where a notice is served under this Section on the occupier of factory premises or the owner of a commercial building he shall within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice on him serve a copy thereof upon every person to whom he pays rent in respect of such premises or building, and each person upon whom a copy of such notice is served shall, within seven days from the date of the service of the copy of such notice on him, serve a copy thereof upon every person to whom he pays rent in respect of the premises or building to which such notice relates."
    This is exactly the same type of Amendment as the one which I moved earlier, and which was accepted.
    Sir J. Anderson: I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment, which is in line with the previous one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 12 after the words last inserted, to add:
    "(7) A notice under this Section requiring the provision of air-raid shelter of an approved type for persons working or living in factory premises or in a commercial building shall be deemed to be complied with if, by an agreement under Part II of this Act between the occupier of the premises or the owner of the building, as the case may be, and the local authority for the purposes of that Part, that shelter is provided for those persons in a public air-raid shelter available, in whole or in part, for use by them."
    This is the first of a series of seven Amendments designed to deal with a problem to which I referred at some length on the last occasion, namely, the problem of factory premises and commercial buildings where it is not possible structurally to provide shelter accommodation. Although the Amendments were accepted in the first place by my right hon. Friend, there has been a certain amount of redrafting in order to overcome the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and some of his friends on the last occasion. The purpose of the Amendments is three-fold, first to give power to local authorities to designate suitable private premises for use as shelter for workpeople in factories or commercial buildings. The second purpose is to give power to local authorities to enter into agreements with occupiers of factories or owners of commercial buildings for the same purpose. The third is to give power to an occupier or owner to secure the same reimbursement in respect of the shelters as if the works had been constructed on his own premises.
    10.51 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: As my hon. Friend has explained, these Amendments are designed to meet the case, raised on the last occasion when we had the Bill in Committee, of an owner or occupier who is not able conveniently or suitably to provide shelter on his own premises, but who can arrange with the local authority that it will, in fact, as a purely voluntary matter, provide the necessary shelter at the cost of the occupier or owner, and in the case where shelter is provided under arrangement with the local authority, by the local authority, the owner or occupier is deemed to have satisfied the obligations of the governing Clause of the Bill. The Amendments in the form in which they now stand avoid the danger

    429
    which, I think, was apparent in the minds of some hon. Members, that the local authority might be placed in the position of having to do this work, whether it wished it or not, at the behest of some employer. It is made perfectly clear in the Amendments that that is not the position. The procedure is that a factory inspector goes to the local authority and represents that the case is one in which the local authority might, if it were willing, help the employer, and then the proposition is put forward and, if the employer and the local authority agree on the point, the work proceeds. I am quite prepared on behalf of the Government to accept the Amendment. I would only make the point that I think it may be desirable to supplement the provisions that have been placed on the Paper for the purpose of making the whole position more watertight in a case where this procedure is adopted.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: When this point was before the Committee on the previous occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) raised the point that there was a possibility that the owner of factory premises could by his own volition, without the concurrence of the local authority, pass the obligation for shelter on to the local authority or, at any rate, utilise the technical services of officers of the local authority. There was no lack of good will on this side of the House to help the small factory owner out of his difficulties. It is the small factory owner we have in mind in this Amendment. Therefore, in principle, the Amendment is a great improvement on the previous Amendment and the Lord Privy Seal is right in accepting it, in principle. The only point that I have any doubt about is where the Lord Privy Seal said, quite rightly, that this does not remove the financial responsibility on the owner of the factory premises to provide shelter, in respect of which financial responsibility he will receive certain grants from the State. That should be so, because if the local authority puts up a shelter for the factory owner the local authority should be reimbursed and should not be mulcted in any financial burden.
    There is, however, nothing specified in the Amendment to indicate that the local authority in coming to this agreement may stipulate for such financial arrangement as
    430
    will avoid a charge on local authority funds. The answer may be that the local authority under the Amendment is not obliged to agree and that before it agrees it can stipulate for such financial provision as it wishes to stipulate. I should be happier if at a later stage words were put in to the effect that the local authority, in agreeing, may provide that it can recover from the owner of the factory premises the cost of the work executed. As a matter of administration I agree that the local authority can say: "We will not agree unless the financial arrangement is incorporated."
    Mr. Sandys: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the pew Clause which appears on page 1042 of the Order Paper? That Clause stipulates that:
    "The local authority may, if a representation is made to it by a factory inspector that air-raid shelter cannot reasonably be provided in factory premises for the persons working or living therein, agree with the occupier of the premises to provide, on such terms as to payments by the occupier to the local authority as may be specified in the agreement, a public air-raid shelter which will be available for use, in whole or in part, by those persons."
    I think that meets the right hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. That point had escaped my attention. If it is related to this Amendment, the only objection that I may have had falls to the ground, and I should recommend my hon. Friends to concur in this Amendment being made.
    10.57 p.m.
    Sir Percy Harris: I should like to thank the Lord Privy Seal for accepting the Amendment. It is of great importance to a constituency such as the one I represent, where there are a very great number of small factories, of old-fashioned construction, and of such design that it would be almost impossible to provide the necessary air-raid shelter inside the building. On the other hand, I should like to reinforce the statement made by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The borough that I represent is a very poor one, with a very low rateable value. The produce of a penny rate is a very small sum, and it would be a very serious thing if the local authority were saddled with the heavy expense of providing central shelters for a large number of people from the small factories. Therefore, it is of great importance that

    431
    the local authority should not be saddled with the expense of doing this very necessary work, and that there should be some financial readjustment. It is not a simple matter because, on the one hand, you have these small factories and on the other hand you have a poor borough with a low rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman will have to work out some scheme to reimburse the local authority and at the same time not to put too big a burden upon the poor factory owner. Most of these factory owners are very small people, such as cabinet makers, who employ perhaps only eight or ten people, and it would be very difficult to spread the burden.
    11 p.m.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: I do not wish on this occasion to raise any objection to this Amendment, but I do want to say something very plainly to the right hon. Gentleman. It is said that this is an Amendment to deal with exceptional cases, but in many cases this will be the rule, not the exception, and it will be a sheer physical impossibility for the borough engineer's department in scores of boroughs in this country to tackle this work and to get it done within any reasonable period. Since the Debate on this subject took place on the last occasion, an appeal has been issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to local authorities to give priority to A.R.P. work, and most of the authorities are doing that, but even when they have done this, the amount of work that directly comes under the borough engineer's department is more than enough to keep going three times the staff that the ordinary council possesses, and if on top of that comes this extra work, it will be quite impossible for them to do it. Therefore, while there is a considerable improvement in this Amendment as compared with what it was before, I still think that, because the local authority now has to give its consent, the real fact which it will bear in mind will be that it simply has not got the staff and cannot do the work.
    If the right hon. Gentleman could only spend an hour in the district of any local authority, looking at the list of works that the borough engineer's department has got to do in connection with A.R.P. work, even if it left its ordinary work on one side for the next six months, he would find that they have scarcely started to
    432
    do it. There are all the questions of buttressing up and strengthening basements and buildings, and that work has scarcely been started. You cannot take on a labourer from the employment exchange and tell him to see about doing this. It requires technical people, and the engineer's department has not got those people and does not know where to get them. They are advertising, but the Lord Privy Seal does not appear to be doing anything to help them to get the necessary staffs. There are the emergency shelters that have got to be made by the local authority in every business street, every 250 yards. In many cases those shelters have not yet been found, and all the plans have to be got out. It is not just a case of finding a place with a basement and saying, "That will hold 50 people." You have to make all sorts of preparations. I believe the Department will be landed in the absolute breakdown of this scheme unless the right hon. Gentleman gives immediate attention to the question of where the engineering departments of local authorities are going to be able to find the technical people to carry on this work.
    11.4 p.m.
    Dr. Haden Guest: This Amendment deals with factories which employ 50 persons or over, and in the East End of London there is a very large number of factories, mantle factories and the like, which employ fewer than 50 people. In the case of these workshops and factories, the obligation for finding shelter will fall on the local authority in any case, and, especially in view of the Amendment which we have just heard is being accepted by the Government, this will place an obligation on them to provide shelter for people in factories of that kind, which will be throwing a very heavy obligation on the local authority indeed. I suggest that an inquiry should be made as to what would be the obligation on a local authority in the East End of London. I have personal knowledge that in the East End there are a number of small factories employing 10 or 20, or 30 people each and shelters have to be provided for those employés. These are not dealt with in the Bill and the shelters will have to be provided by the public authority. In view of this Amendment, the argument will be inevitable that these shelters should be provided in the same

    433
    way as that proposed by the Amendment. In view of the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government, a heavy burden will be placed on the local authorities unless the Government also accept the later Amendment to reduce the number for whom it is necessary for the employer to provide accommodation, from 50 to 25. It seems to me that they will have to put an obligation in regard to factories employing less than 50, not only on the local authority but also on the employer, otherwise the local authority will have to meet a tremendous and unjustifiable expense which will make it extremely difficult to carry on the work.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. David Adams: I agree that this Amendment is necessary, but what is to be the position in the case of the small factory owner who is known to be virtually insolvent. The local authority may find that they are likely to lose the money which they are invited to expend and may accordingly decide to do nothing. Who is to protect the employés in such concerns? Is the Lord Privy Seal to step in, if the local authority declines, or is there to be some mandatory power to compel the local authority to assent to this proposition?
    Mr. Sandys: The Amendment put forward on the previous occasion was much more watertight than the present Amendment but the hon. Member was one of those who objected to it then, and as a result of objections by himself and some of his hon. Friends, it is now less watertight. I hope, therefore, he will not object to it, in its present form.
    Mr. Adams: The information which the hon. Member is conferring on the Committee is of no value. This is a very serious question. I know a number of small factories which are not making profits but just carrying on in the hope that they will do better in the course of time. I am interested in the case of my own constituents who may be working in such factories and I desire to know what instrument exists to provide them with the necessary shelter. There is another point, who is to reimburse the local authority in the event of a factory owner defaulting? Is the Lord Privy Seal making some provision for that eventuality? If not, a substantial burden will be placed on already overburdened ratepayers.
    11.10 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson: In my judgment, it is not a question of the desirability of this Amendment, but of its practicability. I am convinced that what my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said applies not only to districts in London, but to many districts outside. If this additional burden is put on the local authorities—I am not speaking of it now as a financial burden, but as a work burden—will it be carried out? By shelving the responsibility and putting it on the local authority, you are not solving the problem; you are simply changing the individual upon whom the blame can be cast for the provisions not being carried out. I notice that one of the Ministers in charge of the Bill shakes his head. Where is the technical staff to come from for the drawing up of the plans which will be required for all the types of factories; where is the local authority to obtain the staff for the work envisaged in this Amendment?
    By making it possible for the local authority to take the responsibility, you are taking the responsibility off the factory owner to begin to make provision immediately. He is to have the opportunity of entering into negotiations with the local authority, which is not in a position to provide the personnel for the work it requires for itself. By changing the responsibility, you are wrecking the possibility of the success of the plans made under the Bill. I am not finding fault with the principle. It seems to me that it is almost the same thing as calling on the factory owner to make up the street outside his premises, and, in the event of his not being able to find the men to do it, making the local authority do the work and find the necessary men. In order that they may carry out the work, they need technical staffs, which are not available at present. If it is said that those staffs are available, I would like some information passed on to the local authorities, who are crying out for these men and cannot find them, although they are prepared to pay the standard rates of salary.
    11.14 p.m.
    Sir J. Anderson: We ought to regard this Clause as designed primarily to deal with an exceptional case. There is no intention to make it easy for employers,

