Sitting of 15 November 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Chester (Macclesfield Division), in the room of John Rumney Remer, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Captain Margesson.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ASSEMBLY.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state the date and place of the meetings of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations, and the composition of the British delegation?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Secretary-General of the League of Nations has now transmitted a new proposal to the members of the League of Nations to the effect that in present circumstances the Fourth Committee of the Assembly, rather than the Assembly itself, should meet to discuss the budget. This proposal is now being considered by the members of the League.
    Mr. Mander: What is the point of trying to avoid a meeting of the Council of the League in view of the fact that it is necessary that they should meet in order to elect a new judge to the Permanent Court of International Justice and for budgetary reasons?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will realise that this proposal was made in order to pass the budget, and, in fact, the initiative was taken by certain neutral countries who made a proposal to the Secretary-General who passed it on to the States members, who are now considering it. As regards the election of a judge, His Majesty's Government have not lost sight of that matter.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Have any proposals been made as to the election of a judge from any quarter?
    Mr. Butler: Not that I am aware.
    Mr. Mander: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the Adjournment next week.

    THE WAR (BRITISH COMMUNICATION).
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the terms of the communication made to the League of Nations with reference to Great Britain's entry into the war?
    Mr. Butler: I am circulating the terms of this communication in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the terms of the communication:
    Foreign Office, S.W.I.
    9th September, 1939.
    SIR,
    On the 23rd May last Viscount Halifax made, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, a statement to the Council of the League of Nations concerning the obligations which His Majesty's Government had felt constrained to undertake in pursuit of pacific and well-defined ends. He explained that one principle was common to these obligations, namely, resistance to the imposition of solutions by the method of force, which, if continued, must result in reducing civilisation to anarchy and destruction. He added that everything that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had done was in conformity with the spirit of the Covenant.
    2. I am now directed by Lord Halifax to state that on the 1st September last the German Government committed an act of aggression against a member of the League of Nations. The action of the German Government was taken in disregard of the obligation, which they had accepted, to solve without recourse to force the questions which might become the cause of division between Germany and Poland; in disregard of the obligations which the German Government had assumed towards Poland and the other signatories of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War of the 27th August, 1928; and in disregard of the appeals which had, on high authority, been addressed to the German Government to seek a solution of Polish-German differences by pacific means.
    3. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in co-operation with the French Government, had exerted their utmost influence to promote a settlement by peaceful negotiation of the matters in dispute between Germany and Poland, and endeavoured, by diplomatic action, to bring the violation of Polish territory by German forces to an end. These endeavours failed, and the action of the German Government called into play the obligations which His Majesty's Government

    685
    in the United Kingdom had assumed towards Poland. These obligations, which originally resulted from the declaration made by His Majesty's Government on 31st March, 1939, were defined in the Agreement of Mutual Assistance between the United Kingdom and Poland signed in London on the 25th August, 1939.
    4. I am, therefore, to inform you that, in conformity with the obligations assumed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and in consequence of the continuance of aggressive action by Germany against Poland, a state of war has existed between the United Kingdom and Germany since II a.m. on the 3rd September, 1939.
    5. I am to request that this communication may be transmitted to the members of the League of Nations.
    I am,
    Sir,
    Your obedient Servant,
    (Signed) ALEXANDER CADOGAN.
    The Secretary-General,
    League of Nations,
    Geneva.

  CHEMICAL WARFARE.
  Mr. Marcus Samuelasked the Prime Minister what was the last date on which the German Government gave its under taking not to use poison gas or chemicals in warfare?
  Mr. Butler: A communication from the Swiss Legation conveying the German Government's assurance to this effect was received on 9th September.
  Mr. Samuel: In view of the importance of this undertaking, would it not be the right thing to ask for an increase in the supply of gas masks?
  Mr. Thome: Whether the Germans use poisonous gas or not, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Government not to use it in any circumstances?

  POLAND.

    JEWS (TREATMENT).
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the execution of at least 800 Jews when the Germans took Przemysl before the Russians arrived; and whether, as the Soviet Government is understood to have made a detailed inquiry into the matter, he will make further inquiries from them as to this matter?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir, but my Noble Friend has asked for a report.

    GERMAN LEAFLETS, NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to report to the House on the result of his investigation in regard to the distribution of leaflets by German agents in neutral countries, relative to the alleged supply of gas-shells to Poland by the British Government?
    Mr. Butler: Information has reached His Majesty's Government that these leaflets have been widely distributed in various neutral countries. Steps have been taken to give the widest possible publicity in foreign countries to official statements refuting the German allegations.

  ANGLO-JAPANESE RELATIONS.
  Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make available in the Library of the House the text of the statement he made recently concerning the relations between this country and Japan; and the text of the recent speech made in Tokyo by the Ambassador of the United States of America?
  Mr. Butler: The statement by the Prime Minister concerning relations between this country and Japan, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, formed part of an interview which he recently gave to a Japanese journalist on the general situation in Europe. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the passage at the end of this interview which related to the Far East. The hon. Member will have observed previous statements regarding the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Far East, which remains unchanged. My Noble Friend would refer the hon. Member to published summaries of the recent speech made in Tokyo by the United States Ambassador. To make this speech available in an official form is not a responsibility which His Majesty's Government feel entitled to take upon themselves.
  Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no change in the policy of the British Government in the Far East towards China?
  Mr. Butler: I have just said so in my reply.
  Following is the passage:
  Extract from interview granted to a Japanese journalist by the Prime Minister on 30th October,1939.
  "Drawing the attention of the Prime Minister to the present deterioration in Anglo-Japanese relations, the writer pointed out that the most important task for Japan to-day is to push ahead with a settlement of the ' China Incident,' and the readjustment of Anglo-Japanese relations in China would contribute to this end. In reply to his question as to whether the British Government had any intention of re-opening the conversations with Japan that had been broken off, the Prime Minister said that he would be glad to consider any means of improving the relations between the two countries. He expressed his appreciation of the efforts being made by Sir Robert Craigie, the British Ambassador in Tokyo, a very capable and assiduous diplomat, for a better understanding between the two countries.
  Perhaps no one feels sorrier than I do about the deterioration of Anglo-Japanese relations, he said. He told the writer that before assuming his present office he had laboured hard for an improvement in this direction, and deeply regretted that circumstances had arisen to prevent his success. The writer expressed his opinion that a friendly gesture made by-Great Britain at this point might have a very favourable influence on the course of events. On his asking the writer what sort of gesture he envisaged, the writer explained that he had in mind the so-called ' English co-operation ' in China which had frequently been suggested by Japanese spokesmen when discussing the problem of England and Japan in China.
  The Prime Minister said that the English are not a people to entertain malice, and should Japan show understanding of their legitimate rights and interests they would not find the English people revengeful or unresponsive."

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any limitation in the age qualification of commissioned officers in the Royal Air Force in regard to the payment of wives' allowances; and will he inform the House at what age the Government recognises such claims?
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 8th November.
    Mr. Georģe Hall: Are the same allowances to be paid to the dependants of airmen as are paid to the dependants of soldiers?
    Sir K. Wood: I said on 8th November that an Order was recently issued, for the period of the present emergency, that all married officers whether of the Regular or non-Regular branch of the Royal Air Force should receive a marriage allowance without any age limitation.

    VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
    Mr. J. P. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Air how many volunteers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve were mobilised on the outbreak of war and have not yet been asked to report to any unit, but have been drawing full pay and detention allowance since mobilisation?
    Sir K. Wood: All officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve took up duty immediately on mobilisation. Of the airmen who were mobilised, a relatively small proportion are still in receipt of pay without employment but they are being absorbed in Service vacancies as and when training facilities are available. It is anticipated that all will be so absorbed by the end of the year.

    INSURANCE.
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in certain instances insurance companies are refusing to pay claims on insurance policies on the lives of men killed on active service in the Royal Air Force, owing to the policy containing a clause to the effect that it would be void if the life assured should die as a result of engaging in aviation, whereas for a small extra premium this clause would have been deleted by the company; and whether he will take steps to ensure that members of the Royal Air Force are protected in such cases, in view of the hardship caused to the wives and children of such men?
    Sir K. Wood: No such cases have been brought to the notice of my Department. The Air Ministry has always used its best endeavours to persuade insurance companies to quote the most favourable rates possible in regard to aviation insurance and the companies have made considerable concessions. As regards the. second part of the question, particulars of the terms of insurance available for those entering the Royal Air Force are published in pamphlets circulated throughout the Service and all ranks are made aware

    689
    of the available facilities. The widow of any member of the Royal Air Force killed on active service is, of course, eligible for a pension as well as for allowances in respect of her children.

    AUXILIARY FORCE.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers and non-commissioned officers of the Auxiliary Air Force have done no training since their mobilisation; what is the amount of pay and allowances paid to these officers and men to date; how many of them are still engaged in their civilian employment; and when it is expected they will be able to start on the work for which they are being paid or training for such work?
    Sir K. Wood: All Auxiliary Air Force personnel called out for service since the Force was embodied have been undergoing training or performing duty. A very small proportion of the personnel, being men who were engaged on essential work in industry, were not called out or have been returned to civil life and they are not eligible for Royal Air Force pay and allowances.

    DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS.
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider recommending that the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross should be made applicable to all ranks of the Royal Air Force without class distinction as in the case of the Victoria Cross in the Army?
    Sir K. Wood: As I stated recently, I am considering the conditions of eligibility for the Distinguished Flying Cross.
    Mr. Ammon: Why should there be any delay in coming to a decision on this matter? Five men did equally meritorious service, and one of them gets a lower award simply on the ground of his social standing.
    Sir K. Wood: I do not think that is the case, but, as I said on the last occasion, there are many considerations to be taken into account, and it is a matter on which I shall have to consult the other Services.
    Mr. Ammon: What other considerations are there which have to be taken into account?
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no distinction on the ground of rank, and that the only basis will be one of merit?
    Sir K. Wood: That is a matter which I am considering now.

  WIRELESS LICENCES (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider issuing wireless licences without charge to old age pensioners during the operation of the war?
  The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The concession of free wireless licences is at present restricted to blind persons covered by the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act of 1926. The extension of the concession to old age pensioners and other classes deserving of sympathy has been suggested from time to time, but the Ullswater Committee, who considered the whole question, reported against any such extension, and the considerations which they had in mind, still hold good to-day.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is there any reason why the Postmaster-General should be bound by the recommendations of the committee in view of the new circumstances which now prevail? Does he not appreciate that wireless is a great comfort to many of these old people?
  Major Tryon: I do not think there is any reason for ignoring the report of a committee representative of Members in all parts of the House, who went into this question at great length. It would obviously be a great concession because there would be a great number of other people who might put up an equal claim.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, COLCHESTER (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).
  Mr. Lewisasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the only protection provided for the telephone exchange at Colchester consists of cloth gas-shutters backed with wire netting, and as this protection will be useless against the effect of blast from high-explosive bombs, will he take immediate steps to provide better protection for this

  691
  exchange on account of its importance, not only for civilian, but for Defence purposes?
  Major Tryon: The scheme for the provision of protection at the Colchester telephone exchange which is expected to be completed in about a week is on the same lines as those adopted in other similar cases, and provides more effective protection than is indicated in my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Lewis: Do I understand that no other post office in the country has better protection?
  Major Tryon: No, Sir, but I would point out to the hon. Member that Colchester has at least equal protection to other similar post offices.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HOME FLEET (LEAVE).
    Mr. Boothbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made, or are contemplated, for the granting of leave to the personnel of the Home Fleet?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Instructions have been issued that the officers and men of all sea-going ships in home waters and those serving at isolated bases are to be given as much leave as circumstances permit. Subject to operational requirements, every opportunity will be taken to give leave when ships are refitting, docking, undergoing repairs or cleaning boilers; and administrative arrangements are being made to enable the fullest possible advantage to be taken of these opportunities for rest. At least 14 days leave a year will be given and leave will not be restricted by any maximum when circumstances allow of more being given. Officers and men serving in stationary ships, at shore bases, or in shore establishments will be given leave at the discretion of administrative authorities within the maximum of the peacetime leave scale with a minimum of 14 days a year. Although a general grant of leave at the ordinary leave periods will not generally be practicable under war conditions, the authorities at the ports have been authorised to grant up to seven days' leave this Christmas where-ever this is found possible without detriment to the work of the establishments.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask whether, as in the case of the Army, free railway vouchers will be provided to the men?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. The same will apply—two free warrants a year.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will bear in mind the desirability of according the maximum facilities for recreation ashore to the ships companes of the Home Fleet; and what steps he is taking to ensure this?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The desirability of giving leave to ships' companies for recreation ashore is fully realised by Flag and Commanding Officers. Measures are being taken to provide clubs, canteens, cinemas and recreation grounds at those ports and bases where these do not already exist. In addition the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have already established canteens at some 20 ports, and I am glad to say that local municipal enterprise has, in several instances, taken the initiative in providing reading and rest rooms for naval personnel.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that every possible facility for physical recreation ashore has been granted to the ships' companies of the Home Fleet during recent weeks?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir, subject to operational requirements.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not the usual practice that such facilities should always be granted?

    PRIZE BOUNTY.
    Mr. Culverwellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount of prize bounty distributed after the Great War; and how many persons received such bounty?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The total amount of prize bounty distributed during and after the war was £176,850. I regret that information concerning the number of officers and men receiving prize bounty is not now available.
    Mr. Culverwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the expenditure of this large sum of money is quite unnecessary, as our sailors may be expected do do their duty without this reward?

  PALESTINE (JEWS, SENTENCES).
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inquire into the cases of those Jews who have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment in Palestine for carrying arms in an unauthorised parade, with a view to remitting their sentences?
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The sentences in question were imposed by a military court and are subject to confirmation by the General Officer Commanding, who has full discretion in the matter. The General Officer Commanding has not yet taken his decision.
  Colonel Wedģwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of these men who appeared with a rifle in an unauthorised parade was sentenced to imprisonment for life?

  DEPENDENCIES (DETENTIONS).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what persons have been detained in each Dependency since the war under the Emergency Regulations or Orders; what are the reasons for detention; and whether any of such persons are associated with popular movements of social, political, and industrial improvement?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Apart from persons of enemy origin or association who have been interned, I am not aware of any case of a person detained under these regulations or orders other than the one referred to in question No. 26. I am asking the Governors to keep me informed of such detentions.