    435
    on whom the obligation is being put to provide shelter for their workers, to pass it on to the local authorities. As the Bill is drawn, the owner has notice served on him by the factory inspector requiring him to make provision. It is for the factory inspector to approach the local authority if he is satisfied, on the representation of the employer, that the employer could not reasonably be expected to make provision. The whole thing, as far as the local authorities are concerned, is permissive, and hon. Gentlemen on both sides are agreed that the Clause does fill a gap in the provisions of the Bill. As regards the task with which the local authorities are already confronted in regard to the provision of air-raid shelters, I would be the last person to underestimate the burden that the local authorities will have to undertake if the provision of shelter on the desired scale is to be secured within a reasonable time.
    I do not for a moment suggest that local authorities, with their existing personnel and equipment, could face that task. My Department have had the whole matter under consideration for some time, and in a circular issued to the local authorities within the last fortnight, the Department have explained the lines upon which it is proposed to organise the resources of the professional institutions of the country in order to supplement the technical services normally at the disposal of the local authorities. These arrangements were made after consultation with the Association of Municipal Engineers and Surveyors, and I hope that, as a result of the arrangements that are being made, we shall bring to bear on this problem all the resources and professional skill that are available. We cannot do the job without; this task will be sufficient to take up all the energies of all the professional people, engineers, surveyors and so on, all the skilled supervision that is available, and certainly by far the greater part of the labour which is available, and all the materials which are available, and it will require a very great effort of organisation.
    The London problem may require special treatment. London from this point of view, I think I may be permitted to say, is not ideally organised. For this purpose, local government boundaries in London have very little significance and very little practical
    436
    application, and we must contrive, as we have endeavoured with a considerable measure of success to do in the general problem of air-raid precautions in London, to bring into existence some organisation which will overcome the disadvantages inherent in the existing system of distribution of responsibility within the London area. That matter has been receiving very close attention for some time past, and I hope that we shall arrive at some practical solution which will ease the position in many of the London boroughs, where, I frankly admit, the task that confronts them is one of extreme urgency and gravity.
    On the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), I would point out once more that the provisions in this Clause are wholly permissive as far as local authorities are concerned, and the point that was raised with regard to the employer who cannot afford to make shelter provision for his workers is not a point that arises primarily on this new Clause. It arises on the general structure of the Bill, and the position that the Government take up is the only position which they can possibly take. When it is decided that this duty lies on the employer, he must be held to his responsibility. It is a responsibility similar to other responsibilities that he is called upon to discharge. If he is financially not in a position to discharge it, he may have to close down, but the Government in respect of their general responsibilities for Civil Defence, could not possibly as a practical matter make themselves responsible for investigating the individual circumstances of every employer and decide whether or not the general obligation which rests upon all employers in this matter should be modified. That is the only answer that I can give on this point.
    Mr. David Adams: From whence will protection come for employés who are in a position such as the Lord Privy Seal has indicated, in which the employer is not able to make provision if the local authority declines to do so?
    Sir J. Anderson: Does the hon. Member mean those not able financially?
    Mr. Adams: Yes.
    Sir J. Anderson: I hope that will be an exceptional case, but if an employer fails to discharge his obligation he would not only lay himself open to a penalty but in the event of war he may not be able to carry on his business.
    Mr. Adams: Then who is to protect his employés?
    Sir J. Anderson: If the business is not carried on they will not be exposed to risk.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    11.21 p.m.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: We have had several Amendments to the Clause dealing with commercial buildings and factories, but we have had no Amendment dealing with the question of mines. In the first Sub-section certain powers are given to mine inspectors to serve notice on mineowners that they must provide air-raid shelter. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago as to the position of collieries situate on the north-east coast. Along the coast from South Shields to West Hartlepool there are about 15 collieries, and going three miles inland there are at least another 10. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether anything could be done to safeguard those who are employed in the mines on this exposed part of the coast.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The general question of the safety of miners does not come under this Clause; it deals only with certain orders. The whole problem of the safety of mines is not raised by the Clause.
    Mr. Stewart: When I addressed my question to the right hon. Gentleman he said that I could raise the point on this Clause, and he made it plain that he was responsible only for the safety of personnel. In the Clause the mine inspector has power to serve a notice to provide air-raid shelter for those who are employed in or about a mine. On this exposed coast line the mines themselves may prove to be permanent shelters for those who are engaged, but I wish to ask whether added safety can be provided in the event of air raids for those who are employed in the mines. I know that the Bill does not deal with the general safety
    438
    of mines but it deals with the safety of miners in the event of an air raid. It is set out that provision must be made for the safety of those engaged in the mines. I do not want to run counter to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but if a bomb were dropped, it might interfere with the ventilating plant of a mine, and so jeopardise the lives of those who were in the mine at the time of the air raid.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting well outside the Clause. It is entirely a question of providing air-raid shelter, and has nothing to do with the mechanism of the interior of the mine.
    Mr. Stewart: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what powers are given to the mines inspectors, in this Clause or in other Clauses of the Bill, to provide the necessary shelter that would be effective in the event of an air raid and that would prevent great loss of life if what I have mentioned were to take place, especially in the mines on this particular coast?
    11.26 p.m.
    Mr. C. S. Taylor: I want to raise a technical point in connection with Subsection (1). I would like to have some elucidation of the words
    "working or living in the factory premises."
    I visualise the case of certain retail businesses where the business may have a headquarters in a factory and may have a retail trade which is carried on through the deliveries of individuals, whose headquarters are in the factory concerned. If one of the roundsmen employed in delivering the goods from house to house were asked where he worked, he would say at So-and-so's premises or factory. I should like to have from my right hon. Friend some definition of the words I have quoted.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: On a point of Order. May I have a reply from the Lord Privy Seal?
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order. I have put the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and it has been agreed to.
    The Comptroller of the Household (Lieut.-Colonel C. Kerr): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    11.28 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I must congratulate the Minister on the expeditious way in which he got the last Clause, entirely against the interests of the coastal county of Durham. There was plenty of time for the right hon. Gentleman to get up if he wished to do so. Several times this evening I have heard hon. Members opposite telling him to get up in order to make a reply to the discussion. I think he ought to treat the Committee with a little more courtesy than he has done.
    On this Motion to report Progress, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman when we are likely to get on again with the Committee stage of the Bill. There has been no obstructive discussion this evening. A number of Clauses and a great many important Amendments have been disposed of, but it is vitally necessary to the local authorities of the country, and other people engaged in the administration of the Bill, that they should know when they are likely to see it as an Act of Parliament. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has told local authorities that they can get on with their job in anticipation that the Bill will become law. I dislike that method of administration. It is quite wrong to anticipate the decisions of Parliament. We have had an example this evening of the extraordinary way in which the problems of the local authorities may be affected by something that happens during some of the stages of this Bill. By accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), the right hon. Gentleman has very considerably added to the possibilities—I will not put it any higher than that—of work inside the offices of very heavily burdened local authorities, and it is quite impossible to think that they can satisfactorily deal with this subject until this Bill has become an Act.
    I am sure the Government Chief Whip will not allege that there has been any obstruction and I would ask him when we are likely to see the Bill again in Committee and on what date he expects to get it through this House. I am aware of the difficulties of the Chief Whip and I am not trying to make any party point. This Bill is at least as important as other Measures that are receiving urgent attention from the House, and I would ask, on behalf of those who will have to administer it, whether the right hon. and
    440
    gallant Gentleman can give some indication when we shall see it in its final form.
    11.31 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): The Government fully realise the great importance of getting this Measure on the Statute Book as soon as possible and they appreciate the difficulties of the local authorities, for as long as this Bill is passing through the House they do not know the final form it will take. I can give the Committee the assurance that the Government will proceed with it as soon as they possibly can. Every available moment that is not occupied by other vitally important Measures will be devoted to the further stages of this Bill. The Government had hoped that to-day there would have been a few more hours available for this Measure, and that the first Bill that was discussed would have been disposed of rather earlier than was the case. They are making no complaint about that, but they do recognise the great importance of making as rapid progress as possible with this Bill so that local authorities can know exactly where they stand. For the moment I do not think it would be right for me to say when this Bill will become law, because it depends on many circumstances, but I am hopeful that with the good will of all quarters of the House there will not be protracted discussions, and that we shall be able to get through the Bill in the briefest space of time.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MILITARY TRAINING [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  " That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for rendering persons between the ages of twenty and twenty-one years liable to undergo training in the armed forces of the Crown and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by any Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act or the making of any Order in Council thereunder."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  11.33 p.m.
  Mr. Johnston: I understand there is no desire in any part of the House further

  441
  to discuss a matter which occupied a considerable number of hours last night and this morning; but there is a desire held very strongly by many of my hon. Friends that we should register our opposition at very stage of a progress of this Measure, and we propose therefore, to
  divide the House without any further discussion.
  Question put, "that this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divied: Ayes, 136; Noes, 61.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES.

  [11.35 p.m.

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

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

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

  Furness, S. N.

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Radford, E. A.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Goldie, N. B.

  Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

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

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Rankin, Sir R.

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Apsley, Lord

  Grimston, R. V.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

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

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

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Balniel, Lord

  Harbord, A.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)

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

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.

  Rowlands, G.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Hopburn, P. G. T. Buchan-

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Bottom, A. C.

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

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Higgs, W. F.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Brass, Sir W.

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

  Scott, Lord William

  Briscoe, Capt. R. G.

  Hunter, T.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

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

  Hutchinson, G. C.

  Somerset, T.

  Bull, B. B.

  Jones, L. (Swansea W.)

  Spens, W. P.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

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

  Burghley, Lord

  Kimball, L.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lancaster, Captain C. G.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Thomas, J. P. L.

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

  Lindsay, K. M.

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Colville, Rt. Hon. John

  M'Connell, Sii J.

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Conant, Captain R. J. E.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Cox, H. B. Trevor

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Turton, R. H.

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  McKie, J. H.

  Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan

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

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

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

  Crowder, J. F. E.

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

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Markham, S. F.

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

  Dodd, J. S.

  Marsden, Commander A.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Dugdale, Captain T. L.

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

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

  Duggan, H. J.

  Medlicott, F.

  Wise, A. R.

  Dunglass, Lord

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

  Wragg, H.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  York, C.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Errington, E.

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

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Munro, P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Fildes, Sir H.

  Nall, Sir J.

  Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Fleming, E. L.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Paling, W.

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Parkinson, J. A.

  Barr, J.

  Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

  Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

  Ritson, J.

  Buchanan, G.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Daggar, G.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Silverman, S. S

  Dalton, H.

  Lathan, G.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lawson, J. J.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Day, H.

  Leonard, W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dobbie, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Stephen, C.

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Macdonald, G. (Ince)

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

  Ede, J. C.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McGovern, J.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Frankel, D.

  MacLaren, A.

  Tomlinson, G.

  Garro Jones, G. M

  MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)

  Westwood, J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Maxton, J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

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

  Oliver, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
  Order [19th April] that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole postponed. House read and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

  THAMES RIVER STEAMBOAT SERVICE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve O'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  YOUNG MINERS.
  YOUNG MINERS.
  EMPLOYERS AND MEN CONSCRIPTED.
  EMPLOYERS AND MEN CONSCRIPTED.
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
  VOCATIONAL TRAINING.
  CONSCRIPTED MEN (DEPENDANTS).
  CONSCRIPTED MEN (DEPENDANTS).
DEFENCE.
  GERMANY (WAR MATERIALS PURCHASES).
  GERMANY (WAR MATERIALS PURCHASES).
  FOOD STORAGE
  FOOD STORAGE
  DOMINIONS EXPENDITURE.
  DOMINIONS EXPENDITURE.
  RESERVED OCCUPATIONS SCHEDULE.
  RESERVED OCCUPATIONS SCHEDULE.
  NATIONAL AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
  CIVIL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  LEAD MINES (ROOKHOPE, DURHAM).
  LEAD MINES (ROOKHOPE, DURHAM).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (OUTRAGES).
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY (OUTRAGES).
  NEWFOUNDLAND AIRPORT.
  NEWFOUNDLAND AIRPORT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).
  TEAM VALLEY TRADING ESTATE (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY (FORESTRY COMMISSION).
  HOLIDAYS WITH PAY (FORESTRY COMMISSION).
  EMERGENCY EVACUATION SCHEMES.
  EMERGENCY EVACUATION SCHEMES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  DAZZLE CAMOUFLAGE.
  DAZZLE CAMOUFLAGE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  COMPANIES ACT (ITAS COMPANY).
  COMPANIES ACT (ITAS COMPANY).
  ENLISTMENTS (STATISTICS).
  ENLISTMENTS (STATISTICS).
  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
  LOCATION OF INDUSTRY.
  UNIT TRUSTS.
  UNIT TRUSTS.
  ANGLO-RUMANIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  ANGLO-RUMANIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN BUYERS).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN BUYERS).
  SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING TRADE).
  SPAIN (BRITISH SHIPPING TRADE).
  FOREIGN OFFICE STAFF (NATIONAL SERVICE).
  FOREIGN OFFICE STAFF (NATIONAL SERVICE).
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  GERMANY (EXPULSION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  GERMANY (EXPULSION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  SCHOOLS FOR DEAF (SCOTLAND).
  SCHOOLS FOR DEAF (SCOTLAND).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  BOY LABOUR (FRANCE, BELGIUM AND HOLLAND).
  BOY LABOUR (FRANCE, BELGIUM AND HOLLAND).
  RHEUMATISM CLINIC, HORDEN COLLIERY.
  RHEUMATISM CLINIC, HORDEN COLLIERY.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (MIDDLESEX).
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (MIDDLESEX).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ST. PETER'S CHAPEL STOCKPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ALL HALLOWS LOMBARD STREET BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WILLENHALL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD, MAUGHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the modification of the law relating to the administration of justice in the event of the outbreak or probability of war, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Wembley; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BACUP) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Bacup; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BETHESDA) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Urban District of Bethesda; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRADFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the City of Bradford; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATON (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to
968
confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the North Lindsey Water Board; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

OCAST PROTECTION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDER-LAND DOCK BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MUMBLES PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATON (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it seems hardly necessary to remind your Lordships that the subject of access to mountains has been before the public for a great number of years and that many attempts have been made to pass Bills with the object of allowing access to mountains by the public. Hitherto those efforts have not met with any success whatsoever, largely, I think, owing to a lack of sweet reasonableness on the part, not only of the promoters, but also of those who were affected by such a Bill. However, recently a Bill called the Access to Mountains Bill received a Second Reading in another place without a Division. On that occasion the Government spokesman, in giving the Government's blessing to the Bill, stated that while the Government approved the principle, they thought that the Bill was a bad Bill. In fact, so much did the Government spokesman think it was a bad Bill that he repeated that remark two or three times in the course of his speech. And it was a bad Bill. It did little more than affirm the desire of those who wished to ramble, and it ignored all the necessary difficulties and details which would be involved in the fulfilment of that desire.
In consequence of the Bill getting a Second Reading, those who were interested took steps to try to improve that bad Bill and make it into a good bill. As a result, I am now moving the Second Reading of another Access to Mountains Bill. It is nothing like the one that received a Second Reading in another place; indeed the only thing, I think, that the two Bills have in common is part of the Title, and only part, because in another place, after the Second Reading, the Title was both altered and added to. The only part of the Title that remains is the words "Access to Mountains," and I propose at a later stage radically to alter even those words. As a result of its receiving a Second Reading, those who were interested had many conferences, and the Bill now before your Lordships is the outcome of those conferences. In effect the Bill is a Bill that has been agreed by all those who would be most affected by its
970
operation. Those who took part in those conferences, besides the promoters, were the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Central Landowners' Association and the Land Union, and the sporting interests were also represented. I think it would not be out of place to pay a tribute to the work done in this connection by the Secretary of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, Sir Lawrence Chubb. I think that the agreement that we have reached must be attributed in a very large measure both to his great knowledge and to his tact.
There are two main considerations which need to be borne in mind when you study this Bill. The first is that it is a Bill which deals in fact with a situation which has arisen. For a very long time people have been in the habit of rambling, or walking, or hiking, whichever term your Lordships prefer to use. I prefer the word "rambling" as covering every activity of that nature; but it is only in recent years, with the improvements in modern transport, that it has reached very great proportions, and it is now, under the stimulus of the Government's physical fitness campaign, increasing to a very material degree. The situation is that there is a large and increasing number of people who desire to walk over land and get their exercise, their recreation, and their health by so doing. I think it is a situation which, quite candidly, needs regulating, not in the interest only of the landowners, but also of those who desire to indulge in this pleasure. Because in any form of society, whether you be a Right Wing Conservative or a Left Wing Socialist, there must be regulation in the interests of the majority.
The second main consideration which I want your Lordships to bear in mind—and I think perhaps, as it is a very detailed Bill, the more important consideration—is that this Bill does not deal only with the organised ramblers. The organised ramblers are a very efficient body, and in my own experience, and I think the experience of a very large number of landowners, are very good people to deal with. One does not have trouble from them. They have their code and their courtesy, and they respect the rights of the landowner and the occupier of the land. Indeed, I think if it was only they

971
who had to be dealt with, there would be no need for any Bill.
But this Bill cannot stop short at organised ramblers. It deals with the whole country and every person in the country, and there are a very large number of people in this country who are not in the rambling organisations, many of them people with motor cars. I think very often those people who go and wander over the countryside, having reached remote parts in their motor cars, are the worst offenders against good taste and the comfort of others. There are also such people as poachers, to whom the right to go on the land would be a godsend. There are tramps, too, and I have no doubt that your Lordships could mention many other classes of people of all sorts who would like to go on the land for purposes other than that of purely physical recreation. It is with those principally that the Bill must deal. It is a Bill, in fact, to deal, first of all, with the ill-behaved rambler; and I might also say it is a Bill to deal with the ill-disposed landowner. There is nothing, so far as I can find, in the Bill that the well-behaved rambler need fear, nor the well-disposed landowner either. So that it is in fact a Bill which deals with the ill-disposed rather than with the well-disposed.
In considering the details of this Bill there were two major difficulties which confronted those who were concerned with framing it right at the outset. The first was that connected with the financial side of it, the possibility that permission to ramble might involve landowners or occupiers in financial loss. This was a Private Member's Bill, and therefore there could not be any compensation clause in it. So that difficulty had to be overcome, and it was overcome in this way: it is laid upon the Minister—your Lordships will find this in Clause 3 (5) (c)—that he cannot make an order for access if there is likely to be "material depreciation of the capital or rental value of the land … or material loss or damage." That, I think, is the real safeguard to the landowner in the Bill.
The second major difficulty arose over the definition of the kind of land to which the Bill should apply. I think we all in our own minds know what a mountain is, or a moorland, or heath, and so on, but
972
it is extraordinarily difficult to find a definition which would be suitable to an Act of Parliament. In fact, it proved virtually impossible to define the kind of land to which a Bill of this nature should apply. That difficulty has been got over in this way. The kinds of land to which the Bill applies are rather loosely defined, but the excepted lands are very closely defined. In that way the difficulty has been got over very successfully. Even so, the difficulties of definition have not entirely been surmounted for, if your Lordships turn to Clause 2 (2) (b) at the top of page 3, you will find the words "sheep walks" used. The question was raised in another place as to what was a sheep walk and what was the definition of a sheep walk. Again, we here probably know what we mean by a sheep walk, but it is extraordinarily difficult to put a definition into language which is absolutely clear in an Act of Parliament. I have given a promise that I would try at a later stage to define "sheep walk" rather more closely, but I have not yet found a suitable definition. Upon these two major difficulties, and the way in which they have been got over, really rests the whole structure of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that as a result a Bill has been introduced which, while it does not give to the ramblers all that they ask, and does not perhaps entirely fulfil the hopes of the more extreme landowners, is a Bill which meets the situation which has arisen and is, in effect, a really good Bill.
If I might take your Lordships briefly through the Bill, clause by clause, there are one or two points of importance which will arise in detail, and on which I would like to say a word or two. So far as the first clause is concerned, that simply is a general provision giving access, subject to regulations, and I would only draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the access is confined to the period between one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. The regulations which will be imposed on such land will only have effect during that time, and the ordinary law of trespass will be effective in the hours of darkness. Clause 2 is really a definition of the kind of land to which the Bill applies and, as I pointed out, there is a rather exact description in subsection (2) of the land which is definitely excepted from the operation of the Bill. Clause 3 concerns regulations for the