  SIERRA LEONE (DETENTION ORDER).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what length of time it is proposed to deprive Wallace Johnson of his liberty; and what are the conditions of his life in his detention?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: The period during which the detention order is to remain in force is a matter for the Governor's discretion. Mr. Johnson is detained in the detention camp in Sierra Leone where he is subject to the same rules and regulations as interned enemy subjects from
  694
  whom however he is separately housed. Arrangements have been made for him to receive the same rations or other food supplied by his friends if he wishes.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Does that mean that he is likely to be deprived of the opportunity of receiving books, for instance? What is the general standard of living in the camp?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am asking for information on the matter. I could not answer without notice.
  Mr. Paling: Is it proposed to detain Johnson until he is convinced that this is a war for liberty?
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the reason for the indefinite detention of this man?
  Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add to the statement I have already made.
  Mr. Maxton: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that this man is detained in a camp used for enemy aliens?
  Mr. MacDonald: He is in the same camp, but is separately housed.
  Mr. Maxton: Does that make a distinction in the mind of the community in which the camp is situated?
  Mr. MacDonald: I think the distinction between the houses has been drawn deliberately.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman be frank about this affair?

  WEST AFRICAN COCOA.
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position in respect to the Gold Coast Cocoa Report of last year?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: As the hon. Member will have seen in the Press, His Majesty's Government have undertaken, as a war measure, to buy the whole 1939–40 crop of British West African cocoa at fixed prices to the producer for the various grades. Such a development was not foreseen when the Cocoa Report was written, and further consideration of the recommendations in the light of it will be required.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Does that mean that the recommendations of the report are now definitely abandoned?
  Mr. MacDonald: No, not necessarily so, but the situation is an entirely new one, and will require reconsideration.
  Mr. Palinģ: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the price compares with last year's price?
  Mr. MacDonald: It is about the average price for the season of last year, and of course, there is the additional advantage that it is a guaranteed price throughout the whole of the present 12 months.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT CONTROL) .
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the compensation payable by the Government to the railways, an acceptable formula has now been arrived at; and at what date it will be possible to announce the terms?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): All I can say at the moment is that discussions on this complex subject are proceeding and that the importance of reaching an early settlement is fully realised.
    Mr. De la Bére: Is it not a fact that some scheme for nationalising the railways is under consideration by the Ministry of Transport now, and is that the reason why the delay in making payments to the railways has been so long?
    Captain Wallace: If it is under consideration in the Ministry of Transport, it has certainly not reached the Minister yet.
    Mr. De la Bére: In view of the strange nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I propose at the earliest opportunity to raise the whole matter on the Adjournment.

    SANATORIA INMATES' RELATIVES (RAILWAY FACILITIES).
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to introduce special cheap rail tickets to enable relatives to visit inmates of sanatoria situated a long way from their
    696
    homes on Sundays, as the complete suspension of Sunday excursion tickets makes it impossible for poor families to visit their sick relatives for long periods at a stretch?
    Captain Wallace: While I sympathise with the desire of relatives to visit inmates of sanatoria, I regret that it is not possible, in present conditions, to arrange special cheap railway facilities for this purpose.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister reconsider this matter and discuss it with the railway companies, in view of the fact that, in general, sanatoria are very far out in the country and that in many cases it is very costly for people to travel to see their relatives and friends there?
    Captain Wallace: I have discussed it with the Railway Executive Committee.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: In view of the fact that a number of the inmates of sanatoria have been evacuated to very distant parts of the country because the sanatoria they were in have been taken over by the military, will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reconsider the answer he has given?
    Captain Wallace: We are endeavouring to run the railways as a self-supporting concern, and I do not think that in cases where a concession could not be made on a self-supporting basis it is permissible to insist on it being given.

    SUBURBAN RAILWAY SERVICES (LATE TRAINS).
    Sir Harold Webbeasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to help the revival of the restaurant and amusement business of London, and to maintain the morale of the people by giving them the opportunity of some measure of recreation and relaxation, he will endeavour to arrange for a reasonably late theatre train on all lines from London to the suburbs and nearby towns?
    Captain Wallace: I am advised that adequate facilities are already available to serve suburban stations. In view of other urgent demands upon both the personnel and material of the railway companies, I do not feel justified in asking them to extend these facilities.
    Sir H. Webbe: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend consider that the provision of facilities for recreation are of

    697
    such great importance at the present time that he would be justified in asking transport undertakings all over the country to make special concessions?
    Captain Wallace: There are many urgent things to be done at the present time, and I must exercise some discretion.

    RAILWAYS (CHEAP DAY TICKETS).
    Sir H. Webbeasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of business and having regard to the restrict-tion of train services outside the rush-hours, he will arrange to reduce the period of non-availability of cheap-day tickets from the present three hours, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., to two hours, and to ensure that the railway companies in fixing the limits shall have regard to the train services rather than fix uniform times on all lines and to all stations?
    Captain Wallace: The Railway Executive Committee have represented to me that a reduction of the period of non-availability of cheap day tickets from three hours to two would, in existing circumstances, cause overcrowding of trains during the evening peak period when regular passengers are travelling, and that it would be impracticable to introduce special modifications of the period in relation to individual lines or stations. I do not, therefore, feel justified in pressing the Committee to modify the existing limitation in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. Webbe: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that owing to the withdrawal of trains and the reduction of services this three hours dead period is, in many cases, 4½ hours, and in some cases nearly five hours?
    Captain Wallace: Here again I have made a concession in response to representations from various quarters. If the situation becomes such that further concessions can be made, no one will be more pleased than I, but I have to consider the working of the railways in the interests of traffic as a whole.

    EVACUATED CHILDREN (PARENTS, CHEAP RAILWAY TICKETS).
    Mr. Hamilton Kerrasked the Minister of Transport whether he can
    698
    now arrange for some form of cheap-day tickets on the railways, in order to enable parents of evacuated children to visit them?
    Captain Wallace: I am glad to say that in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and Secretary of State for Scotland I have been able to make arrangements under which with the necessary co-operation by the local authorities, special cheap rail facilities will be available for visits to children and others evacuated under the Government scheme. The general aim will be to provide special train facilities on Sundays at monthly intervals to reception areas where services at cheap fares are not already available and to which the return journey can be made in one day. The return fares will be at the rate of the ordinary single fare for distances up to 80 miles and for longer distances at less than that rate, so that the return fare for a place 100 miles distant will be 11s. and for a place 160 miles distant 12s. 6d.
    It is essential that advance information should be available to the railways in order that adequate rail facilities should be provided and, therefore, tickets for these special trains will only be issued on production of a voucher at the railway booking office. These vouchers will be issued in the localities from which the children were evacuated under arrangements with the local authority, where also any necessary information as to the station of departure and route to be followed can be given to avoid unnecessary congestion at the railway booking offices. In order that due notice may be given to the transport authorities as to the numbers to be carried it will be necessary that the issue of vouchers shall cease eight days before the day on which the excursion will run, that is, for a train running on 3rd December a voucher must be obtained on or before 25th November. On 3rd December, special facilities will be provided from London and Edinburgh to a number of reception areas, and on succeeding Sundays other areas will be similarly served. The possibility of providing special facilities from other towns will be considered with the local authorities concerned. The special train facilities will not be available on 24th or 31st December owing to the abnormal traffic conditions at those times.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the few cases in which the distance of the children from home is greater than can be covered by the parents in a single day; and whether some special facilities might be granted to parents in those cases?
    Captain Wallace: We have considered that point carefully. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it raises very great difficulties in regard to accommodation in the reception areas where the billets are already all occupied. The scheme which I have outlined is a start. I hope it will be successful and that we may be able to extend it.
    Mr. Logan: In regard to the question of sickness, will cancellation of the eight days be allowed, and will the railway fare operate as the Minister suggests?
    Captain Wallace: People will have to get the vouchers eight days before the journey, but, as at present advised, I do not suggest that they should pay the money until they actually go to the station.
    Mr. Logan: What I am asking is whether, in cases of sickness, where parents wish to visit children who have been evacuated to a distance, it is intended to apply the same rule about the eight days?
    Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has just informed me that in necessitous cases of that kind the parents would travel free.
    Mr. Mathers: The statement which we have just heard limits this concession to children who have been evacuated under the Government scheme, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that many children have been evacuated privately, thereby saving the Government trouble. Can he not extend this concession to those other schemes?

    RAILWAY WAGONS (YORKSHIRE COLLIERIES).
    Mr. Palingasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Yorkshire pits are working short time owing to the shortage of railway wagons; that some pits are reduced to working little more than two-thirds of their capacity; and what steps he is taking to overcome the difficulty?
    Captain Wallace: I am not aware that there has been a shortage in the supply of wagons to the Yorkshire collieries to the extent that the hon. Member suggests, and I shall be glad to investigate at once any specific case of shortage on this scale. I know, however, that some difficulties in the supply of wagons in this area have arisen. Consultations have taken place between the representatives of the railways, the Mines Department and the collieries in the area with a view to dealing with the present exceptional circumstances. The main difficulty is the increasing number of wagons which are standing laden with coal. My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, and I have recently made an appeal to traders and industrialists to see that wagons are loaded and unloaded with the utmost dispatch. This matter is being closely watched and, if necessary, further steps will have to be taken to expedite the release of wagons.
    Mr. Paling: Is the Minister aware that not an individual pit but numbers of pits are not working for nearly one-third of their time? In view of the necessity for these wagons, and the fact that we are being asked to produce 30,000,000 tons more coal this year, is it not time that something drastic was done to make people release wagons which are being held up much longer than they ought to be?
    Captain Wallace: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I prefer to proceed at first by what I may call co-operative methods. If the appeal which my right hon. Friend and I have made for the quicker release of these wagons is unsuccessful, we shall have to take other measures.

    AMBULANCE DRIVERS (DRIVING LICENCES) .
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that certain full-time air-raid precautions ambulance drivers have to pay for their driving licences; and whether he will either arrange that such drivers receive free licences or recommend to local air-raid precautions authorities that they shall meet this charge?
    Captain Wallace: I have no power to remit the statutory fee for a driving licence. In the case of the ambulance drivers to whom the hon. Member refers,

    701
    it would be for the local A.R.P. authority, who are not within my jurisdiction, to consider any particular instance whether they would meet the charge for a driving licence.
    Mr. Sorensen: Am I to take it that the Minister does recommend to local authorities that these men, who are getting £3 a week, should have this concession granted to them?
    Captain Wallace: No, Sir, I should not presume to recommend anything to the local A.R.P. authorities because they come under another Minister.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the Minister say when the driving test will be re-instituted?

    MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.
    Mr. Joelasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the discontinuance of the driving test, holders of provisional licences are having to pay 5s. for a further provisional driving licence every three months; and whether he can make some other arrangements so as to relieve this class of driver from this additional expense?
    Mr. R. Morganasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the discontent that exists among holders of provisional driving licences owing to the suspension of the official driving tests; and whether, in view of the considerable unemployment that prevails at the present time among people of over military age, many of whom are expert drivers, he will consider the reintroduction of these driving tests at an early date?
    Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. The transfer of the driving examiner staff to urgent war duties inevitably caused inconvenience to many people who were thereby prevented from taking the driving test. I am glad to say that the progress made with the road transport emergency organisation will now enable me to release some of the examiners for their ordinary work. Applications for driving tests will be accepted in the regional offices on or after 1st December, and I am making arrangements for resumption of the official driving test as from 1st January next.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it the case that the R.A.C. have volunteered to provide the personnel necessary for carrying out
    702
    these tests; and will my right hon. and gallant Friend make use of that offer, which has been made in order to facilitate these driving tests?
    Captain Wallace: No, Sir. Grateful as I am to the organisations in question, I think it essential that the test should be carried out by my own trained examiners.

    OMNIBUS SERVICE, LONDON.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange to increase omnibus services in the London area?
    Captain Wallace: Since the beginning of October improvements have been introduced on a number of routes, and as from to-day there will be 160 to 200 additional omnibuses in operation. The necessity for economy in the use of imported fuel must involve some reduction in the number of omnibus services operated by the board as compared with pre-war standards, but within this limitation the board are doing everything in their power to provide an adequate service.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bearing in mind that with the approach of the Christmas shopping season the number of people desiring to travel by public vehicles will be greatly increased?
    Captain Wallace: Unfortunately, the approach of the Christmas shopping season does not give me any more petrol.
    Mr. Lunn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there are notices posted up on different routes this morning that those routes will not have buses on them from to-day?
    Captain Wallace: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

    ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNS (ILLUMINATION).
    Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that a headlight on a motor-car properly blacked out should not show a light higher than about three feet from the ground, he will make arrangements for the better illumination of traffic signs which are usually seven feet or more above the ground?
    Captain Wallace: Now that the new headlamp masks are coming into general use, steps are being taken to remind

    703
    local authorities of the detailed instructions for the illumination of traffic signs contained in the memorandum on "Aids to Movement of Traffic" issued by nry right hon. Friend, the Minister for Home Security, in June last. Where there are local difficulties in securing illuminations, the possibility of lowering the signs is being explored.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS, GLASGOW.
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Transport the number of street accidents, fatal or otherwise, in Glasgow since 3rd September, 1939; and the number of cases in which intemperance was the proved primary cause?
    Captain Wallace: During the period from 4th September, 1939, to 5th November, 1939, inclusive, 52 persons were killed and 893 persons were injured in road accidents in Glasgow. Information is not available as to the number of cases in which intemperance was the primary cause.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the widespread allegations that are being made by certain officials in Glasgow that intemperance is the cause of many of the accidents, and does he not think, in view of these allegations, that the Ministry of Transport ought to make inquiries with regard to them?
    Captain Wallace: As I have pointed out before to the House, an inquiry into the primary cause of every accident is an extremely difficult thing. We had two periods in which this was done—in the year ended 31st March, 1937, and in the calendar year 1935. We have not been able to continue that in peace time, and it is still less possible to continue it in war; but in the periods when these analyses were taken statistics went to show that the cases in which intemperance was put down as the primary cause amounted to less than 2 per cent.
    Mr. Macquisten: Was the intemperance on the part of the pedestrians or of the drivers?