973
making of orders by the Minister. As your Lordships will see at the beginning of the clause, it states that there are three classes of persons who can apply for an order—the owner, certain classes of local authorities, and organisations deemed by the Minister to be representative of persons likely to benefit. Most of this clause is machinery, but I would also draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (5) (c) of Clause 3 on page 6, which is a material one regarding loss to the landowner. I think it is perfectly clear, and I need not explain it any further.
Clause 4 is a machinery clause, dealing with maps which need to be attached to an order. Clause 5 gives the Minister power to vary an order so as to exclude people from an area if there is danger of fire. I think that is a most desirable provision to be included in the Bill. Clause 6 gives in detail what people are not allowed to do, and must be read in conjunction with Clause 7, which is a penalty clause. So far as Clause 6 is concerned, it is rather full. There is a great deal in it, and in my view it really should constitute in its way a code for those who wish to ramble. As I said before, there is nothing in the Bill, and there is nothing in this clause, which the ordinary rambler need fear, because all the things in this clause which are prohibited are things which a person who knows how to behave will avoid doing in any case. The clause is designed to deal with the person who is ill-behaved or ill-disposed.
So far as Clause 7 is concerned, which is the penalty clause, I would draw your Lordships' attention more particularly to the proviso in subsection (1) at the top of page 11. Might I say incidentally that in the first line of page 11, when the Bill was first issued to your Lordships, there was a very vital misprint which has, I understand, since been corrected? There was a "not" which was left out so that the Bill read:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section by reason only of any unintentional failure …"
and so on. This particular proviso raises a question which has had considerable prominence and which is of importance. It has been said that this Bill materially alters the law of trespass. That shows a certain lack of understanding of what the Bill does and is quite definitely an exaggeration of its provisions. Actually what
974
this proviso says is that should any particular piece of land to which an order applies be closed to access at any period of the year for any purpose, and should anybody intentionally trespass at the time when it is so closed, he shall have committed an offence.
To that extent it does alter the law of trespass, but I want your Lordships to realise that the land to which this alteration in the law of trespass, if I may so call it, applies, is land to which people will be given access. They are getting something in exchange for a penalty which did not exist before, because, as I understand the ordinary law of trespass, the landowner can request them to leave his land, and if they do not do so he can—I am subject to correction by those who understand the law better than myself—use just so much force as is necessary to remove them. Under this Bill, normally speaking, people will be entitled to go on all land that is made accessible, and the landowner will not be entitled even to request them to leave, but there may be times when, under an order from the Minister—and I want your Lordships to remember this—that land is closed to access by the public, and it is only if they intentionally go on that land when it is so closed that they will be subject to any penalty.
I think there is more than one argument which can be deduced in favour of such an alteration, if you like to call it so, in the law. First of all an order of the Minister which is laid before Parliament is in fact an order of Parliament, and it should be subject to certain pains and penalties if it is ignored. I think one can also say that in fact such an alteration is no alteration at all, because you have such places as commons and public parks where there are rules and regulations and by-laws, and land that is made accessible under this Bill will come some way towards being in the nature of common land. Although specifically in the Bill it does not so become it partakes of the nature of common land. I think in the interests of everybody concerned it should be regulated and the regulations made by the Minister should be enforcible by penalties which everyone can understand. So much for that question of trespass, about which, possibly, subsequent speakers may have something to say. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the actual amounts of the

975
penalties. For ordinary contravention the penalty is £2 but in the case of a contravention of any of the provisions specified in paragraph (b) of Clause 6 it is £5 for the first offence and £10 for the second offence.
Clause 8 deals with the saving of rights. I think that that particular clause may be the subject of certain drafting Amendments, but it is very necessary that the landowner's rights should be saved as against those who ramble on the land. Clause 9 is to protect statutory water undertakings and I believe is put in with the approval of the Ministry of Health. Clause 10 is a machinery clause, and so is Clause 11 dealing with regulations that the Minister may have to make. So far as Clause 12 is concerned your Lordships will notice that subsection (2) says that this Act shall not extend to Scotland. As I understand it, Scotland was excluded from the Bill at the request primarily of the Scottish rambling associations themselves, and also of local authorities who were rather apprehensive of the Bill in that they thought it might reduce rateable values. Personally I regret that Scotland should be outside the Bill, and I think it is just possible that Scottish people may, when they have read the Bill in the form in which it is now before your Lordships, reconsider that decision. There is yet time because we have a Committee stage in this House and a very short Amendment would soon put Scotland into the Bill.
I have just had a note handed to me. I made a mistake just now when I said that orders in this connection have to be laid before Parliament. Apparently they do not have to be laid before Parliament, but still, on that question of trespass, an order by the Minister is in effect really an order by Parliament and should not be ignored. There is one thing to which I would like to refer that is not in the Bill. In another place, in the Committee stage, there was put upon the Order Paper a new clause providing that landowners could, by deed deposited with the Minister, bring within the scope of this Bill land which is excepted under Clause 2 of the Bill. I want your Lordships to understand exactly what I mean. That means that if you have, for instance, a woodland to which you are prepared to allow people to have access under the conditions of the Bill, you could by the pro-
976
posed clause deposit a deed with the Minister and the land would be accessible. That was ruled out of order in another place by the authorities of the House as being outside the scope of the Preamble of the Bill, but personally I feel that such an addition to the Bill would be of immense value. It would enable the well-disposed landowner to bring within the scope of the Bill areas which otherwise would not come within its scope and it would therefore give that much greater access. There are areas to-day in this country to which people do go against the will of the landowner because he has no control over them, but if he could control them under the terms of this Bill he would give people free access and they would no longer be trespassing.
I believe such a provision would bring within the scope of the Bill very much larger areas than are at present covered by this Bill. I hope to be able on the Committee stage to move that that particular proposal should be put into the Bill, particularly as I understand first of all that your Lordships can do what you like, and secondly, that since it was ruled out of order in another place, they have altered the Title and the Preamble. I think to anybody with common sense it now would come within the scope of both the Title and the Preamble. I have now dealt with the Bill as a whole. Before I conclude I would only repeat the one thing which I think is of great importance, and that is that there is nothing in this Bill, so far as I can see, which the well-behaved rambler and the well-disposed landowner need fear, and that the Bill does in fact deal with those who do not know how to behave and it does not touch those who behave properly. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
4.49 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl and those who have been associated with him in producing what is described as an agreed measure on this subject of long-standing and sometimes acrimonious controversy. An honourable Member of the other House, Mr. Creech Jones, and the Secretary of the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society entered into these discussions with a mind ready to make generous concessions. They have cer-

977
tainly done so. I remember that several years ago I was Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider the desirability and ways and means of establishing national parks. We produced, although I say it, a very good Report and I think it is a great pity that it has been pigeon-holed all these years. I hope the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, will take note of that reminder, because I am quite sure a lot of bother would have been saved if that Report had been given effect to, and still would be. Therefore I would like to preface what I have to say on this Bill with an expression of the hope that it will not share the fate of the very important proposals contained in that Report, which I have no doubt will be given effect to some day by a more far-seeing Government.
I confess that when I was asked to take an interest in this Bill I thought by the Title that it was going to be, to me anyhow, a rather more satisfactory Bill than it seems to be. I would like to address to the noble Earl some questions concerning points which certainly must qualify the ardour of one's support. The description given by the noble Earl to the Bill is, I think, essentially correct. It is a great measure of what one may call disciplined access and it will certainly provide access under a form of discipline to which no sensible, right-minded person could object. The first point to which I would direct your Lordships' attention is that the Bill deals with land described as mountain, moor, heath or down. I would like to ask whether that will include some of the glorious cliff land which we have in different parts of the country? In Devon and Cornwall, for instance, there are cliff walks which it might be difficult to describe in any of those ways. The land might, perhaps, be described as moor—sheep graze there—but I am not sure. I have walked scores of miles on them without being stopped or molested by anybody, although I did come across decayed boards stating that trespassers would be prosecuted. It is impossible to imagine anyone doing any harm, except perhaps by breaking one's neck by falling down the cliff. I would like to know whether such walks are included in the Bill. If they are not, they certainly should be included.
Then, access is to be provided or made secure only through land subject to an order. What about access now avail-
978
able to lands that are not, and will not be, subject to an order? For example, in Clause 2 (2) there is a list of lands exempted from orders and as to which orders will not be made. It seems to me a very good list. Opposite the little house where I live there is a footpath across the fields to the church, though I do not say I use it very often for that purpose. These fields would be excluded. An order could not be made under this Bill applying it to these fields. Does it happen, therefore, that the right of access—because it is a public footpath—would be in any way prejudiced by the fact that these lands are not included in the Bill? I think not, but we ought to have an authoritative statement on that point and, if need be, a specific provision in the Bill itself. I do not think anyone would object to the classification of offences provided in Clause 6. If we can by any means do anything to prevent people smashing gingerbeer bottles and leaving them lying about in choice places, it will be a public service of no common character. The Committee to which I referred earlier made a good many recommendations in their Report on national parks, but when you get up against it you find it is very difficult to deal with vandalism and stupid behaviour of that kind.
When the noble Earl came to the penalties provided in Clause 7 my heart was rejoiced on hearing him say that the Bill had been reprinted. I had possessed myself, as they say in another place, "for the purpose of greater accuracy," of a copy of the Bill last week and I read at the top of page 11:
"A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section by reason only of an unintentional failure to observe"
the regulations. I must say that I began to think that the hostile criticisms I had seen in the newspapers were fully justified. It is comforting to find that those responsible regarded the omission of the word "not" after the word "shall" to be of such importance that the Bill ought to be reprinted. I had prepared quite a good speech on that particular point and now that the Bill has been reprinted the bottom is knocked out of any criticism. At the same time I think that what the noble Earl said should be fully understood. There has been a lot of misinterpretation as to what the clause actually does, and I hope that the