  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (REQUISITIONED COAL WAGONS).
  Sir George Mitchesonasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties of
  704
  certain electricity undertakings through the requisitioning of their specially-designed coal wagons; and whether he will give instructions for their return to their normal use?
  Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. I have received representations that the coal wagons of certain electricity undertakers should be exempt from requisitioning. I am advised that these wagons are not "specially constructed" within the meaning of the Notice of Requisitioning, and to withdraw them from common user would tend to defeat the whole purpose of the pooling scheme.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    BRITISH EMPIRE POLICY.
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether, in view of the far-reaching misconceptions of British Empire policy displayed abroad, as exampled in the recent speech of the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he will prepare and execute without delay a world-wide campaign to educate public opinion on the elementary facts of the British Empire?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Sir Edward Grigg): I can assure my hon. Friend that the need for spreading the facts about the British Empire is constantly borne in mind by all sections of the Ministry of Information. Every opportunity has been, and will be. taken to emphasise the Empire's unity and strength, and to explain its structure, to foreign countries.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will those facts be sent to South Africa?
    Sir E. Grigg: South Africa speaks for itself.

    NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST AND INDIA.
    Mr. MacLarenasked the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Ministry of In formation whether in the reorganization of those departments which specially deal with Near East, Middle East and India, he is enlisting the assistance of any orientals in these departments so as to ensure that British propaganda and other forms of publicity may be undertaken with due regard to oriental psychology?
    Sir E. Grigg: Every information section attached to British posts in the Near and Middle East employs persons who are nationals of the country in which they work; while in the Ministry itself the appropriate sections have frequent advice and assistance from such persons. In India, the Ministry works in the closest co-operation with the Bureau of Public Information, Government of India, the staff of which is largely Indian.

    PERU.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information whether his attention has been called to the fact that in Peru there are a number of provincial papers which do not pay for any of the usual Press services which supply foreign news; that the only foreign news they get is supplied to them, free of charge, by the German Foreign Office; that though the individual circulation of each paper is small the combined circulation is considerable; and will he take steps to see that these papers are supplied, free of charge, with foreign news by his Department?
    Sir E. Grigg: I am aware that German news is offered free of charge to some provincial newspapers in Peru, but it is by no means the case that British news is not available or remains unpublished. For example, the B.B.C. has made arrangements with the news agencies concerned for rebroadcasting, and for republication in the Press, of their news bulletins; and other steps to meet the needs of the smaller papers are under careful consideration.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many neutral countries where the conditions are substantially such as are described in this question and where German news has a very great advantage, and will he consult with the Post Office and the Air Ministry with a view to the improvement of the air mail service and the cutting of postal rates?
    Sir E. Grigg: We are continually trying to improve the communications, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me an example of any country that he has in mind.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it takes five or six days for mail material to reach the Balkans, which are of great importance, and it is more
    706
    than six weeks since this question was raised in the Advisory Council, and that very little has been done?
    Sir E. Grigg: Communications with the Balkans are being steadily improved.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is my hon. Friend not aware that German news is more interesting because it has no connection with the facts?
    Mr. MacLaren: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every case where German propaganda is carried to other countries, it is sent in the language known to the people in the country to which it is sent, and that it is sent in that condition from Germany to those countries—I mean, that it is not sent in the German language and translated there?
    Sir E. Grigg: If the hon. Member is suggesting that we do not use the language of the countries to which this news goes, he is really mistaken.
    Mr. MacLaren: I beg to differ.

  EXPORT TRADE (CO-ORDINATION).
  Sir Granville Gibsonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity to maintain and expand our export trade, he will constitute a coordinating committee, consisting of representatives of the Ministers in charge of the Foreign Office, Dominions Office, Colonial Office, Board of Trade, Depart ment of Overseas Trade, Ministry of Food, and Ministry of Economic Warfare, to evolve an export trade policy to meet the new conditions brought about by the war; and whether he will instruct such coordinating committee, when constituted, to secure the assistance of an advisory committee composed of persons engaged in the export trade?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall).

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    FLOUR.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that bakers whose cost of production enables them to

    707
    sell the 2 lb. loaf at 2½d. wholesale, are safeguarded from being black-listed, and are assured of regular flour supplies?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I shall be happy to consider any evidence which my hon. Friend has in his possession to the effect that flour supplies are not assured to bakers selling bread at the price quoted.
    Mr. De la Bére: Does not the fact that this bread is produced and sold at a profit at this price demonstrate that the price which is being charged by the price-fixing association of milling combines, which has exploited the public for years and years, is a well known scandal?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend's supplementary raises quite a different question. If he wishes to raise any particular case, he cannot do better than follow the procedure stated in my answer.
    Mr. De la Bére: Is my hon. Friend not aware that my supplementary was very much to the point?
    Mr. Logan: If I produce evidence of a case where a gentleman is being kept out from this kind of business, will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, since the price of flour is now controlled by the Government, whether he can state the price which the Government are charging to bakers in London and the provinces, respectively; and whether he can say if this is the standard price, or whether there are variations in the varieties of flour which is sold at these prices?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All flour mills are now required to make a straight-run flour of not less than 70 per cent. extraction. The price throughout the United Kingdom is fixed at 22s. per sack of 280 lb. delivered. Any variations which occur in the flour sold are due to variations in the grist available.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that, owing to the amount of flour bought instead of wheat, many millers are to-day not producing flour at all?

    RATIONING.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will, when considering the question of rationing of food, give special consideration to workers engaged in heavy industries such as steel works, mines and railways; and will he make provision for canteens which provide for these employes at the various works in the country?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In answer to the first part of the question so far as the present rationing scheme is concerned, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 9th November. In answer to the second part of the question, arrangements will be made for industrial canteens on the lines of those for catering establishments generally.
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, under any system of rationing, special arrangements will be made for delicate persons and invalids to obtain additional allowances?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member's proposal is already receiving consideration.

    HERRING.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the question of future purchases of herring by the Government is under his consideration; and whether he will make a statement on the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no present intention to introduce any new Government scheme for the purchase of herring. As the hon. Member is aware, the undertaking given by the Government to purchase the surplus catch of herring landed at East Anglian ports relates to the current season only.
    Mr. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend give consideration to the question of future purchases of herring throughout the war?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is my hon. Friend aware that large quantities of Clyde herring are being cast back into the sea because there is no price for them, and will he not fix a minimum price as well as a maximum price?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend knows that Clyde herring at this time of the year are of a particular kind and are not suitable for general consumption.

    DRIED FRUITS.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why some retailers are finding it difficult at the present time to purchase any supplies of dried fruits, such as sultanas and raisins?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Supplies of dried fruit for the Christmas trade are arriving much later than usual this year, but large quantities are now at the ports or are just arriving. Every effort is being and will be made to distribute these arrivals, which should go a considerable way to meeting any shortage.

    FEEDING-STUFFS, WEST OF ENGLAND.
    Mr. Lambertasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will increase the supply of feeding-stuffs in the West of England, as the shortage is causing a diminution of pig and poultry products and consequent loss to the producers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. Action on the lines suggested has already been taken.
    Mr. Lambert: May we know when there will be a supply of feeding-stuffs in the West of England?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The difficulties with regard to feeding-stuffs apply to the country as a whole, but the particular difficulties of the West country have been met. During the week ending 4th November we despatched large supplies of barley to the Bristol Channel ports.
    Mr. Beechman: Will my hon. Friend remember that the shortage in West Cornwall has been particularly acute?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.
    Mr. Graham White: Are these benefits to be confined to the West of England?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, but they hvae a particularly large pig population in that part of the country.

    MUTTON-BACON.
    Mr. Macquistenasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the shortage of bacon and the
    710
    difficulty owing to the scarcity of imported feeding-stuffs of increasing the supply of pigs, he will instruct bacon factories to cure mutton in the same way as they cure the carcases of pigs and make mutton-bacon to make good the shortage of bacon made from pigs?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am arranging for an experimental cure to be made, and will communicate the results to my hon. Friend, who, I hope, will be prepared to assist in the consumption of the product.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have eaten the product, and that if his bacon people cannot make it, any farmer's wife in Perthshire will tell them how to do it? I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who is well acquainted with it.

    VENISON.
    Mr. Macquistenasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that there are great numbers of deer in the Highlands which the proprietors would gladly dispose of on reasonable terms; and will he arrange for their purchase and distribution, accompanied by instructions as to the proper method of cooking venison?
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken in conjunction with the Forestry Commission or otherwise, to make available as food the deer in Scotland?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Preliminary inquiries into the possibilities of the better utilisation of the venison supplies available in Scotland are proceeding. Consideration of the problem has, however, not yet reached a stage at which I can usefully make a statement.
    Mr. Macquisten: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that unless people are shown how to cook venison—they are so out of doing it—it will be useless and as dry as a stick? Is he aware that if it is properly cooked it is a lovely food? I have eaten it many times.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Will the hon. Member reply to my question?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are in touch with the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Macquisten: Will it help the hon. Gentleman if I supply him with a recipe for cooking venison?

    COD-LIVER OIL.
    Sir Adrian Baillieasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the fact that there are ample supplies of cod-liver oil to meet all requirements including children and nursing and expectant mothers who have been evacuated, he can now say why the British suppliers are only supplying one- third of the normal requirements at a price which is double what it was two months ago?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Deliveries of cod-liver oil through the trade have been somewhat reduced with the object of conserving stocks pending the completion of plans for safeguarding future supplies, but adequate quantities are available to meet all the requirements referred to by my hon. Friend. The rise in prices is less in this country than in others, and is due to increased cost of raw material and reduced turnover.

    GLUCOSE.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has now been able to arrange for a sufficient supply of maize to ensure the continuous manufacture of medical glucose?
    Mr. R. Morganasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now satisfied that sufficient raw material exists to enable the users of glucose to carry on adequately?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arrangements have been made to allocate regularly supplies of maize to producers of glucose sufficient to enable them to produce a substantial part of their normal output. The allocations will cover the manufacture of medical glucose.
    Mr. White: Is there any hope of a full supply in the near future, and is the hon. Gentleman in touch with the Minister concerned in this matter? We do not know who is responsible.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We accept responsibility. The allocation will provide for two-thirds of the working capacity of the manufacturers concerned, and in view of the fact that some of their products are of a luxury nature we do not think that this is an unreasonable allocation.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    IRON AND STEEL.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Supply to what extent the increase in the price of coal recently sanctioned will affect the price of steel, and whether this has been allowed for in the revised prices of steel recently announced?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): The recent increases in the maximum prices of iron and steel were necessitated by the higher cost of imported materials, together with increases in steel costs arising from the operation of sliding scales. It is not intended that the recent advance in the price of coal should lead, for the present, to any further increase in the maximum prices of steel.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Supply whether he is prepared to investigate the possibility of making a full use of the Scottish ironfounding industry by substituting where possible the use of cast-iron for steel and thus relieve the pressure on the steel industry; and whether he will consult with the ironfounding industry for this purpose?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. Close attention is being given by the Controller of Iron and Steel ,in consultation with representatives of the ironfoundry industry, to the question of relieving the pressure on the steel industry by the substitution of iron castings for steel wherever practicable and I have myself received a deputation on the matter.
    Mr. Hannah: May Bilsfon be considered in any such scheme?
    Mr. Burgin: I can hardly imagine Bilston being left out of account.

    BOFORS GUN-MOUNTINGS.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply which of the Nuffield subsidiaries has undertaken sub-contracts for the supply of Bofors gun-mountings at prices varying from £220 to £190?
    Mr. Burgin: The firm to which the hon. Member presumably alludes is not a Nuffield subsidiary. I am not willing to publish the name, but I have no objection to giving it to the hon. Member in confidence.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister explain how he reconciles his statement to-day with his statement on 24th October, when

    713
    he said that the Nuffield Company made a large number of these gun mountings through a sub-contractor. Surely that implies that sub-contractor "A" is a subsidiary of the Nuffield Company?
    Mr. Burgin: It does not imply anything of the kind. The Nuffield subsidiary is the agency firm which looks after the factory. Sub-contractor "A," to whom the hon. Member is presumably referring, is not a Nuffield subsidiary or related to them in any way.

    HOME-GROWN PIT-WOOD.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Supply (1) the authorised increase in price of home-grown pit-wood; and also the increase in price of pit-wood supplied by the Forestry Commission;
    (2) the reasons that were accepted by him as justifying the increase in price charged by the Forestry Commissioners for home-grown pit-wood?
    Mr. Burgin: There is no schedule of authorised increases but maximum prices have been fixed for home-grown pit-wood as set out in the Control of Timber (No. 1) Order. As regards the rest of the question. I am afraid I can add little to the reply given to the hon. Member on 24th October. Normally only a comparatively small quantity of home-grown pit-wood is purchased by the mines in South Wales and this from nearby sources. Supplies from abroad constitute the normal supply to these mines but it has been thought prudent to make arrangements to provide home-grown timber. This has to be cut and brought from distant woods and the cost is bound to be much higher.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that homegrown supplies of timber were purchased in South Wales at about 28s. per ton, whereas the price fixed by the Forestry Commission is about 55s.? What is the reason for the difference?
    Mr. Burgin: I may say that a deputation of coalowners waited on me and were delighted at the prospect of getting 50,000 tons of home-grown timber, and raised no difficulty about price. The reason for the difference is the fact that the nearby sources of home-grown timber have been cut. The timber for South Wales is
    714
    coming from the New Forest and Kent and districts far afield, and the price may be even over 55s.
    Mr. David Grenfell: Is it not the case that, included in this price, there may be a freight charge of 25s. a ton?
    Mr. T. Smith: In view of the fact that pit timber plays an important part in the ascertainment, may I ask how this maximum price of home-grown wood compares with imported wood?
    Mr. Burgin: At present, when there are difficulties in obtaining timber, it is a question of looking for wood wherever we can. The South Wales collieries normally receive their timber from France in return for export coal, and I have great hopes that that transaction can be continued on an even larger scale than usual.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that many small business firms have been unable to secure war work to counterbalance their loss of normal trade; whether these small firms, who were originally asked to do war work, received any offer of a Government guarantee against losses incurred by neglecting regular customers; whether financial assistance has been or could be extended to such firms to enable them to secure the requisite machinery for war work purposes; and whether he is aware that failure to secure these facilities may cause the closing down of many of these businesses?
    Mr. Burgin: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a similar question on 19th October. Orders for war requirements are being spread as widely as possible consistently with the need for economy and satisfactory deliveries. Subject to this every effort is being made to utilise small firms, and when small firms are suitable they receive the same facilities as large concerns in regard to the provision of balancing plant, tools, jigs and gauges and financial arrangements. I am afraid, however, that I cannot undertake to give them special facilities, nor have I the power to allocate orders with the sole object of counterbalancing loss of normal trade.
    Sir Joseph Nail: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many firms who are in a positon to resume where they left off 20 years ago, and why are they not called into the picture to resume at once?
    Mr. Burgin: Because we are a long way ahead of them.
    Mr. Gledhillasked the Minister of Supply whether his Department is now aware of the number of firms who have supplied information to the Industrial Planning department of the War Office regarding their machine-tools and equipment; and, of , how many of these firms have been given contracts for war work?
    Mr. Burgin: The directorate of industrial planning had particulars of the equipment of some 6,000 firms, and about 4,500 of these were actually inspected. Of this number, it is estimated that about 60 per cent. are now employed on work for one or other of the three Service Departments, either directly or on subcontracting.