979
noble Earl's explanation will be widely read and thoroughly understood. So far as these lands are concerned, although for the first time access will be ordered in the way described, it will be made secure, which it has not been hitherto. If the Bill achieved nothing more than that it would mark a very great advance.
There is another point which I would ask the noble Earl to consider between now and the next stage. In Clause 8 there is a list of rights which have to be safeguarded. Nothing in any order shall affect persons doing the number of things set out on pages 12 and 13 of the Bill. What I want to know is, suppose that a person does any of these things, does that automatically take the land out of the scope of the order? If it does, it might very soon reduce the amount of land which has been made subject to the order. For example, some of the things under Clause 8 (1) (a), such as mining, quarrying and laying of pipes—which are all perfectly reasonable—and the erection of posts. It is quite a simple matter to erect a few posts. Does that mean that if a person erected a row of posts he might automatically take out of the operations of an order a considerable area of land which had deliberately been mapped and made the subject of an inquiry and an order? It does not say what the posts have to be erected for, or whether there must be w ire between them, or anything of that kind; all you have to do is to erect a few posts.
I well remember years ago, when I lived in Devonshire, that I used to walk over to a charming place called Manaton, beside Dartmoor. People had been accustomed, as far as I know, from time immemorial to walk about there and picnic and the like, and did not do any harm. On one occasion some ill-advised person—I will not say who—erected a row of posts across this piece of the moor. As far as one could ascertain, they did not do any good and they did not seem to mark any boundary of any sort or kind. He erected the posts, however, and put a row of wire on the top, the purpose being, I have no doubt, to prevent people walking about. What happened was that, by stealth or otherwise, the natives came and uprooted the posts. They were re-erected two or three times, and finally, being a wise man, the man who had put them there gave it up. Still, there was no
980
particular reason why he should have erected the posts in the first place. It is important to know whether you could take out of the order, by doing any of these very proper things, land which quite properly would not be land subject to an order, and the simplest of all is the one which I mentioned and into which I ask the noble Earl to look—the erection of posts. I think everybody will agree that it is very important that, if this Bill can be placed on the Statute Book and worked with good will by all the parties concerned, we should not leave any very considerable holes in it whereby it may be evaded afterwards. These are, in the main, Committee points that I have been raising, but there are three or four of them, and I think that they are of great importance to the Bill. I hope that between now and the Committee stage the noble Earl will consider them. Short of them, I and my noble friends will do what we can—in a critical mood—to support the Bill.
5.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to say a few words in support of the Bill which was moved so clearly and in such persuasive terms by the noble Earl opposite. As has been made clear, this is an entirely new measure under an old title. It is a new measure because the circumstances in which the original measure, the Mountains Bill, was moved have entirely changed. So far as my recollection goes back, the original movement was inspired partly by people interested in mountaineering, who had climbed in the Alps, the Carpathians and perhaps also in the Caucasus, and who could not see why they should not be able to climb anywhere they pleased, in Scotland or anywhere else. There was a further sentiment in favour of those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the mountains to which the Bill would be applicable and who sometimes found themselves debarred from taking exercise by the preservation of game. Since then, of course, as the noble Earl has stated, the whole position has been changed by the ease of locomotion and the cheapness of transport, so that, where half a dozen people may have gone fifty years ago, three or four hundred might now want to enjoy the same advantages.
I remember, for instance, that a great friend of mine of the older generation,

981
Mr. James Lowther, who represented the Tory faith in its most undiluted form, said when talk was going on about footpaths and open spaces that every man had a right to go to his work in the shortest possible way, even if it meant crossing through any park or coverts or any private properly. Probably, however, neither he nor most of his contemporaries, including those who were not such strict Tories as he, would have said that anybody has a right to go anywhere in search of exercise or amusement. Now, as I say, the position has entirely changed. The noble Earl spoke of the help which had been given by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be President, and I felt, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Harmsworth, who is its Chairman, would also feel, grateful for the tribute which the noble Earl paid to the work done by Sir Lawrence Chubb. But equally, I am sure, a tribute ought to be paid to the careful examination made of the proposals and the moderation of opinion shown by the representatives of the Central Landowners' Association—I can say that, although I belong to that Association myself—and of the Land Union, the principal bodies representing landowners.
The result is this agreed measure, which is undoubtedly something of a compromise, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, pointed out, there exist a certain number of landowners who are pure curmudgeons and who dislike seeing anybody on their land. I do not think there are very many of them. Equally there exist also a certain number of purely inconsiderate ramblers, people who think they have a right to go anywhere and do anything when they get there: pick flowers, take birds' eggs and commit every atrocity of that kind. Those are also very few in number, and as regards the last point it must be remembered that there is nothing in any Socialist opinion which would in any way justify the behaviour of those people. They are pure anarchists, and I should be prepared to point out to them that if the time were to come when private ownership of land ceases, and all land becomes public property, they would probably be in a much harder case than they are in at this moment. My impression is that the guardians appointed by public authorities to look after land in
982
public ownership would be a harder body of people to get on with than the ordinary gamekeeper or watcher, and therefore I should be very sorry if people who hope they will be able to go anywhere and everywhere remained under that kind of delusion.
I think it is also necessary to point out, when we speak of landowners' objections, that this is also very much, at least quite as much, a farmers' question in some cases, such as the cases we have seen a good deal discussed in another place and elsewhere, including the question of danger to sheep, particularly at certain times of the year. These are matters which have aroused great interest and some alarm in the minds of the farming community, and they do help to make necessary those particular safeguards of which Lord Addison spoke, and on which I will say a word in a moment, with regard to the change, which I agree has been spoken of in very exaggerated terms, of the existing law of trespass. I cannot say that I have ever regarded the existing law of trespass as anything specially sacred, or inspired by special wisdom. After all, it relates to a state of society altogether different from that which obtains at this moment. As we all know, the matter has been perpetually raised by owners of land by the erection of notices saying that trespassers will be prosecuted, when everybody knows that they cannot be.
The whole question of the rights and wrongs of trespass have remained in a very unintelligible state and I agree that so far as public rights are concerned there is really nothing for the public to dread from this particular provision. As has been clearly stated, certain areas under the supervision of the Government Department are to be set aside at certain times, for explained reasons which presumably are good reasons; and I cannot see that anybody has a right to complain of being regarded as committing an offence if he intentionally breaks a regulation imposed by the Government. I trust, therefore, that that provision in the Bill will be fairly accepted by those some of whom I think have quite generally misunderstood it. I am quite sure that in the long run we shall find that most of the people who ramble will continue to be reasonable people, anxious not to do damage, as an immensely large percentage of them is at present. Equally I am

983
sure that the landowning community as a whole will desire to accept this measure in a most friendly spirit.
I think that probably in the course of the debate somebody will remark with regret that Scotland is not included in the measure. I understand that it was practically impossible, owing to certain differences in the law, that Scotland should be included, but I should hope that the time will come when a Scottish measure on similar lines will be passed through Parliament. Otherwise at some points of the Scottish border a very strange situation, I can imagine, might arise for those who ramble over the quite indistinguishable border line. I hope also that the measure will pass through this House with as little amendment as possible. There is one important Amendment to which the noble Earl alluded, which I hope will form part of the Bill, but from the point of view of the return of the measure to another place I hope that no great amount of amendment by your Lordships will be thought necessary, and that the passage of the Bill through this House will be easy and prosperous.
5.19 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, not only on his presentation of the Bill but also upon having obtained beforehand an agreed measure. I do not believe that it was really quite so difficult to get agreement as many thought it would be, because I think there was misapprehension in many places. Pictures have been drawn, largely by people with very little knowledge of the matter, representing the landlords as selfish ogres, surrounding their land with wire, behind which were keepers with guns prepared to resist invasion, and on the other hand representing the ordinary hiker-rambler as an individual with a newspaper in one hand and a trowel in the other, ready to jump the fences, do as much damage as he could, and to leave the torn newspaper strewn on the ground behind him. The facts are really nothing of the sort. The very large majority of landowners are only too ready to give all reasonable access to their land, and the enormous majority of ramblers are only keen on getting God's own air, hearing birds sing, and seeing flowers and trees growing.
984
But there are of course exceptions, for whom this Bill is intended. There is the selfish landowner, who refuses access which he might quite reasonably give without any damage to himself. There are, on the other hand, certain persons who do damage. And it is by no means always the poorest classes of people who do this damage. Probably some of your Lordships have noticed that in practically every county by-passes and main roads are now being beautified with trees and shrubs and bulbs—and very much they needed it with their permanent concrete posts and wire. And, moreover, it is an unfortunate fact that occasionally—not very often—these bulbs are dug up, branches are cut off trees, and even shrubs are uprooted, and the chief offender is usually a man with a big motor car.
I imagine that outside your Lordships' House most criticism of this Bill will be with regard to Clause 6 and the list of offences. When I first saw them I was a little bit horrified, because I noticed that if a good many of the letters by which they are numbered had not been double-banked there would not have been enough letters in the alphabet to go round. But afterwards certain considerations occurred to my mind. The first was that, enormous though the list of offences may be, it is nothing like the number that an ordinary self-respecting decent-minded farmer could invent between sunrise and sundown. The second is that, after all, these scheduled places will be something in the nature of public parks, and as public parks, naturally, regulations of some sort must be insisted on. Thirdly, I venture to think that in remarkably few cases will use be made of the penalties for this tremendous list of offences.
I believe that propaganda will be the surest way of effecting this purpose. There is now in practically every village school a good deal of propaganda going on against defacing the countryside, and I rather wish it were extended more widely than I think it is in the towns. I would venture to make one plea, that this propaganda should include a statement of what I believe to be the simple fact, that the Almighty, when He created bluebells, did not create them for the purpose of picking. He did create certain flowers for that purpose, like daffodils, and cowslips, but not bluebells. I believe your Lordships will agree that there is

985
not a more beautiful sight than a slope of bluebells under a growing oak wood in which the young leaves are just coming out. I believe you will also agree with me that there is not a much sadder sight than bunch after bunch of bluebells, picked half an hour before, lying withered and wounded on the road just outside that wood.
That I think will at first be the most common criticism of this measure; but there is one which comes afterwards which will gradually grow in intensity. People will see a schedule of moor, heath or down—Lord Addison mentioned something of this sort just now—and they will say: "Oh, hang it all, I have been accustomed to go there for years. No one ever stopped me. I have always had that. Thank you for nothing." I venture to suggest that the reason why so little is given is that there is in fact so little left to give. I know that the Party of noble Lords opposite have an almost pathetic belief that the nationalisation of the land will cure every ill that agriculture and even the human race is suffering under.
LORD ADDISON: Oh, no.
LORD CRANWORTH: Not the human race; well, the agricultural population. Even the noble Lord is a little bit affected by that delusion. I think they fail in one matter—observation; for, I venture to suggest, they fail to observe that during the last thirty years nationalisation of the land up to, in fact, 90 per cent., has taken place. And I venture to think I can prove that. There exists to-day an enormous area of land, which is in fact totally nationalised. It includes roughly one thousand square miles which have been nationalised and are run under the county councils for allotments and small holdings. That land has been purchased, which I believe is the method to be adopted. It belongs to the nation, and it is run by an open soviet in the form of a sub-committee of the county council.
Now, what is the difference between that land and the land that remains under the landowner? Are wages up? Certainly not, they are regulated by the Wages Board. They remain exactly the same. Are rents lower? Not a bit; rents are slightly higher usually. Is there more access to that land? No, it is exactly the same. Are the buildings better? They
986
are better than some, but they are no better than the average estate buildings, in spite of the fact that that is the only land in England that does not pay a contribution to the upkeep of the nation in the way of Death Duties. I venture to think therefore that the reason why there is not much given under this Bill is that there is in fact not a very great deal left that can be given. But I welcome this Bill very heartily if for only one reason—namely, that I think when the people of this country appreciate that they are getting as a right what they were getting as a favour, even if it was almost universal, they will appreciate their right, and they will take much care to see that the beauties of the countryside which they enjoy can also be enjoyed by many others besides themselves. I hope this Bill will get a Second Reading.
5.27 p.m.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships for a very few moments only, because much that I might perhaps have said in other circumstances has been said so admirably by previous speakers. Lord Radnor, in a speech of singular lucidity in introducing the Bill, has explained clearly all the difficulties of the past, and the measures taken under this Bill to remove them. From the point of view of the society to which I belong, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, my noble friend Lord Crewe has already put the position of that society before you. May I say that I welcome the assurance of my noble friend Lord Addison that this Bill will receive the support of the Party he represents? The Bill has been before the country, as we have been informed, for rather more than fifty years, and in all my connection with the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society the subject has been one of anxiety to us because, whereas on the one hand ardent spirits in the Peak District and the North of England generally—pedestrians, ramblers and hikers—were all for a very strong Bill indeed, we on the other hand felt, if I may express the opinions of the society, that the sort of Bill that was from time to time presented to Parliament was an impossible Bill, as in fact the history of those Bills has proved. They asked for far too much. They had no consideration for the perfectly legitimate interests belonging to land.

987
So for years this matter was brought up again and again in Parliament and insistently to the attention of the Commons and Footpaths Society, and I am afraid we were beginning to earn some sort of reputation for not really caring so much about the interests of open spaces as we pretended. That, as I say, was not the difficulty. It was because a reasonable Bill, possible to be passed through Parliament, was never in all these years presented to us. Then at length we took the matter, if I may say so, to some extent into our own hands and, as your Lordships will be aware, the conferences and discussions that have taken place in regard to the present measure have taken place very largely on the premises of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society. We have done our best as a society to contribute our knowledge and experience to the elucidation of a very difficult problem.
Here I should like to join in the chorus of well-merited praise that has arisen in this House this afternoon in regard to the incomparable secretary of that society, Sir Lawrence Chubb. We have had all the time the advantage of his quite unrivalled knowledge and of his good judgment, and latterly we have had the advantage also of the presence of Mr. Creech Jones, who has piloted the Bill through the other place with such distinguished ability. Then, again, we have had with us the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the representatives of the Central Landowners' Association and the Land Union. If I may say it of Lord Radnor in his presence, I should like to say that throughout these conferences I was as much impressed by the tenacity with which he and his colleagues stuck to material points as by the sympathy and liberal-mindedness with which they treated the problem as a whole. And so after many years, during which I for one did not believe that a satisfactory Access to Mountains Bill could be produced, we have this Bill—not perhaps entirely satisfactory—in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Like noble Lords who have spoken before me, I trust and have the confident expectation that your Lordships will pass it, and that before very long this Access to Mountains Bill will be on the Statute Book.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like in the fewest possible words
988
to express my deep satisfaction that this epoch-making Bill—for epoch-making I regard it—should have come before your Lordships' House with the fair prospect of its being not merely acclaimed as a very valuable contribution to the law relating to the user of land, but also of its eventually reaching the Statute Book without any very material amendment. As the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches has pointed out, the law of trespass in this country is most chaotic, and I for my part welcome this Bill as doing a great deal for the first time to clarify and regularise it. It is very heartening to me, at any rate, as desiring very much more extensive rights on the part of health-seeking pedestrians and, on the other hand, as representing to some extent the land-owning community, to find those who have so ably and for many years championed the interests of the public who desire to have freer access to the land of this country joining hands so warmly and sympathetically with those who represent in this House the landowning community.
But I am not altogether satisfied with the Title of this Bill. When one scans Clause 2, one finds that it does not define the particular type of land to which the Bill applies. Under that clause it is quite possible for the Minister, as far as I can understand, to make any land in this country, but not in Scotland, answer to the description of mountain, moor, heath, or down. If that is so, subject of course to the exceptions stated in subsection (2) of Clause 2, it would be more intelligible to the general public if this Bill, instead of being called the Access to Mountains Bill, were designated the Public Access to Private Land Bill because that is what, in effect, it is. First of all, you exclude Scotland. To exclude Scotland in an Access to Mountains Bill is something like the play of Hamlet without Hamlet. As far as I can see, although there is no land which could possibly be described in my own immediate neighbourhood, or within fifty miles radius, as mountain, moor, heath, or down, there is plenty of land which in the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture might properly come within the four corners of this Bill, as I hope it will.
When I turn to Clause 2, subsection (2) (h), I find that land comprised in an ancient monument is excluded from the

989
scope of the Bill. I for my part, living in an area peculiarly rich in archæological treasures, many of which have already come under the control or partial control of the Office of Works as constituting an ancient monument, I should very much deprecate such land being deprived of the advantages of this Bill so far as the general public are concerned. All the more so in view of such a clause as the noble Earl has adumbrated as desirable—namely, a clause empowering the landowner, all the more if he has an ancient monument on his land, if he chooses by deed of gift, to bring such land within the scope of the Bill. Surely it is very desirable, in the interests of the public, that such a provision should be made. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I warmly welcome this Bill. When I see those who champion the rights of health-seeking pedestrians and those who represent the landowning community clasping hands in your Lordships' House with a view to a happy arrangement between both these classes of the community, the sight brings joy to my heart.
5.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as a well-disposed landlord I should like to pay my tribute to Lord Radnor and those who have worked with him in producing a very practical, agreed Bill out of what used to be—perhaps because the promoters did not deal with it in a practical way—a very contentious subject where there was very little cause for contention. My own experience, like that of other noble Lords who have spoken, is that the average walker, rambler, hiker—whatever you call him—is a most excellent guest to have on your place. He very seldom does any damage at all. He puts a good deal of energy into his exercise, and he comes because he loves the country just as much as those of us who live as much of our time as we can in the country. The man who really does the damage is a much fatter and more prosperous kind of person, who comes in a closed motor car, who takes what he is pleased to call, and what we used to call, carriage exercise, and then, having sat with the windows tight shut smoking a very fat cigar, he emerges with an equally fat partner and probably sets alight to your moor, having first picked anything which is within range. That is the person whom good landlords and bad Socialists
990
can both join equally in reprobating, and possibly in controlling.
I think the Bill is thoroughly sound. I believe myself that there is only one danger. A great deal of nonsense has been talked in the past about the danger of disturbance to game and things of that kind. I know one moor—some of my noble friends in this House may recognise it—not far from a large Yorkshire town, where grouse have bred in the largest possible numbers wholly undeterred by an almost equal number of amorous couples who used to go wandering about upon the moor. It is one of the few moors which has preserved a consistent bag year after year. I do not think one need bother much about disturbance. But the real danger, whether it be to moorland or to forest, is the danger from fire, and if that comes it comes suddenly. It comes, of course quite unintentionally, but it spreads and it destroys certainly for ten or fifteen years, and, if it is a woodland, for more than a generation, not only the value of the property but the value from the farming point of view of large sheep runs. It destroys the value of the woodlands, and it destroys the whole amenity of the people for whose very benefit this Bill is being passed. Therefore I am glad to see that a practical clause—at least I think it is a practical clause—Clause 5, has been inserted to guard against what I believe to be the only real danger, and that is the danger of fire, which we should all equally be anxious to guard against.
As I understand it, the provision is that the Minister may make an order to prevent or to control access during dangerous times, when there may be risk of fire. I think, if I may say so, it is quite right that power should be in the Minister, exercised no doubt through his local officers. I do not think it can very well be delegated to local committees, or bodies of that kind, but I think my noble friend the Under-Secretary and the promoters of the Bill would agree that what you want to do is to be quite sure you get an order quickly where there is a real need for it. It is no good shutting the stable door after the horse has escaped. You may get a comparatively short period of very hot dry weather when the risk of fire is very great. Now in such a case the order that people are to keep to the footpath, or whatever it may be, ought to come into operation very