    TIMBER (ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS).
    Sir G. Mitchesonasked the Minister of Supply whether in view of the shortage of timber, he will take steps to ensure that brick and concrete are used wherever possible instead of timber?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir, I am informed that steps are being taken by the Departments concerned to ensure the use of brick, concrete and other alternative materials so far as possible instead of timber.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    POTTERY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the urgency of increasing the export trade of the pottery industry; and what special facilities are, or are proposed, to be available for the industry?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend is anxious that this important trade should be maintained and as far as possible increased, and he is now in consultation with the British Pottery Manufacturers' Federation on the question of facilities.
    Mr. Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has given consideration to the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Stoke dealing with the importance of wood-wool to the pottery industry; and can a satisfactory arrangement be made to meet the needs of the industry?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major G. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to this correspondence and to the important question of satisfying the requirements of the pottery and other industries for wood-wool. The supply of round wood for conversion into wood-wool has been affected by the urgent demand for pit props, but the Timber Control fully realise the importance of meeting the demand for wood-wool so far as is possible. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the question urgently in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and hopes that satisfactory arrangements can be made at an early date.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Will my hon. and gallant Friend receive a deputation from the industry on this question? It is a matter of vital importance to the pottery industry.
    Major Lloyd George: I will convey that request to my right hon. Friend.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. M. Samuelasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps further to implement the trade barter agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, in particular, with regard to the securing of supplies of Russian flax?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: The question of obtaining flax from the Soviet Union will be borne in mind in any trade negotiations which may take place with that country.

  PRICES OF GOODS BILL.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade what: steps he is taking to put into operation the provisions of the Prices of Goods Bill?
  Major Lloyd George: The Prices of Goods Bill has not yet received the Royal Assent. My right hon. Friend is making

  717
  arrangements, however, to ensure that as soon as this is given no time will be lost in proceeding with the appointment of the Central and Local Price Regulation Committees and in issuing an Order applying the Act to a number of goods which are most commonly used by the population in general. Meanwhile, I am glad to be able to tell the House that Mr. Raymond Evershed, K.C., has consented to act as Chairman of the Central Price Regulation Committee when it is set up.

  SOLDIERS (SPECTACLES).
  Mr. Saltasked the Secretary of State for War whether soldiers requiring to wear spectacles will be kept out of the front line of attack, in view of the anger to themselves and to their comrades which would be incurred by the breakage or loss of their glasses while in action?
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): No, Sir. A soldier is not posted to a combatant unit unless his sight attains a reasonable standard without glasses. The extra risk incurred by wearing glasses is negligible.

  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS (EVACUATION AREAS).
  Mr. Saltasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what is the position of unemployed teachers in evacuated areas, and how will it affect their pensions; and, in view of their serious financial position, will he take action to assist them especially remembering that theirs is a reserved occupation which prevents them from doing paid war work or being employed in paid posts on Civil Defence?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am not aware that there are many unemployed teachers in the evacuation areas except possibly those from private schools, whose service is not as a rule pensionable under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts. Most teachers in these areas are being employed, pending the re-opening of the schools, in the activities suggested in Circular 1479, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. The reservation of teachers does not prevent them from undertaking forms of paid
  718
  war work which are not covered by the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. Women teachers from private schools are now excluded from the operation of the Schedule.

  BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
  Mr. Lunnasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at many collieries there are burning and blazing pit-heaps; whether there is any common method recommended by his Department for dealing effectively with them in the interests of the health of the people and food production in the areas concerned; and will he consider exercising his powers under the Defence Emergency Act, 1939, to abate this nuisance and danger?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): A comprehensive survey of these pit-heaps has been made by my Department's alkali inspectors and methods of abatement have been established and published in the Chief Inspector's Annual Reports. Much progress has been made in securing abatement particularly since the powers of the Civil Defence Act have been available, and these powers are being exercised wherever necessary.

  EVACUATION (LONDON RATES).
  Sir G. Mitchesonasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the effect of evacuation upon the income from rates of the London County Council and the London borough councils; and whether he has any statement to make upon the matter?
  Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. Preliminary representations have been made to me on this matter. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the question is one which* concerns certain other areas besides London and is under examination by the Association of Local Authorities. My right hon. Friend is not, at present, in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. A. Reed: Will the hon. Lady also look into the question of the increases in wages in reception areas due to these circumstances?
  Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, that matter is also being examined.

  HOUSING (CASTLEFORD).
  Mr. T. Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to the application of the Castleford Urban District Council for permission to proceed with the erection of 104 houses on the Airedale estate; and whether he is aware that these houses are urgently required for families living in houses in respect of which orders under the Housing Acts are operative?
  Miss Horsbrugh: As the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend has had to advise local authorities, for the present, not to take further steps in connection with slum clearance orders which have not reached the stage of local inquiry, to postpone for the time being the. commencement of new houses, and to concentrate on the completion of houses which have reached an advanced stage of construction. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot, at the moment, accede to the application to which the hon. Member refers. I can assure him, however, that my right hon. Friend is anxious that as many houses as possible should be built and that, with that object in view, the housing position is under close and continuous review in relation to the demand on building materials. I am glad to say that at the present time work is still proceeding on more than 30.000 of the houses which were under construction by local authorities when the war began.
  Mr. Smith: Will the Ministry of Health reconsider their decision in this case in view of the fact that the district is very congested and that if no new houses are built the people will be compelled to live in very bad houses for the duration of the war?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Member that this case is being looked into. From my answer he will realise the very great difficulties which exist at the present time, but the question is being kept under review in order that we may press on with houses whenever possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make on the course of today's business?
Sir J. Simon: We desire to obtain the Committee and the remaining stages of the first three Orders on the Paper, and afterwards we hope there will be an opportunity of taking the Second Reading of the Official Secrets Bill [Lords.]Perhaps I may say, for the information of the House, that the Resolution to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report from the Select Committee on the Official Secrets Acts will be taken next week.
Ordered,
"That all the remaining stages of the National Loans Bill may be taken at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[Sir J. Simon.]

OUTSTANDING MEASURES EMERGENCY POWERS.
Sir Richard Acland: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable His Majesty during the present emergency by Order-in-Council to direct that any Bill which has passed certain stages in either House of Parliament in any Session may be introduced into the same House in the following Session and may be thereupon treated in that House as if it had passed in that Session some or all of the stages which it had in fact passed in the previous Session."
This is a Bill to enable His Majesty during the present emergency to direct, by Order-in-Council, that any Bill which has passed certain stages in either House of Parliament in any Session may be introduced into the same House in the following Session, and may thereupon be treated in that House as if it had passed in that Session some or all of the stages which it had, in fact, passed in the previous Session. Since this Motion was put down a number of hon. Members have asked me whether this Bill does not destroy a valuable constitutional right of the Opposition, no matter which party may be in Opposition, namely, their right to defeat a Government, not by force of numbers in the Division Lobby, but by wearing them down by keeping them up at night—night after night, week after week—so that their Bills have not become law when the Session comes to an end. In reply to objections of that kind I would draw attention to the fact that this Bill of mine begins with the words "During the period of the present emergency," and that all the powers contained in it are only for this emergency, and surely there can be no question, as long

721
as the war lasts, of any Opposition employing tactics which are described as "wearing the Government down." Therefore, nothing which is of constitutional value to this House will be harmed under this Bill.
The Bill is in general terms and in terms which apply to any Bill. Any Bill may be dealt with in this way; an Order may be made which will lie upon the Table of the House for 28 days and if not objected to will then become effective. The Bill will then pass through certain stages and it will go forward into the next Session in the same stage. The Bill does contain within itself an exception made in favour of the Criminal Justice Bill which is now before the House, and I think it is clear to anybody that this Bill is introduced with special reference to the position in which we now find ourselves in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. As there are not 28 days left in this Session, I have suggested that an Order might be made with reference to that Bill without it having to lie upon the Table of the House at all, and that seems reasonable to me because if the House should pass the Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce with reference to the Criminal Justice Bill, it would be a fair indication that the House would be in favour of that Bill being introduced into the next Session in the stage in which it is now.
I appreciate that there are in this House many sincere opponents of the Criminal Justice Bill as it now stands, but I do not think they would oppose the Bill which I am now introducing, because I understand that the whole, or almost the whole, of the opposition to this Bill is centred round the Clause which abolishes flogging. I wish this opposition were not here. It would be a magnificent thing if in this time of brutality, horror and tyranny throughout the world it could go out that this country had given up the power to impose flogging. During these last months minorities here and above the Gangway have sacrificed their political views for the sake of national unity. What a maginficent thing it would be if those who are in favour of flogging and who were a minority upon the Committee could have upon this occasion sacrificed their personal views for the sake of securing that national unity of which we so often speak. No doubt, they have
722
been threatened and warned that any continuation of their opposition would jeopardise their chances of promotion.[Interruption.]I am told that this was not done. That is interesting to me and will surely be interesting to many back bench Members on this side of the House who have so often been requested by our Whips not to take a certain line and not to say certain things, not for the sake of our party, but for the sake of the party opposite. I confess it is a surprise to me to learn that in this matter no effort has been made on the other side of the House to quell the opposition by appealling to their public spirit, and by using all those arguments about national unity which are so often addressed to us by our Whips and to which we have listened with such sympathetic and patriotic attention.
The fact that there is opposition has been recognised, and it has been agreed on all hands—it is no secret—that if this Bill is carried forward by this Government in time of war the flogging Clause is to be dropped at the instance of the Government. That being so, I cannot understand why anybody who is opposed to the abolition of flogging should oppose this Bill since we have had an assurance through the usual channels, I think, that the flogging Clause is to be dropped. I think we are all agreed about the Bill. I understand that the Committee upstairs were all agreed except in regard to a few drafting points, which I appreciate will require months of the draftsmen's time. There may be provisions in this Bill which require building—building construction which cannot be undertaken in time of war. I ask that this Bill be passed, because if it is not passed now the Criminal Justice Bill will die in war. If it is passed now that Bill can yet be saved.
Sir Herbert Williams: I am amazed that this proposal should be before the House at this moment. The speech of the hon. Baronet was devoted to another Bill altogether. If proof were ever wanted that Liberalism is really in eclipse it is this Motion. Judging by what I have read in the newspapers, this Session of Parliament will be prorogued and there will be a new Session. At a critical moment the Sergeant-at-Arms in defence of our rights will close the door because the King's representative is seeking to enter this honourable House. It is not

723
by chance that we go through that ceremony whenever there is a Royal Assent and whenever His Majesty opens Parliament, because the Commons of the Houses of Parliament, devoted as we are to His Majesty, and loyal subjects as we are, understand and appreciate the balance of our Constitution. It is easy to carry a Bill forward. In 1932 we carried forward into another Session a Bill of which I did not approve—the London Passenger Transport Board Bill; it was a hybrid Bill. The hon. Baronet comes forward and proposes that we should introduce into this House something which would have horrified Cromwell, namely, the right of His Majesty to come into this House and regulate our procedure, and it is no disloyalty to His Majesty to say that. I am horrified that from the Liberal party should come this extraordinary reactionary constitutional proposal. After all, in a few days' time when a new Session of Parliament is opened we shall hear a Speech of His Majesty and come back here and then Mr. Speaker will read to us the Speech which he officially has heard on our behalf; then, before we can consider for a moment the business which His Majesty has outlined to us, the Clerk will get up and read the Outlawry Bill for the first time, in order to assert our constitutional rights, and transact our business before we consider any-business that His Majesty has directed us to consider. Has the Liberal party entirely forgotten those constitutional principles? I think it has. That is why Liberals occupy one bench opposite instead of the whole of that side of the House.
Question,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable His Majesty during the present emergency by Order-in-Council to direct that any Bill which has passed certain stages in either House of Parliament in any Session may be introduced into the same House in the following Session and may be thereupon treated in that House as if it had passed in that Session some or all of the stages which it had in fact passed in the previous Session,"
put, and negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is no reason at all why the machinery of this Bill should be opposed, provided that the purpose of the machinery is made clear. At earlier stages of the Bill my hon. Friends addressed to the Hosue certain remarks which, as far as I can gather from the replies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, have received practically no consideration whatsoever. Those points related roughly to the question of interest. We appreciate the Chancellor's statement that it is impossible to state in public his intentions regarding interest and other things, but we do think it desirable that some statement of the willingness of the Government to consider the objections raised from these benches should be made to the House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must remind the hon. Member that on the Third Reading of the Bill he cannot talk about what is not in the Bill. His observations must be confined to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Woodburn: Then I shall refer to Clause 1, which provides that the Treasury may raise the money in such manner as it thinks fit. The objection made to that was that it might include the raising of money by a public loan, to which the public will subscribe, not by money of their own but by borrowing from the joint stock banks. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) made this very clear in his speech, and as far as I can gather neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary made the slightest reference to that point. There is the tremendous danger of such a huge inflation as took place during the last war, unless the Treasury are quite clear in their minds that they are going to put some restriction on the borrowing of credit from the joint stock banks in order that money might be re-lent to the
  740
  Government. That brings in the second point, that if there is to be any borrowing from the banks it should be done by the Government direct in such a manner that the Treasury will know exactly what is coming from the banks. In Clause 3 of the Bill it is provided that:
  "The security shall bear such rate of interest as the Treasury may determine."
  The Government have not yet indicated that they have taken into favourable consideration the suggestions made from this side of the House, that the rate of interest should be such as not to burden the country with a debt which will swamp the whole financial structure of the nation. It may be that those who after the war want some upheaval, some disturbance, some collapse of our civilisation in this country, would welcome such an inflation of the currency as would render monetary values of no account. I hope that that is not the view of the Government: in fact I am sure it is not; but from this side of the House we would like some assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are prepared to give consideration to these points, and that they will take such steps as are necessary to prevent an overwhelming inflation and prevent the expenditure of the country's resources by payment of unnecessary interest on manufactured credit by the joint stock banks.
  4.8 p.m.
  Mr. Graham White: It is, perhaps, rather tantalising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary should still leave something to our imagination as to the future course of our finances, but if there has been anything on which opinions expressed in the House have been unanimous, it has been the view that it is essential that the rates of interest should be at a low level. That is indeed a self-evident proposition, because otherwise the Government would be faced after the war with a very heavy burden which would have a retarding effect on the economic recovery of the country. The Government have not contradicted that view or advanced any contrary theory to the low interest rates. Therefore it would be a moderately safe assumption that when the Chancellor opens his box and releases the secrets we shall find that his policy is in accord with the unanimous expression of opinion by