991
quickly. Equally, you may get, after a week a sudden thunderstorm and a great downpour of rain, so that the order becomes entirely unnecessary. Now where there is need the order ought to operate quickly, and it ought to be taken off the moment it ceases to be necessary. I am sure it will not be beyond the wit of my noble friend, who will have to administer the Bill through his proper officers, to get an order on quickly in the interests of everybody. In the interest just as much of the people who are going to take the benefits under this Bill as or the owners or occupiers of the land or anybody else, an order should be got on quickly in the necessary case and be taken off immediately it ceases to be necessary.
I did not rise to make any criticisms at all of the Bill. I think it is very well constructed, and that it shows great patience and practical willingness on the part of all the people concerned. The landowners and preservation societies and the people who are going to have a right of access under this Bill have not really different points of view. They really have the same point of view, a desire that the beautiful things of England may be used and enjoyed by as many people as possible and to the best advantage. I think I differ from my noble friend the noble Viscount who spoke before me, about the Title of the Bill. No doubt, as regards the long Title, your Lordships could frame it in whatever is the most appropriate way, but we are an illogical people, and for years and years we have talked about access to mountains when, illogical people that we are, a mountain was about the last thing we were thinking about. Comparatively few have the energy or the opportunity to ascend the so-called mountains of this country, and as Scotland, for some reason or other that I do not quite understand, is being excluded from this Bill, the Title, Access to Mountains Bill, is still less logical as a title. What we really mean is access to heath lands, downs, moors and open spaces. On the other hand, as we have talked about access to mountains, and as this was the phrase under which this question has been discussed for so long, I think probably if you did not continue to call the Bill the Access to Mountains Bill the people who are to be satisfied by it would not believe they had got what
992
they wanted, that for which they have been striving for so long. I think your Lordships would be wise to continue to call it the Access to Mountains Bill.
5.47 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in regard to the regret which has been expressed that this Bill does not extend to Scotland, I suggest the reason is that if it did the language would have to be considerably redrafted and the Bill would become practically a new Bill. One point was mentioned by the noble Viscount just now about which I think perhaps sufficient precautions are not taken. I should like to ask the noble Earl if he is satisfied with the sufficiency of the penalty for fire in Clause 7. I think the danger from fire is very much underrated. I knew of three fires only last winter on a piece of ground to which the public has free access.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I was not in the least asking that the penalty should be increased. I have no great belief in the amounts of penalties. My point was that the order should be made quickly and taken off quickly when the need for it ceased.
LORD SALTOUN: The point I wish to make is that each of those fires brought danger to a considerable community. I think that the danger from fires is very apt to be under-estimated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not like you to pass the Second Reading of this Bill without having a clear opinion from myself upon its merits. I think it is in all respects an admirable Bill, and I would add, with some large experience in these matters, that in my opinion it is remarkably well drafted. It is not necessary for me to say anything more. I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading and will go on the Statute Book with practically no Amendments.
5.50 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, you will have noticed in the statement issued by the promoters of the Bill that reference is made to negotiations undertaken with the encouragement of the Government

993
between organisations representing the landed interests and those concerned with the preservation and extension of public rights and privileges. Therefore it is scarcely necessary for me on this occasion to express on behalf of the Government full support of the measure which my noble friend the Earl of Radnor has so clearly explained in moving the Second Reading. I am sure that it must be a matter of great joy, not only to the ever-increasing number of persons who choose to call themselves "hikers," but also to the vast body of landowners who welcome the greater facilities now offered to the public for sharing with them the joys of fresh air and country life, that there has been expressed on all sides this afternoon a unanimity of opinion that the provisions in the Bill are so framed that neither owners of property nor those persons who will benefit by access to the type of land defined in the Bill will have cause for complaint in the years to come.
It was particularly gratifying to note that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, speaking on behalf of the Party he represents, had no substantial complaint to make in respect of the provisions of the Bill. The minor criticisms made by the noble Lord were really Committee points, to which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will no doubt reply. I think, however, I may deal with one point mentioned by the noble Lord. The position in respect of land which is exempted under Clause 2 will not be prejudiced in any way whatsoever. The land to which he referred, and the footpath to the church, which he frequents, will remain under exactly the same conditions as in present circumstances and only the law of trespass will apply to that land. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, suggested that instead of Access to Mountains Bill a better title would be Public Access to Private Land Bill. The noble Viscount feared that the Minister would be empowered to make an order in respect of any land that was selected if he chose, but the noble Viscount will see if he looks at Clause 2 (2) (b) that excepted land includes agricultural land other than sheep walks or cliff. Therefore this Bill at present is limited to moorland, heath or down.
That brings me to a point raised by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor who, at the close of his speech, made a suggestion that the provisions of the Bill should
994
include land, other than moorland, heath or down, which he personally thought owners might like to throw open to the public if the safeguards in Clause 6 could be applied to it. In support of that he quoted an instance of a woodland, where bluebells grow in profusion, to which the owner would wish the public to have access, provided there were certain safeguards. Under the present Title of the Bill, Access to Mountains Bill, there would be a difficulty, I think, in including that type of land but I gather that my noble friend is going to tell your Lordships that at a later stage he will suggest altering the Title to Rural Access Bill, in order that such a provision might be included. As to that I would like to say that in the view of the Government it will be necessary to go cautiously if this is to continue to be an agreed measure. If it is to experience in future stages the degree of unanimity that has been shown this afternoon, it will be necessary not to introduce Amendments which may bring conflict where conflict has not been shown up to date.
My noble friend Viscount Swinton raised the important question of fire to moorland. I have personally had great experience of moorland fire. Only a few years ago I had approximately 2,000 acres burned by a fire started by a pedestrian crossing the moor. Owing to a change of wind the fire was not put out for five days, and it is doubtful whether it would have been put out then had I not been able to obtain the valuable assistance of the military authorities at Catterick Camp. I would like to assure the noble Viscount, however, that the procedure which is suggested to carry into effect Clause 5 of the Bill is very similar to that followed under a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order. The noble Viscount will know that there has been no serious or general complaint that that procedure has caused delay. The applicant, who in most cases will be a landowner, will immediately send a request for closure owing to drought, to the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, who will notify the Minister. It will then be necessary for notices to be posted at certain points, stating that for a certain period the land will be closed. I hope that that procedure will satisfy my noble friend and others who share his anxiety.

995
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, questioned whether the penalty for causing a fire was sufficient. He will see, however, that included in the penalty clause there is a provision for compensation for damage. I know from personal experience that damage can be a very expensive item, and I think that the provision in the Bill is very rigorous if full compensation for damage is provided for. I conclude by expressing on behalf of the Government our very great pleasure that this Bill has received unanimous support on all sides of the House, and I trust that it will be possible for the promoters to agree to meet noble Lords at a later stage of the Bill so that it can go on to the Statute Book as acceptable to all parties concerned.
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, there has been such a chorus of approval of this Bill that there is really very little for me to reply to. I must say, however, that I am extremely grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken so moderately and with such informed interest on the Bill. I hope that one result of our debate will be to allay the fears of those people, both landowners and ramblers, who are apprehensive of the consequences of this Bill. There is, as some of us realise, a great deal of misapprehension, and I hope that our debate this afternoon will have done something to remove those difficulties.
I think an answer is required to one or two questions. First of all the noble Lord, Lord Addison, wanted to know whether cliff land was included under Clause 2 (2) (b). He will see that that subsection dealing with excepted land mentions agricultural land "other than sheep walks or cliff"; and so presumably and in fact cliff is included within the operation of the Act, because it is not excepted land. My noble friend the Earl of Feversham dealt with footpaths. As regards the question by Lord Addison concerning Clause 8, that clause deals only with the saving of rights of landowners. That is to say, taking the instance which the noble Lord used himself, it merely makes clear that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a landowner from putting up posts and other things, or, in fact, to prevent a landowner from making a proper use of his land. A rambler, in fact, has no right to interfere with the
996
landowner in his proper function; but the mere putting-up of posts or doing other operations does not take that land out of the order. The only thing which will take it out of an order is that the user is altered so as to bring it within the category of excepted land if it were not so before. I do not think there were any other points in what the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said.
I should like to refer for a moment to what Lord Cranborne said, and to his horror at the number of offences. I would tell him that at one stage that list was very much longer. Indeed, I could tell your Lordships that at one stage it was so long that we came to the conclusion that even Mr. Chamberlain with his umbrella would not have been allowed to ramble, because the umbrella would have been an erection within the meaning of the Bill! So that list has been shortened appreciably. The noble Lord also said that there was not much good in this Bill because a great deal had already been taken. I think a great deal is in fact given, because what has been taken has been taken outside the law, and under this Bill those people who have rambled where hitherto they should not have rambled will do so in future in the knowledge that they are not breaking the law of trespass.
On the point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about ancient monuments, I am not quite clear, and I will look into it, but I rather think that ancient monuments are already dealt with by enactments of their own. I was rather hoping that my noble friend Lord Fever-sham would be able to deal with that point, but he did not. In any event I will look into it and make the position quite clear. So far as fire is concerned I need say very little, except that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that the penalties on that point are of far less importance than are such regulations as will prevent fire. I think my noble friend Lord Feversham made it clear that the regulations will be such as to enable the risk of fire to be minimised as far as possible. The noble Earl also said something on the suggestion I made that another clause should be incorporated into this Bill allowing access to land by deed made by the landowner. He said that the Title as it stands now would not allow of that. The Title, however, was altered in another place and now reads:

997
"An Act to secure to the public access to mountains, moorlands and certain other land."
That seems to me fairly wide. But in any case, as I have already indicated, it is suggested that the Title, Access to Mountains, is rather a misnomer and should be altered. May I conclude by once more thanking your Lordships for the welcome you have given to the Bill, and by expressing the hope that your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
6.6 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I should be more than human if I did not take the opportunity that this Motion gives me and yield to the temptation of saying to the Secretary of State "I told you so!" In the India Committee, where he and I spent laborious days, and later in this House when the Bill was in Committee, I urged most strongly that in time of emergency the Central Government of India should have the right to supersede the Provincial authorities and to exercise their powers. I did not prevail with the Committee; I did not succeed in converting the noble Marquess. But now I find in Clause 4 that all I then asked for is now to be provided, and indeed rather more, because he now deals with maritime questions and I only made my suggestion with relation to the security of the frontier. I can only trust that if I presume in the future to offer advice to the noble Marquess again, it will not be four years before he takes it.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but it must not be assumed that I agree with him that Clause 4 of the Bill which is now before your Lordships is the same as the Amendment
998
which the noble Lord proposed to move to the original Bill four years ago.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: It is better.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, no. There is one material respect in which the clause differs from the proposals which were then made by the noble Lord. What the noble Lord proposed to do four years ago was to extend the area of administration over which the Governor-General at the centre and the Governors in the Provinces would act in their discretion; that is to say, without reference to their Ministers. Clause 4 of this Bill does not propose that. Clause 4 proposes that the Governor-General should act in collaboration with the Central Legislature and with his advisers. That, of course, is a very different thing. It is quite true that there are provisions in the Act under which, in the event of the Central Legislature not co-operating with the Governor-General, he would be in a position to go over their heads. The whole intention of Clause 4 is, however, that, in the first instance at any rate, he should act in co-operation with his Legislature and his Government, and not over their heads. I hope the noble Lord realises the difference.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I admit there is a difference, but it is a difference really of very little substance. I indicated a want and the noble Marquess has filled the gap, and I tender him my hearty thanks for doing so.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PEERS AND THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS.
6.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to members of the House of Lords. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with regard to the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to members of the House of Lords I suggested, and I gather with the approval of most of your Lordships, that there should be a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. I think the privileges of noble Lords, both historical and otherwise, are not the same in a number of respects as the privileges which are claimed by members of another place, and

999
accordingly it seemed to me, and others I think, that it is desirable that the matter should be gone into by a Committee, which will no doubt consist of members of this House of great experience and full of capabilities for considering the matter. In these circumstances I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the applicability of the Official Secrets Acts to members of the House of Lords—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

AMENDMENT OF THE ABERDEEN AND DISTRICT MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
6.13 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on May 3, be approved. I should perhaps explain that under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, it is provided that agricultural marketing schemes may include power to buy and to sell or let for hire anything required for the production, adaptation for sale, or sale of products regulated under the schemes. Such power has in fact been incorporated in each of the milk marketing schemes in operation in Great Britain, with the exception of the Aberdeen and District Scheme, and the purpose of the present Amendment is to include similar provisions in this Scheme. The Amendment should conduce to the more efficient operation of the Scheme, and I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TENURE OF ALLOTMENTS.
6.15 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of maintaining home food production, he will take steps to prevent the eviction of allotment holders from established and
1000
well-cultivated allotments as is now being proposed in Cardiff and West Ham?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to ask the Question which is on the Paper in my name, and I do so because quite lately a number of cases have been brought to my notice in which allotment holders, who have occupied allotments for quite a long time, and cultivated them quietly and diligently, have been quite unexpectedly evicted. I do not want to detain the House at this time by going into cases generally, but it is exceedingly important—I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me—at this time, when it is most necessary to maintain home food production at as high a level as possible, that these men who have cultivated their bits of ground and produced a lot from them should not be subject to quite unexpected, and in some cases almost wholesale, eviction unless some very urgent public reason can be shown for such action. I put the Question on the Paper only in order to elicit an answer from the noble Earl, which I am sure will be to the effect that the Ministry will exercise very great care, and make very diligent and careful inquiries, before they assent to any of these evictions where their assent is required.
6.17 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, before an answer is given to the Question I would like to detain your Lordships in the House for a few minutes, because I would like to emphasize the weight of the Question which the noble Lord has put. We have been talking, to-day, about the poor man's access to mountains and other beautiful countryside which should be open to him, and here we have a case where a poor man's access to the tiny little scrap of land which constitutes his allotment is taken away from him at short notice, contrary to all his expectation, and with a far greater and more far-reaching effect than if he were denied access to all the mountains and downs in England. These allotments are really the poor man's park, of which he is deprived. Not only in Cardiff and in West Ham have these cases occurred, but a similar case occurred in Nottingham the other day, where several hundreds of allotment holders were given notice.
I would also add that it is a singularly poor sort of reception of the Circular recently sent out by the Minister

1001
—a very strong and admirable Circular, and one for which we have been most grateful—urging on local authorities to retain allotments even at the cost of preventing the housing development which they might wish to make on that particular piece of land, and urging them, further, to buy land for the purpose of allotments, and so on. The answers that Cardiff and West Ham are giving seem to be a flat refusal to play the game which the Minister desires. I am afraid that it is not within the power of the Minister to take steps to prevent the municipalities concerned from disposing of their land in this way, but I think the noble Lord opposite has done a real service in bringing the attention of the House of Lords and of the public to what I cannot help thinking is a very short-sighted piece of administration.
6.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I would like to say at the outset, in replying on behalf of the Government, that I cannot but agree with certain of the comments made by Lord Addison, and indeed by Lord Phillimore. The Government at this time particularly feel and appreciate the substantial contribution to food production that the produce from allotments can give in an emergency. Naturally we should hope for an extension of this particular food supply if the need should arise. Further, the Government naturally realise the full value of the alloment in time of peace. Not only is it a means of utilising for food production a large amount of labour brought by individuals in their spare time, but it is also a source of fresh food for the allotment holder and his wife and children. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has referred to the Circular issued on March 30 last, it will be seen that the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to take all practicable measures to ensure the maintenance and, if possible, an extension of the area of land cultivated as allotments. Insecurity regarding the tenure of the land cultivated is a factor that, no doubt, does hamper development and the difficulty that arises in cases where tenants are dispossessed is exemplified in the instances that the noble Lord has cited.
The allotments at West Ham comprise an area of about five acres, which was purchased by the Council some years ago for the purpose of a gravel pit. The
1002
land was let for temporary use as allotment gardens, but owing to the pressing need of the borough for housing sites, the Council have decided to utilise the land for rehousing in connection with their slum clearance programme. The authority consider that they have no alternative if their rehousing programme is to be proceeded with. In such a case where there is a conflict between the housing and allotment interests, I think the noble Lord will recognise that the housing interests must prevail. But, apart from that consideration, it is a fact that the land in question was not acquired by the council for allotments and, therefore, the Minister's consent to its appropriation for other purposes is not required. The noble Lord will know that under Section 22 of the Land Settlement Act, 1919, in a case where no power of appropriation is otherwise provided, the consent of the Minister, and the consent also of the Minister of Health, is required to the appropriation, for other purposes of a council, of land acquired by the council for allotments. In this case the land was not acquired for the purpose of allotments, it was required for the purpose of a gravel pit, and therefore the provisions of that section cannot be brought into operation. It means that the Minister has no power to prevent the Council from using the land for other than allotment purposes. Unfortunately the Council have not been able to purchase either this land or any other land in the borough of West Ham for permanent allotment purposes since the price of land has been too high to justify their buying it with that object in view.
In the case of Cardiff the Minister has information of four sites from which it is proposed to evict the allotment holders, I am given to understand to the number of some 500. I have ascertained that three of these sites are leased by the Corporation for allotment purposes subject to the right of the landlord to resume possession of the land for building or industrial purposes. These sites are now required by the owners, and the only way in which the land could be retained as allotments is for the Corporation to use their powers of compulsory acquisition. The noble Lord will appreciate that the Minister of course has no power to compel the Corporation to resort to the use of these powers. The fourth site was purchased by the Corporation some

1003
years ago for general purposes and was let temporarily for allotments. I gather that the land is now required for an important purpose in connection with their electricity works at Cardiff. In this instance the Minister will be prepared to use his influence to endeavour to persuade the authority to provide alternative land for the allotment holders.
The two cases cited by the noble Lord illustrate very well the difficulties which arise when the land has not been specifically purchased for allotments. If the land is used temporarily for allotments the authorities often wish to devote it to other purposes later on which they consider more important. If it is owned privately it is frequently required by the owners for building or for some other purpose, such as electricity works in the case of West Ham. It is because the Minister is fully aware of the harmful effect of the dispossession of allotment holders in this way that he has pressed the authorities repeatedly to make a practice of purchasing land definitely for allotments. And I am glad to say that there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of the total allotment area which has been purchased as allotment land. I looked up the figures and I see that at December 31, 1937, 42 per cent. of the area provided by urban authorities for allotments had been purchased for that purpose, as against the figure for 1934, when only 37 per cent. of the total allotment area had been purchased. So there is a gradual improvement.
My noble friend Lord Phillimore has, I am glad to say, referred to the important Circular that was issued to local authorities, and I think he will agree with me
1004
that it is not always the case that a circular so plainly spoken is sent out by Government Departments. There can be no excuse whatsoever that the purpose and intention which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, this afternoon, are not contained in the policy of the Government. I would like to bring to the attention of the House one portion of the Circular, which I think has a very important bearing on the whole question. It says:
"The Minister desires to point out that there seems to be a disposition on the part of some local authorities, when requiring land for such purposes as housing, schools, recreation grounds, etc., to consider first the acquisition or appropriation of land which has been used as allotments for many years even if it is in a good state of cultivation and fully occupied. The Minister would suggest that, in considering the provision of land for other purposes of the Council, the local authority should regard such allotment land as the last site to be considered rather than the first and that the provision of land for other purposes, however important, should not be made at the expense of the allotment movement, except as a last resort."
I hope that local authorities will see fit to pay the respect that is due to the contents of that Circular, so recently issued as March 30 last.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, there are no Notices on the Order Paper for to-morrow, and therefore, except for judicial business, the House will not meet until Thursday afternoon.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Bill
ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
WEST SURREY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 23rd of February and the 4th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
1006
The orders made on the 23rd of February and the 4th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
BOGNOR GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GAS, ELECTRICITY AND WATER UNDERTAKINGS.
The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order.