  741
  the House. On the other subject of inflation, it is indeed the expressed policy of the Government to avoid inflation, if they can. That policy can be carried out only by restriction or rationing or withdrawing from private consumption money as released in the form of genuine savings which may be applied to the loans. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that when the secrets are released the policy of the Treasury and the Government will be in accordance with the wishes of the House.
  This Bill does not set the stage for the issuing of loans, but it does clear the way for them in a thorough and complete manner. Disabilities are removed from the path of those who might find themselves in difficulty about lending money. Clause 3, which makes an arrangement for the exchange of securities, enables the Government, if so minded, to effect a rearrangement of our National Debt. No doubt they can, if they wish. approach the holders of some of the form-of loan which are still carrying heavier rates of interest, and so be enabled to reduce the burdens of the country.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When I speak at party meetings in the country and a vote of thanks is moved to me at the end, in returning thanks for that vote of thanks I usually make the very sapient remark that the best vote of thanks they can give to me is to join the party and assist in propagating the good cause. I just pass that suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment. In the earlier stages on this Bill we have made various suggestions to the Chancellor. I appreciate the difficulties that he has in telling the House and the country exactly what he going to do about the loan when it comes. I can only say that he will be doing what I would like him to do most if he will take to heart the lessons that we have been trying to inculcate in his mind, and carry them into effect when the loan is brought out. If he fails to take those lessons to heart and floats the loans in a way different from that which has been suggested, I can assure him that he will come in for a good deal of criticism hereafter.
  4.12 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The House has recognised the inhibitions under which I labour, but
  742
  I wish to do what I can to remove anxiety and to show my appreciation of the suggestions which have been made as to the way in which these powers should be exercised. I shall not attempt to make any new statement. I would rather refer to the speech which I made on the war Budget, which will go to show that some at least of these propositions are not the exclusive proprietary right of hon. Members opposite. I therefore remind the House that on the war Budget I said:
  "While I cannot anticipate the proposals we shall make, I can say that our policy is to borrow from the genuine savings of the people—that is very important—at the lowest rate that we can. That is an essential part of the elaborate plan which is one of the most important parts of our arrangements in connection with winning the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1939; col. 1607. Vol. 351.]
  The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has told us how he replies to votes of thanks at his meetings. In my case I shall conclude by saying,"Now let us thank the gentleman in the Chair for the able way in which he has presided over our proceedings."
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go away thinking that we are satisfied with what has been said. We still press him to see that he does not yield on the particular point of the rate of interest. This Bill is in the hands of the Treasury. Many on these benches are not completely trustful of the Treasury when it comes to borrowing money. To put it plainly, we think that the Treasury at times adopts a much too benevolent attitude towards financial interests. At a time like this the rate of interest ought to be as low as possible. People must lend at the lowest rate of interest. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer must state what the rate of interest is to be. It is not for him to ask "Will you lend us the money at 3 per cent., 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent.?" He must lay down, quite definitely, that he cannot go above 2½ per cent. If he can fix the limit even lower than that, good luck to him. We are making our protest against any higher limit, before it becomes too late. We have found so often that the Government commit themselves, and then say to their supporters, "We have pledged ourselves now, and if you vote against

  743
  us it means the resignation of the Government." We want the lowest possible rate of interest consistent with the proper carrying on of the war; and, I repeat, the rate must not be higher than 2½ per cent.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords.]

    CLAUSE 2.— [Power to reduce number of members of statutory bodies, etc.]
    4.17 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "make with respect to," and to insert "on an application made on behalf of."
    This Amendment and the other Amendment in my name—in page 2, line 7, after "Act," insert "make,"—which is consequential, carry out an undertaking which I gave yesterday on the Second Reading, and ensures that Orders-in-Council under Sub-section (1,a)will be made only on an application made on behalf of the particular corporation or body. I think that the suggestion was considered acceptable yesterday.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the Amendment. This was a matter of some anxiety for quite a number of people, who thought that, by Order-in-Council, the directorate of statutory councils might be altered without their being consulted.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment fully carries out the pledge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave yesterday. I should like to ask you one question, Sir Dennis, with regard to the form of the Amendment. We are now leaving out the word "make," and the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to insert it by a later Amendment. I understand that there is some difficulty about that
    744
    Amendment and an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and Mile End (Mr. Frankel)—in page 2, line 7, after "Act," insert:
    "and after consultation with any interests entitled to nominate or appoint any person as a member of such corporation or body."
    The Chairman: We have not come to that yet, but my attention has been drawn to the matter. It may be necessary to take those two Amendments in reverse order from that in which they appear on the Paper.
    Mr. Ede: Thank you very much for that announcement. We accept the words which the Attorney-General has proposed for dealing with this point.
    The Chairman: I think that it will perhaps be less objectionable than altering the order of these Amendments. and that it will make the wording rather better, if in the Amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Frankel) we leave out the word "and," at the beginning of the words which it is proposed to insert.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 7, after "Act," insert "make."—[The Attorney-General.]
    4.21 p.m.
    Mr. Frankel: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after the word last inserted, to insert:
    "after consultation with any interests entitled to nominate or appoint any person as a member of such corporation or body."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in the Second Reading Debate yesterday, made the suggestion which is now embodied in the Amendment before the Committee. Many of these organisations are composed mainly, and some are composed entirely, of nominees of local authorities. We feel that that alters the conditions which affect local elections, in so far as it is then easily possible to carry out elections in a normal manner. I am quite sure that, although we realise it is necessary in these times to give up certain privileges and democratic methods of election, nobody wants to use the war situation in order to get rid of more of these rights and privileges than are necessary. In the view of Members on this side, if local authorities were

    745
    not consulted with regard to these orders it would be most unfair, and quite unnecessary.
    The Attorney-General was good enough to recognise the importance of the point made yesterday, to the effect that the authorities concerned should make application before Orders-in-Council are made; but if a chartered or other body is made up of members of local authorities, the House, I believe, will agree with me, it would not be right for those individuals to be able to ask the Lord President of the Council to make an application with a view to continuing their own membership, without application being made first of all to the authority which they represent on that body. I believe the point was made very clearly yesterday, and I expected to see an Amendment in the name of the Attorney-General on the Order Paper to-day. In that case, it would not have been necessary for me to move this Amendment. I hope that, after consideration, the Attorney-General will assure the Committee that, wherever possible, consultations, not merely theoretical but of the fullest nature, will be held with these local authorities before even an application is made to the Lord President of the Council on behalf of the bodies concerned.
    4.25 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: May I say, in the first instance, that it seems to me unlikely that where a body is constituted by simple nomination that body would make an application under Sub-section (1, a)of this Clause? In normal circumstances— and I see hon. Gentlemen facing me who are much more familiar than I am with local government—I should have thought that there would be little difficulty in carrying out the process of a local authority renominating existing members or nominating new ones because of the war. Therefore, although one is dealing in this Clause with a large variety of bodies, I should have thought that one might have said that it was not very probable that, where the case was one of simple nomination by a local authority, the body would not apply for a suspension of nomination; and if, indeed, it did apply it would then, of course, have to satisfy the authorities that it was
    "necessary or expedient for the purposes of securing economy or efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the corporation."
    I can certainly give the most unqualified assurance that in the sort of case which
    746
    was put forward in the Debate yesterday, in regard to bodies which can easily be got at, in many cases not very large in number, steps will be taken to see that they are consulted. I find it difficult to believe that a body such as the Lea Conservancy Board, which was referred to yesterday, would put forward a proposal of this kind—
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that the Lea Conservancy Board, in anticipation of this Bill, is already on the job?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, too, though he may not have been officially consulted. In all cases those that should be consulted will be consulted, and the case put to them. Clearly, the nominating authorities ought to be consulted.
    Mr. Frankel: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that a local authority could renominate or remove a member. In fact, that is not the case. Many members are elected for a term of years to a certain body; but if that body gets power to go on for a further term of years, the nominating body has no power to remove the person whom it nominated three, four or five years ago.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that that is inconsistent with what I have said. The distinction I was endeavouring to draw was this. There is the case where members are elected by a body of ratepayers or something of that sort. In that case, there may be difficulties arising out of the war. But I should have thought that if the way of getting a member was nomination by a local authority at intervals of time, it would be very difficult to say that the ordinary process should not go on, and that the particular member's term of office should be prolonged because it was necessary
    "for the purposes of securing economy or efficiency in the carrying on of the work of the … body."
    I have given an assurance that it is the intention, in working this Clause, to take steps to see that all proper bodies are consulted; and in the case of nominated local authorities, I do not think that any difficulty will arise. The objections which I suggest to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and to the Committee, are these. There are, for instance, some cases—the General Medical Council

    747
    is one—where there would be a very large number of interests who would have to be consulted under this Clause for what might be purely technical and minor alterations. There is the further point that statutory consultation is not a very satisfactory provision when you are dealing with Bills of this kind, where all sorts of varied instances and methods of appointment exist. There is the difficulty, when appointment is made after , consultation with the Lord Chancellor, that you might get—and it is very desirable that we should not produce any unnecessarily long technicalities—an argument as to what precisely constituted consultation within the meaning of the Act. I think that that is an objection which has a little force.
    The Amendment—and I appreciate the reasons for it—have been so drafted as to attempt to confine itself to cases of nomination or appointment as distinct from election. The hon. Gentleman, when he intervened just now, used the word "election," and I think there might well be cases where there would be ambiguity as to whether it was an election or nomination or appointment. It may be that a chamber of commerce or a board or an actual body might hold an election. It might not be an election in the ordinary sense, and there might be some doubt as to whether it was a nomination or an appointment. With these instances, and in view of my assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, and may I, by way of anticipation, say—and I think it will meet some of the objections—that I am proposing to ask the Committee to accept a new Clause providing that Orders-in-Council should be laid before Parliament. That will provide an additional safeguard, if anything should be done without proper consultation. It will, at any rate, afford a Parliamentary occasion when objection can be taken. I, therefore, hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
    4.33 P.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the care with which he has elucidated the matters raised by this Amendment. I understand that his undertaking is that, where local authorities are involved in the event of some corporate body making application, the constituent local authorities would be
    748
    consulted before an Order was made. I want to know exactly how far that pledge goes. May I give him the kind of case I have in mind? Take a body like the Thames Conservancy or the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, or the Metropolitan Water Board. Groups of local authorities have the right of appointment of a less number of members than there are local authorities in the electoral college. For instance, in the case of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, the local authorities owning electricity undertakings in greater London have the right of appointing six members although there are far more than six local authorities concerned. In consequence, the electoral college is constituted on a certain basis in which local authorities have voting powers varying with their electrical and not electoral importance, and an election takes place. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, in a case like that, consult each of the local authorities in the electoral college concerned. Unless he does so, I do not see how he can be assured that he had in fact got the views of the local authorities who were entitled to appointment. We are very considerably helped by the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he proposes to accept the new Clause, and in view of that fact, if he can assure us on the point I have just raised, my hon. Friend will, I understand, not press his Amendment.
    4 35 P.m.
    The Attorney-General: I do not want to be pressed to be too specific. In the case which the hon. Gentleman put, I gather that there is an electoral college which represents the constituent local authorities.
    Mr. Ede: Yes, and it is only constituted when an election is on.
    The Attorney-General: If there were in existence some representative committee which could be regarded as representing the constituents behind, I think it would be reasonable if an approcah were made to the representative committee, but in the absence of a committee, clearly the only alternative would be to notify the various local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Frankel: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Emergency statutes for Universities and colleges.)
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, after "behalf," to insert, "of the governing body."
    I raised a point on Second Reading yesterday which the learned Attorney-General kindly promised to consider, and the words that I now propose to insert are intended to make that clear. It is important that the application should come from the authority of the University in which, by charter or otherwise, the responsibility in matters of importance is vested. It is also important, therefore, that it should be made quite clear that any application comes on behalf of the governing body of the university. It is a very simple point, and I hope very much that the Attorney-General will be willing to accept it in order to make the position clear.
    4.38 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend said that the issue raised by his Amendment is a simple one, but, unfortunately, the constitutions of our various universities are not simple, and it is on that account that I really have to recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment, while appreciating what my hon. Friend has in mind. The London University has a court and a senate. The court, I think, deals primarily with property and finance, and the senate is primarily a statute making body, and, of course, there is a council. On the other hand, in other universities, the court is the statute-making body, and there may be a senate, and in most universities there is in the background some body like convocation or council, the latter body being composed of graduates in whom for certain purposes ultimate sovereignty presides. Therefore, the insertion of these words might create difficulties and confusion rather than simplify the procedure. I appreciate the point that is behind it, but I think that one can say quite confidently that there is no likelihood of any officer of a university or vice-principal putting forward
    750
    an application except after reference to, or consultation with, or approval by, the appropriate authority in the particular university charged with the consideration of that matter. I think that one can trust those who run our universities to refer to the proper bodies, and also the new Clause to which I made passing reference on the previous Amendment may have some reference here, in that the Order-in-Council will lie on the Table and there will be a parliamentary occasion for objections to be raised if anything has been done which ought not to be done. I hope that in view of that my hon. Friend will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Harvey: In view of the assurance of the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.40 p.m.
    Sir John Graham Kerr: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to add:
    "(4) In respect of the Scottish universities nothing in this Section shall interfere with the right of the general councils of the universities to have all proposed ordinances and regulations submitted to them for their observations. Should His Majesty, by Order-in-Council, make any reduction of the period within which the general councils may consider and make representations on any such ordinances and regulations, it shall be lawful for the business committees of the councils to make representations on behalf of the councils."
    The universities form one of the most cherished institutions in Scotland and deservedly, and as regards the great criterion by which the importance of British institutions is often judged, namely, their age, they have very considerable claims. I do not suggest that they are as ancient as two of the universities of England, but they are of respectable age, and three of the four are pre-Reformation in their foundation. Although I do not assert that they are equal to English universities in age, when I tried to find out definitely what precisely is the age of the English universities I met with no success. In fact, I was reminded of that conversation which occurs in one of the classics of English literature when a young lady called Topsy was asked, "Do you know who made you?" and she replied, "Nobody as I knows on. I 'spect I growed." It seems to me that that is the case with the ancient

    751
    English universities; they seemed just to grow and gradually develop, whereas in the Scottish universities there is a definite procreative act which is on historical record in the form of a definite document showing that they were pre-Reformation.
    It is not merely on account of their age that we Scots cherish our universities; it is also because of the effect they have had on the development of the world and its civilisation. I cannot forget that in the university with which I was associated for many years on Clydeside in Scotland, it was from the walls of that university that emerged the great discovery that made the steam-engine a practical proposition industrially and thereby made the whole of the industrial developments of last century possible. I cannot forget that it was to that same town that the "Charlotte Dundas," the first practical steamship, pulled two 70-ton barges for a distance of nine miles against a gale of wind that stopped all traffic otherwise; and I cannot again forget that it was a professor in that university who, in Glasgow Royal Infirmary, made those discoveries that laid the foundation of the whole of modern surgery. There is not one of the old factories of the nineteenth century, not one of the steamships that plough the seas, not one of the hospitals in the world that does not constitute a monument to the work for civilisation that has emerged from that Scottish university.
    These universities are strongly democratic in their constitution. The president of their governing body is elected by the undergraduates, and the general body of graduates, which we call the General Council, has important powers. It is they who elect the Chancellor. They elect the representatives in Parliament and they elect an equal number of members to the governing body to that which is elected by the teaching staff. The General Council has the right to consider any changes that are made in the management of the University, and new ordinances that are created are submitted to the General Council. Changes in existing ordinances are submitted to the General Council, and it has the right to offer its observations and advice on them. Similarly when the Secretary of State receives the report upon the statistics and the finances of the University for the year, he has to submit the
    752
    account to the General Council. Thus, the General Council possesses very important powers, and the purpose of this proposed Amendment is to secure those powers.
    I have been told that there is a clause in a draft Order-in-Council, which is proposed to follow the passage of this Bill, which safeguards those powers; but I am advised that although that clause will safeguard the powers so far as that particular Order-in-Council is concerned. there is no guarantee that that protective clause will be repeated in any subsequent Orders-in-Council that may be issued under the Act. It is on these grounds that I move the Amendment, and I express the hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. G. A. Morrison: I wish to support the Amendment. The purpose is to conserve, as my hon. Friend has said, the existing rights of the General Councils in the Scottish Universities. The General Council of a Scottish University may be defined as the whole body of its graduates. There are other members, such as the Chancellors and the teaching staffs, but this is the particular body where graduates find their place and may give expression to their opinions. By the University Acts the Councils have, and rightly have, their statutory place among the bodies interested in University administration. The General Council is empowered by Statute "to take into consideration any question affecting the well-being and prosperity of the University, and to make representations from time to time on such questions to the University Court, which shall consider the same and return its deliverance thereon to the Council."
    It is important that the interest of graduates in their alma mater should be maintained and strengthened by every possible means.
    This Bill has caused some uneasiness. As the right hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench yesterday said, the powers asksd for are very wide, and in emergency conditions they might fall into the hands of very small committees. Graduates are afraid that under the Bill the general councils may be wiped out for the period of the war. It seems to me that it would be a calamity if the general body of graduates were deprived of the right to make repre

    753
    sentations on such changes as are permitted by Clause 3. By this Amendment we seek to have it made clear that the power of the general body of graduates to make representations to the university courts, or any other bodies temporarily acting for them, is conserved. The purpose of the last part of the Amendment is this: the general councils hold only two statutory meetings a year, although they may be summoned at other times. Recognising that the need for swift action may arise at any moment, we have made the suggestion that the business committees, which usually consist of graduates residing in or near the university centres, who can be readily summoned at short notice, shall be empowered to act for the councils. I do not think there is anything in the Amendment which would cause difficulty or delay, and I have pleasure in supporting it.
    4.52 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. J. S. Reid): The point which has been raised by my two hon. Friends who represent the Scottish Universities is one of very considerable importance. I am sure no one in this House would dissent from the tribute paid by the Senior Member to the importance of the Scottish Universities, but the matter is not quite so simple as the Amendment might suggest to one not aware of the intricacies of the constitution of our universities. Under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, the general council occupies a very important position. There are, however, other bodies which also come into the picture, the senatus and the councils of other universities, which may be affected by a proposed ordinance by the court of one university, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be rather unfortunate to single out one of these interests for special mention in the Bill, because that might rather prejudice the position of the senatus or the councils of the other universities to be consulted in turn. If this House singles out one body for consultation it weakens to some extent the claims of other bodies not mentioned. I can, however, assure my hon. Friends that the claims of the general council will not be forgotten.
    It appears in what was said by my hon. Friend the Senior Member for the Scottish Universities that in a Draft Order, which
    754
    I have not seen, the claims of the General Council have been specifically remembered, and I can hardly suppose that, with our well known desire to follow precedent, if that does become a precedent, it will be altered without due cause. Accordingly, I would suggest, not because I have any doubt about the importance of the General Council, but rather because I think it is undesirable to mention one interest and leave out others, that this special interest should not be mentioned. I give a firm undertaking that when the draft comes to be settled by those in authority in the Government the position of the General Council will be most clearly borne in mind. It would not be proper to go beyond that assurance until the draft comes before us for approval, but I can certainly say that the claims will not be forgotten.
    4.56 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I think some expression of thanks should be given to the Senior Member for the Scottish Universities for the very interesting and stimulating history he gave of universities in Scotland and the large extent to which they have been responsible for those inventions which have brought the world to its present terrible pass. It was refreshing to get an acknowledgement that, after all, we were a civilised people in this country of England, with ancient, established universities, before universities were established in Scotland. I can well understand that the claims of our ancient universities in England are that, like Topsy, they were never born but just grow'd. I was astonished at the suggestion of the hon. Member that James Watt at the moment that he experimented with his mother's kettle was a member of the University of Glasgow. I know that Scott alludes to a Douglas who, a bishop at 13 years of age "gave rude Scotland Virgil's page," but I did not know that in the eighteenth century persons were in the Scottish Universities quite so young. I hope the hon. Member has been satisfied with what the Solicitor-General has said, because I am sure that in view of the treat he gave to the Committee he is entitled not merely to our thanks but to some practical expression of it in the form of an appropriate concession.
    Sir J. Graham Kerr: In view of the assurances given by the Solicitor-General, and with the consent of my hon. Friend who supported the Amendment, and the

    755
    Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Orders-in-Council.)
    Every Order-in-Council made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if either House of Parliament, within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after such an Order-in-Council as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the Order be annulled, the Order shall thereupon cease to have effect except as respects things previously done or omitted to be done, without prejudice, however, to the making of a new Order.—[Mr. Dalton.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This matter was well ventilated on the Second Reading of the Bill and it is not necessary to enlarge upon it. In a sentence, what we desire to provide is that this House shall retain some measure of control over the very miscellaneous and multifarious Orders-in-Council that may be issued if this Bill becomes law. Although we have no doubt that in the great majority of cases neither House of Parliament will desire to intervene or interrupt these Orders, we thought that we would like to put this new Clause on the Order Paper, and we hope the Attorney-General will accept it.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: As I indicated when dealing with one of the earlier Amendments, we recommend the Committee to accept the proposed new Clause subject to a manuscript Amendment which I shall ask the Committee to accept as a Sub-section to it. I think the purpose of it will be clear. Some of the Orders-in-Council, and particularly some of those applying to the universities, may be regarded as rules within the Rules Publication Act. I do not think that is the case with Orders under Clause 2, but the university ones might be. If they were, it would mean the interposition of a further 40 days' delay before they could be laid before Parliament. I do not think that the Rules Publication Act was ever intended to apply to matters of that kind.
    756
    It would be unreasonable to ask the parties concerned to have a further 40 days' delay. I hope there will be no objection to agreeing to this new Clause, but I shall move to insert an Amendment in it.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 6, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, shall not apply to any Order-in-Council made under this Act."
    Amendment to the proposed new Clause agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

  SCHEDULE.
  5.3 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 4 and 5.
  This is an Amendment to which my hon. Friends and I attach very considerable importance. Its effect would be to remove the Electricity Commissioners from the Schedule to the Bill. I am pleased that we have present with us, to assist us in the discussion of this Amendment, the Minister of Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Shipping and his Parliamentary Secretary, although the latter is occupying a somewhat modest position on the bench behind. I am sure, from what was said yesterday and at Question time on 8th November, that Members of the House will realise that the position of the Chairman of the Electricity Commissioners—he is also Director-General of Shipping—is a matter oh which the House is entitled to the very fullest information.
  The last thing I want to do, as one interested in electricity, is to deprive the Electricity Commissioners in any way of the services of Sir Cyril Hurcomb. I have had the pleasure of working with him, both when he was at the Ministry of Transport and since he has been Chairman of the Commissioners. No words could express too highly the appreciation one has of the ability with which he discharges whatever function the Government think fit to impose upon him. I gathered at Question time, on 8th November, in reply to a supplementary question of mine, that before the present arrangement was reached the right hon. and

  757
  gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport had consulted several hon. Friends of mine. I asked the following supplementary:
  "Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the job of being Chairman of the Electricity Commission at the present time demands the full-time duties of this gentleman?"
  The answer given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was:
  "This course has been taken after consultation with the electricity industry; and I may say that I have consulted at least two prominent Members of the hon. Gentleman's party opposite. We believe that it is in the best interests of the industry to keep Sir Cvril Hurcomb as titular Chairman of the Electricity Commission at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1939; col. 202; Vol. 353.]
  The impression conveyed to my mind and to the House was that the consultation took place before the decision was reached in regard to Sir Cyril Hurcomb. It is very difficult to say who are prominent members of any party. I have made careful inquiries, and I have found two colleagues who sit beside me on the Front Bench who might be suspected of being to a certain extent prominent—one is an hon. Friend and the other is a right hon. Friend—who were consulted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. My hon. Friends says that he passed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on to my right hon. Friend with that deference to superior authority which is always becoming, even in this House. They assure me—and this is the important point which I want to make clear from the point of view of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend—that this consultation with them did not take place until after the decision to send Sir Cyril Hurcomb to the Ministry of Shipping had been taken. At the time they were consulted the matter was not fluid and capable of very easy adjustment.
  The Electricity Commissioners were constituted under Section 1 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, for the purpose of
  "promoting, regulating, and supervising the supply of electricity."
  Sub-section (2) provides that they shall not exceed five in number; Sub-section (3) provides that three of the commissioners shall be whole-time officers; Subsection (4) provides that three of the
  758
  commissioners shall be selected for practical, commercial, and scientific knowledge and wide business experience including that of electrical supply; Sub-section (6) provides that the commissioners may act by two of their number and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
  The position for some months past—I am not sure that it does not now reach into years—has been that there were only three commissioners, including the chairman. With Sir Cyril Hurcomb's departure to what must be for all practical purposes a whole-time post as Director-General of Shipping, only two commissioners are left, and they can act only by two. In the event of one of those two being ill, or in any other way incapacitated, the commissioners would be unable to act. We are told, of course, that Sir Cyril Hurcomb could be brought back to give decisions of major importance. I do not know that that is not nearly the height of irresponsibility—I would almost have thought impracticability—in the conduct of the commission. Clearly, if the present chairman is to advise the Minister on matters of major importance he must be in a position to give a substantial amount of time to considering the evidence on the various matters concerned. It is not fair to the electricity supply undertakers or the electricity industry, or to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, that they should have to depend for decisions of major importance upon a chairman whose main thought must at the moment be given to questions of shipping and to the issues that are raised in that Ministry.
  The two other gentlemen are very well known to me and I wish to speak of them in terms of the very highest respect. it must not be thought that I do not regard them as exceedingly suitable persons to hold positions as Electricity Commissioners at a time when the Commission is reasonably fully constituted; but they do represent a narrow experience as compared with the wide issues of public policy which the Commissioners have from time to time to take into their consideration. One of them, the deputy-chairman, was for 26 years a partner in the firm of Kennedy and Donkin, consulting engineers—between 1908 and 1934. The other gentleman, Mr. Morley New, has some experience, although not of the very widest kind, in municipal

  759
  electricity supply. Those are the two remaining Commissioners after the withdrawal of Sir Cyril Hurcomb.
  It is highly important not that there should be some possibility of reducing their number, as may be done by an Order made under the Bill, but that steps should be taken at the very earliest possible moment to strengthen the Commission. I know there is a feeling in some parts of the industry that it would be a good thing if the Commissioners were put into cold storage for the period of the war, so that the industry could conduct itself without what the persons to whom I now allude regard as the interference of the Commissioners. I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it may be very desirable at the present time that the Commissioners should be strengthened. No one knows the duties that some unexpected turn of the war may throw upon the Commissioners, in the preparation and examining of schemes and in submitting to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appropriate advice upon them.
  I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider one matter which is an inheritance from a distant past. The Electric Lighting Act, 1888, enabled a local authority which had obtained an Order for the supply of electricity to its district to hand that Order over to a company to run. At the end of 45 years the local authority was to have the right of purchasing the undertaking from the company. Inasmuch as a great number of those Orders, the earliest Orders, in respect of districts which were then reasonably well-developed, and which have since become highly developed, were granted in the nineties, the 45 years are now coming to an end in a very large number of cases. So far as the County of London is concerned, the position has been stabilised until 1971, but in the area outside London, the remainder of the area controlled by the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, no fewer than 42 of those purchase rights mature within the next five years.
  They affect 10 companies and 23 local authorities. These purchase rights can only be exercised after consultation now with the Electricity Commissioners, and if they are exercised in a certain way there has to be an Order by the Elec
  760
  tricity Commissioners. In any event there has to be consideration by the Commissioners of the financing of any such arrangement. The Electricity Commission is the body which sanctions loans for this purpose. I want to reinforce what I have said by referring to a conversation which I had recently with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I was ill-advised enough to put a question on the Order Paper asking how many sanctions had been granted by the Electricity Commissioners during the months of September and October, and as a result of that the Parliamentary Secretary took me into one of the more secret parts of the Palace of Westminster and explained to me that I really ought to be very careful about probing so deeply into the inner recesses of Government administration, because there was no telling what use the enemy might make of the information. For a moment I was seriously perturbed lest I might be handed over to the tender mercies of the Attorney-General, as was the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys).
  Apparently, the way in which these loans are dealt with at the present time is regarded as a very important matter. I could well understand the point if I had asked for details in regard to certain parts of the country—the way in which the action of the Commissioners might help or impede the supply of electricity to munition factories and to any places where a shifting of the population may have taken place. I suggest that the reasons I have adduced are serious reasons for considering not the weakening of either the numbers or personnel of the Commission but a strengthening of that body. As to the position of Sir Cyril Hurcomb, I understand that the real difficulty is that his salary as Chairman of the Commissioners is higher than the salary he will get as Director-General of Shipping. I am quite sure that there is no hon. Member who would say that we should call upon the Chairman of the Electricity Commission to leave that job and go to another for the public advantage and lose what, I understand, is a substantial sum of money, in the process. If there is any difficulty on that score I am sure it would be far better for the Minister to be quite frank with the Committee and say that we really must preserve Sir Cyril Hurcomb's position as

  761
  Chairman of the Electricity Commission, so that he can go back to it at the end of the war and not lose money in the meantime.
  Speaking for my hon. Friends and myself no objection would be raised to any arrangement of that kind. It would be infinitely preferable to making him responsible for giving advice without being able to give his whole time to the consideration of the intricate questions which are involved. We should frankly prefer some way of dealing with the matter whereby he is withdrawn from the Electricity Commission for the period of the war on the clearest understanding that when war ends his services can be dispensed with at the Ministry of Shipping and he can be reinstated as Chairman of the Electricity Commission. That would be a better solution of the difficulty than the one which we understand is at present under consideration. All those connected with the electrical industry will be reluctant to lose Sir Cyril Hurcomb for any length of time. Vital as electricity is to this country we recognise that in the present circumstances of the nation shipping must have priority, and as Sir Cyril Hurcomb had extensive and successful experience of shipping during the last war it is highly desirable that, as he is still available, he should bring his undoubted gifts to the public service in the Department of the Ministry of Shipping.
  We have always felt that the national control of electricity was a matter of vital public policy. What I have said with regard to purchase rights and the way they are maturing is some indication why certain interests in the electricity supply world may very well desire that the whole of the electrical administration shall be put: into cold storage for a period which would get them over some of these purchase dates. We feel that the existence of war can be no excuse for depriving the public of rights which were secured to them as long ago as 1888, and that if anything is to be done with regard to cold storage it is advisable to suspend the dates for the exercise of these purchase rights to cover whatever period is occupied by the war. Then, in normal times, nobody's rights in the matter would be prejudiced. We should prefer that they should be exercised at the dates already provided for, but if in the circumstances that is not possible I suggest that what
  762
  I have put before the Committee is a reasonable way of dealing with the position. I trust that the Committee will realise that nothing I have said is to be construed in the slightest way as a reflection on the capacity of either of the three existing Commissioners. I have endeavoured to make it plain that we recognise the difficult position in which they are placed. It is highly desirable in the interests of all concerned, including the commissioners, that the frankest possible exposition of the position which has arisen should be made by the Minister and- I trust that after what has been said he will be able to withdraw these two lines from the Bill.
  5.24 p.m.
  Sir Percy Harris: I want to fortify what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. He has done a real public service in calling attention to this matter. I also want to endorse the tribute he has paid to the qualities and abilities of Sir Cyril Hurcomb. We know what valuable work he did as Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. The efficiency of that organisation is largely due to his administrative abilities in the early days. He laid the foundation on sound lines. He is obviously suited by training and experience to be the chairman of such an important body as the Electricity Commission. The hon. Member is right to insist that the Commission is not properly constituted if it is limited to members with engineering experience and training. When the Commission was first instituted one of its first members was put in primarily because of his financial training and experience—Sir H. Hay ward. He left an important position on the London County Council to become one of the first members of the Commission, and he was able to give them the advantage of his ability and training in the delicate matters of local government finance, which is as important a part of the work of the Commission as is that of deciding on the technical and electrical development of this great industry.
  There happens to be a way out. We do not want to do anything which will mean that in giving his great services to the Ministry of Shipping Sir Cyril Hurcomb will suffer financial loss. On the other hand, it is most important that this great industry and its future development should not be hindered by the absence

  763
  of what may be described as the civil side in working out policy. I suggest that if the Minister can find someone with financial experience, some official connected with local government who is coming to the end of his period of service in local government, he is the kind of man who could do useful work in the war years. It may be that if the war should unfortunately drag on, the development of electricity will become increasingly important. The experience of the last war was that with the shifting of the location of industry different forms of power to what was required in ordinary peace times became urgent, and therefore, if the Minister will accept the Amendment, or meet the spirit of it by some gesture, he will get over what is a practical difficulty. It would be a disaster if the services of Sir Cyril Hurcomb were in any way curtailed or decreased on this most important department. The Department of Shipping will be increasing in importance as the months go by but, on the other hand, we do not want to see the great electrical industry suffering because the Chairman has had this exceptional training and experience. I suggest that here is an opportunity of meeting a practical suggestion and I hope the Minister will take advantage of it or put forward some practical alternative.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I should like, first of all, to say how much I appreciate the tribute which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has paid not only to Sir Cyril Hurcomb, but to his two colleagues on the Electricity Commission, and I am very glad that the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) also associated himself with those extremely well-deserved encomiums. I shall be as frank with the Committee as the hon. Member for South Shields has been, and meet him in the spirit in which his speech was made. The reason for the proposal which I have put before the Committee is precisely that which the hon. Gentleman has stated; it is to deal with the situation created by the transfer of Sir Cyril Hurcomb to the Ministry of Shipping. The hon. Member for South Shields was good enough to make for me, in much better language than I could, a good part of my case.
  764
  Sir Cyril Hurcomb is a man with very unique experience, and when it was decided to set up a Ministry of Shipping, I was asked whether Sir Cyril could be spared to assume the office of Director-General. The Committee will have no difficulty in believing me when I say that I was extremely loth to contemplate the departure of Sir Cyril from the chairmanship of the Electricity Commission, where I know, even in the short time I have been Minister of Transport, he has done very fine work indeed; but as the hon. Member for South Shields very truly said, it was quite patent that at the present time the interests of the Ministry of Shipping must come first. Therefore, I had no difficulty whatever in deciding that I must raise no objection to the release of Sir Cyril Hurcomb to take over these vitally important duties. The question with which I was then confronted was what was the best arrangement that could be made in the interests of the electricity industry, for which I am the Minister responsible; and after consulting Sir Cyril Hurcomb and other people, I came to the conclusion that, at any rate as far as I can see at present, the interests of the electricity industry would be best served by retaining him in the titular chairmanship of the Commission. I very much appreciate the generous attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the question of salary, and I should like to assure him and the Committee that we are not doing this because of any difficulty in regard to salary. We appreciate that that matter could be adjusted. My sole motive in making the proposal is to do what I believe to be best for the electricity industry.
  The hon. Member for South Shields described to the Committee the origin and functions of the Electricity Commissioners, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what he said. Immediately prior to the war, there were three whole-time Commissioners, including the chairman, and they had a staff of 142 people. The existence of a state of war has obliged the Commissioners to put on one side, at any rate temporarily, some major questions of electricity policy which otherwise would undoubtedly have been engaging their attention, and mine as well. For instance, the reorganisation of electricity distribution is one those major questions, and

  765
  another is the question of holding companies in the electricity industry. Hon. Members will remember that before the war the Government were proposing to introduce a Bill dealing with the reorganisation of electricity distribution, and shortly after I assumed office as Minister of Transport; I assured the House, in answer to a question, that the Government regarded this as a matter of major importance with which they intended to deal as soon as circumstances permitted.
  But apart from the disappearance, at any rate pro tem,oi these major problems, there has been a change in the other work falling upon the Commissioners. That is in connection with what one may call their more routine duties in regard to loan sanctions and sanctions for overhead lines, both of which in the normal course of events provide the Commissioners with a good deal of administrative work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly issued injunctions to public bodies that they should limit loans to cases of pressing public need or war requirements, and these injunctions have naturally been taken into account by the undertakers, who might otherwise have been putting forward applications which would have been justified in peace time. At the outbreak of war, a very large number of applications for sanctions for overhead lines were outstanding, but in the altered conditions of to-day, undertakers in general are pressing only those which are of urgent national importance, that is to say, for things such as munition factories, where the questions involved would be technical engineering problems, with which, I agree with the hon. Member opposite, the other two Commissioners are particularly fitted to deal, and which are not questions of major policy.
  Like some other public departments, but perhaps not all, the Commissioners have found some reduction in the correspondence on general electricity affairs which they received from the public, and of the 142 members of the Commission's staff, 54 have up to the present gone to join the Forces or to employment on war work in other Government Departments, and it has not been found necessary to replace them. I think these facts show that the war has appreciably reduced the day-to-day work of the Electricity Commission, and the possible new
  766
  duties referred to by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), whose speech last night I read very carefully, would be very largely of a technical character which, I think, the other two Commissioners, by common consent, could very effectively undertake. Naturally, I should be the last person in the world to want to work with an Electricity Commission which was understaffed either in quantity or in quality, because if anything went wrong I am the person who, to use a popular American phrase, would have to "take the rap." I assure the Committee that my interests lie entirely on the side of seeing that this Commissian is an efficient body to do the work it has to do, in every sense of the word, but I must say frankly that the inquiries which I-have made show that the two whole-time Commissioners who are left, to whose ability we have already heard tributes, together with the extremely experienced and efficient secretary, ought to be able to carry on the day-to-day business of the Commission, and I will take the risk of saying that I am satisfied that they are.
  There is then, of course, the question of major policy. I am assured by Sir Cyril Hurcomb himself—and here again, I think the Committee will feel that he is in as good a position as anybody to judge—that, consistent with his whole-time duties in the Ministry of Shipping, he will find it possible to see that no question of major policy is submitted to me as Minister on which he has not had an opportunity to pronounce. I agree with the Committee that a very good case can be made in theory for saying that one man cannot do two jobs, and that if he is whole-time at the Ministry of Shipping, it is not possible for him to give some time each week to me; but I hope the Committee will recognise that in war time it has often been found before that people can always do a little more than they were expected to do. I will say frankly that, as at present advised, I would prefer to rely upon the fact that Sir Cyril Hurcomb was available, so to speak, round the corner for any question of major policy than to make any other arrangement which I conceive to be possible at the moment. I fully realise that I am not the only pebble on the beach and that the electricity industry itself has a right to have just as much say in this matter as the Minister. Yesterday morn

  767
  ing, I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with a body of persons including representatives of three main bodies—first, the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association; secondly, the Joint Committee of Company Associations; and last, but not least, the Conference of Joint Electricity Authorities, Joint Advisory Boards, and Joint Committees. I am assured—and I do not think it can be contradicted—that those three bodies together may be said to represent the electricity industry.
  Mr. Ede: They might claim to represent the supply industry.
  Sir H. Williams: Not the manufacturers.
  Mr. Ede: Nor the consumers.
  Captain Wallace: Not the manufacturers or consumers. I think the Committee will consider that it is an important point, and one which I am entitled to stress, to say that these three bodies together, having had the situation put to them as frankly as I have put it to the Committee to-day, feel satisfied that the arrangement which I propose—that Sir Cyril Hurcomb should remain titular chairman of the Commission and that the number of whole-time Commissioners should be reduced to two under the arrangement proposed in the Bill—is satisfactory to the industry at the present time and in the best interests of the industry. I realise, however, the force of the argument put by two hon. Members opposite and by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, and I will say that, although I am satisfied that these are the best arrangements in the interests of the industry which I can make at the present time, I should be the last person in the world to adopt a stand-pat or non fiossumus attitude, and that if in the months to come I can be convinced that any other arrangements would be more to the advantage of the electrical industry as a whole—including the consumers—I should be only too willing to listen to any representations and to make my contribution to some solution which would achieve the object which I am sure it is the desire of everybody in the Committee to achieve, that is to say, to have the most effective and efficient Electricity Commission we can get. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentle
  768
  man will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment on the strength of the assurance I have given.
  Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the frank answer he has given. There is one point with which he did not deal, and with which I would like him to deal. Section I, Sub-section (6), of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, reads as follows:
  "The Commissioners may act by two of their number and notwithstanding a vacancy in their number."
  I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he proposes to vary that. That is a matter which would have a very considerable influence with my hon. Friends and myself in the attitude which we adopt towards the speech the Minister has made. We feel very strongly that the Commission ought still to act by two of their number, and we are anxious that some arrangement should be made whereby they shall be two people who can give their whole time and consideration to the problems. It is not, of course, necessary to appoint a chairman. The Minister still has power to appoint two more members before he reaches the maximum of five. I should like also to say a word about the body which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman saw yesterday. It is the Joint Committee of Electricity Supply Associations. There was not one member of a municipal electricity supply undertaking on that body. There are three engineers on it and the clerk and solicitor of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman discussed with them matters of major policy. I am only speaking about the municipal side and I would point out to him that this is a body composed entire of officials, and I know that one of those officials had been told both by his chairman and his vice-chairman that they took the view which I have placed before the Committee this evening. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I hope, realise that in dealing with the municipal side of the industry it is desirable to deal with the members of the authorities rather than with the officials on these matters of high policy. I should be obliged if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could explain the point about the Commissioners acting through two of their number.
  Captain Wallace: The Committee has probably appreciated the fact that the proposal which we are discussing is merely permissive. It simply enables me to submit to His Majesty a draft Order-in-Council and I will certainly undertake that in drawing up that Order-in-Council, the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised will be properly dealt- with. I imagine that he will regard that as satisfactory. I appreciate the point he has made and I shall be glad to discuss it with him afterwards in order to see whether we cannot arrive at some practical solution.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  RESTRICTION OF ADVERTISEMENT (WAR RISKS INSURANCE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  RESTRICTION OF ADVERTISEMENT (WAR RISKS INSURANCE) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction of circulars and advertisements relating to insurance against war risks.)
    5.48 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "who," to insert:
    "on or after such day as may be fixed by order of the Board of Trade."
    It is obvious that some time must elapse between the passing of the Bill and the consideration of these different cases by the Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade, as provided for in Clause 3. In the absence of this Amendment, various mutual societies would be debarred from circularising their members or advertising during that period. Although this might be desirable in some cases, the principle underlying the Bill is control rather than prohibition, and bona fide concerns might be adversely affected if such a provision as this were not inserted.
    Mr. A. V. Alexander: I am not very well satisfied with this Amendment, or the reasons which have been given for its adoption. I could understand some
    770
    allowance of time being made in connection with the operation of penalties under this Measure, in respect of those organisations which are so confident of their case that they will submit their proposals for circularising, to the Board of Trade and the Advisory Committee. But to say that, over the whole range of publicity, those operations are to be allowed to continue in respect of concerns which are hardly of the kind which the President of the Board of Trade himself would want to support, and that the Bill is to be indefinitely postponed in relation to such cases is quite another matter. If the right hon. Gentleman were to bring in an Amendment saying that he would, by order, fix a date on which the Measure would operate in the case of applications which had been turned down by the Advisory Committee, that would be different. But surely publicity in regard to schemes which are felt in the minds of the promoters themselves not to be sufficiently sound to be submitted for the approval of the Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade, should cease right away from the appointed day. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary was anxious to save the time of the Committee but he was not very detailed in his statement, and I would be better satisfied if some reservation were attached to this proposal confining it to those applications which are of such a character that they can, with confidence, be submitted to the Advisory Committee.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I have an Amendment later on the Paper, and I wish to know the effect which this Amendment, if carried, would have upon mine. This Amendment states:
    "after such day as may be fixed by Order of the Board of Trade."
    There is a danger that in trying to catch wrong-doers we may cause hardships to those who are operating legitimately. The period of time between the passing of this Measure and the grant of permission by the Minister may be considerable. In the first place, the Minister has to set up an Advisory Committee. I do not know whether he has in mind the names of those who will be asked to serve upon it, but it may take some time to find suitable people. In addition, there will have to be time for these legitimate associations to make their applications, to have those applications considered and to

    771
    get a decision. The words "such day as may be fixed" may not give a period long enough and considerable hardship may be caused to those who are making legitimate application because permission would not be given until after a certain lapse of time, and in the interregnum between the coming into the operation of the Measure and the granting of permission, they could not carry on their legitimate operations.
    5.52 p.m.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am puzzled by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), because I am not sure whether he is for, or against, the Amendment.
    Sir J. Lamb: I want to know its effect.
    Mr. Stanley: It is designed to meet the very point which he is raising, and which was also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). If the Act comes into operation directly after the Royal Assent, a bona fide company may be prepared with its application and may present its application straight away, but the machinery will not be there to deal with it. The Advisory Committee will not be working and there will be delay before the application can be heard, and consequently there will be an interruption in that company's business due to no fault of their own. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite to remember that the circularising, which is forbidden by this Measure, goes a good deal further than mere advertisements in newspapers. This might be held to apply to the ordinary communications which would have to be sent out by a company to its members, in regard to the payment of premiums or the like, and it seems hard that an interregnum in business should be brought about, not necessarily through any default on the part of the prospective applicant but simply because the machinery was not ready. Therefore we are asking power to fix a date, so that we can have the machinery ready before the Act comes into operation, and so that we may know that the bona fide applicant will be able to get his permission, co-terminous with the coming into force of the Measure, and that there will be no hiatus in his business caused by inability on our part to deal
    772
    with his application. Already, we have the preparations as far advanced as possible, and I anticipate that the intervening period will be as short as is consonant with the possibility of dealing with the applications swiftly.
    Sir J. Lamb: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but I would ask for a definite assurance, in view of the fact that I do not wish to move a subsequent Amendment, that "such day" will mean a time adequate for these societies to obtain the permission.
    Mr. Stanley: That is exactly what I have said.
    Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation and I do not want to interfere with reasonable time being given to that' type of company which is putting forward to the Advisory Committee proposals which are reasonable from their point of view. But there may be other concerns actually in operation which are not of that character and whose operations ought to cease forthwith.
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will see that it will be quite impossible, until we have a chance of considering the applications, to distinguish between the two classes of applications. Therefore what we must aim at is to give the shortest time necessary for these applications to be considered and for us to be able to say which are bona fide and which are not.
    Mr. Alexander: May we have an assurance, not in specific but in general terms, that the right hon. Gentleman will aim at a date as near as possible to 1st January?
    Mr. Stanley: I have not gone into the question closely but I was hoping that we would have the machinery working before that.
    Sir J. Lamb: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for which I thank him, I do not propose to move the subsequent Amendment in my name.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 2, line 14, after "one," insert "or Section two."
    In line 16, at the end, add:
    "or
    (c) anything done with a view to inducing persons to enter into any contract of insurance—

    (i) of goods consigned for carriage by sea or by air from a place outside the United Kingdom to a place in the United Kingdom, while the goods are in transit between the ship or aircraft and their destination; or

    (ii) of goods consigned for carriage by sea or by air from a place in the United Kingdom to a place outside the United Kingdom, while the goods are in transit between the premises from which they are consigned and the ship or aircraft."—[Major Lloyd George.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Requirements as to carrying on business where permission granted under Section 1.)
    5.59 p.m.
    Sir H. Williams: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out"in addition to imposing, "and to insert" impose."
    This Amendment, and succeeding Amendments on the Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, all cover the same point, but that point, I think, is adequately met by another Amendment which stands in the name of the President of the Board of Trade to line 25, in which is set forth in detail the requirements which people have to fulfil or which may have to be imposed. My object is to avoid having the Board of Trade in the position that they might prescribe different requirements for different people. Now that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to define them in clear words and everybody will know where they are, I think any grievance which may have existed will have been removed if that Amendment is carried, and, therefore, I do not propose to persist in these Amendments of mine. Having regard to the fact that it will save a little time, after the explanation given with regard to the Amendment incorporated in Clause I, I do not think there is now any need to move the Amendment which stands in my name to Clause 6, in page 4, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided always that no newspaper, journal, magazine, or other periodical publication which has been published and circulated for the past three years to members only of an existing organisation shall not be deemed to be circulars, journals, magazines, or publications within the meaning of this Act."
    774
    I,therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.3 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 2,line 22, after "which," to insert:
    "if the persons to whom the permission is granted avail themselves thereof."
    This and the next Amendment on the Paper cover two separate points, but it might be convenient to deal with them both together. The first is one which, I admit, had not occurred to me when the Bill was originally drafted. It became apparent, on looking into it again, that we had not retained any sanction in order to ensure that, when the Committee of the Board of Trade had passed a prospectus or an advertisement on the ground of certain representations made and assurances given by a company, those assurances contained in the prospectus were carried out, and we should have to wait, therefore, until some further application for leave to advertise was made. That, clearly, was an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and hon. Members will see that we now make this a condition of the permission.
    The second point was that during the Debate on the Second Reading it was pointed out in several quarters that the power to attach conditions was indeterminate and might be held to be too wide. I therefore thought it advisable to set out in detail the sort of matters particularly with which these conditions would deal. Hon. Members will see the four separate requirements set out in the second Amendment. There is only one additional point that I would mention, and that is that, of course, no way in which we restrict the power to impose conditions can in any way restrict the power of the Committee to advise or of the Board of Trade to decide to refuse publication altogether. It may be that where we are not satisfied that these conditions, and these conditions alone, would make a scheme watertight, we should have no other alternative but to refuse the advertisement of the scheme altogether. On the whole, I came to the conclusion that, even though in certain cases it might work more hardly against the applicant for permission to circularise, yet there was something in the criticism that we have taken here very wide and undefined powers, and it was, therefore, better, at the risk of one or two applications which might otherwise have received

    775
    a conditional permission now having to be met only with a refusal, more to particularise our powers in the Bill.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander: The decision to put in the Bill certain specifications as to what the Board may prescribe is, I think, all to the good, but, of course, there are the words "including, if the Board of Trade think fit." That is just as wide really as ever, and while it is good to know that these are four points which the Board may think fit to include, it does not really carry us very much further in the actual specification. No one can object to the substance of either of these particular requirements—they are all reasonable—but there are one or two things that one might like further defined. In these mutual associations I think it is a very important thing, if possible, to require a public audit, that is to say, an audit to be prescribed by the Board of Trade, say, on the lines on which they prescribe an audit under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, with an auditor, recognised by the Treasury. I think an assurance on that point would be helpful.
    Then there is another point. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, has had from his advisers notes of the various types of display advertisements as to the safety that a particular concern carries in respect of war risks. I can think of promoters of a good scheme who would desire to fall in with this, that there should be required by the Board of Trade an actual prominence of the fact that a particular scheme could not produce a fund which covered actuarially every risk to be expected and that it was, in fact, only a partial indemnity. It may be said, of course, for the sake of debate, "Oh, you may get a scheme in which you do cover the actuarial risk." I do not think that is possible, and if it were so produced, you would not make the requirement, but in regard to the type of advertisement which has been produced up till now, I am anxious that you should produce on the other side a displayed statement as to what are the limits to which the indemnity is provided under the fund. You make it clear in respect of Government insurance schemes, and I think it ought to be equally clear in respect of a scheme which has in fact to get the permission of the Board of Trade to be circularised.
    Sir J. Lamb: I should like to support the Amendment, because it removes to a very large extent some of the fears which I had when I put down the Amendment to the previous Clause, which I did not move. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has gone so far in trying to allay the legitimate fears which some of us had.
    6.10 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: In reply to the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I fully appreciate his point about an audit as being one of the most important provisions, and, of course, I will see that the requirement about auditing and publishing accounts is one of the matters on which provision shall be made. With regard to the second point, there again I am in full agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I think probably it is more a matter of the general lay-out of the advertisement than of any particular phrase which ought to be inserted in it. What causes the wrong impression is the optimistic and glowing slogan in one place and the small cautionary wording in another. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that our permission is a permission to distribute a circular, and that if we are not satisfied with the layout and the general impression that a circular gives, we can refuse that permission. This power to impose conditions does not detract at all from that power that we have to refuse a particular circular.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 25, leave out from "appear," to the end of the Sub-section, and insert:
    "being requirements designed to secure that any representations made in the circulars or advertisements are complied with, including, if the Board of Trade think fit,—

    (a) requirements as to the total or partial separation of the funds respectively available for the payment of claims and the payment of expenses;

    (b) requirements as to the proportion of the premiums or other similar payments which is to be allocated to the payment of claims;

    (c)requirements as to the manner in which any fund available for the payment of claims is to be maintained and dealt with;

    (d) requirements as to the keeping, draw-ing-up, auditing and publication of accounts."—[Mr. Stanley.]

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.12 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander: I am bound to say that while the President of the Board of Trade is doing his best to make the wording of the Bill meet the specific objects which he has in mind, I am very concerned as to the general effect of the operation of this Clause and of the next Clause of the Bill. I am concerned lest the result will be that in respect of this very difficult task of dealing with war risks insurance, you will get a number of schemes, most of them working for the obtaining of business in more or less limited areas, which, nevertheless, will have approval from a Government Department to circularise and advertise, and on the advice of an Advisory Committee set up under Statute, in such circumstances, in my view, as will give to a large section of the public, especially that section of the public which does not read as carefully as it ought to read the kind of prospectuses in connection with these schemes, the impression that they ate getting a really effective insurance scheme. I am very, very doubtful about the policy. I am most anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should stop an abuse, and, therefore, within the limited objects of the Bill, he and I are in agreement, but I am concerned about the effects upon the public mind of Government approval given to the actual circularisation of prospectuses.
    If you take the kind of way in which it will operate, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said on the Second Reading, there are actually geographical and territorial areas where a specific object is desired to be obtained. If I may quote an instance that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) mentioned, also on the Second Reading, he had in mind, in one of his remarks, very large and important businesses, but while the businesses that he mentioned were strong and powerful enough to devise a scheme, there are, of course, other classes of industries and properties which would not be as powerful and as strong, but which would almost certainly be directed into their particular trade and limited channels. In that respect I am driven back the whole time to the feeling that we are really playing with the matter and leaving this large and important risk to be faced in limited areas by really ineffective methods. It is impossible to
    778
    move to this Clause an Amendment which is effective, and that is why I have not done so, but I really cannot let the Clause go on to the Statute Book without warning the Committee and the public as to the dangers which I see inherent in it becoming part of the law of the land.
    6.16 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman said as to it being a pity that we have not before us some comprehensive scheme for dealing with this risk as a whole. As we have not got such a scheme, and as we are told that it cannot be prepared, we should be careful not to make it more difficult than it is already for such people as may be inclined to help themselves to get together to help themselves by means of mutual schemes. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will confine his operations under the Bill to such matters as those which were referred to in the Amendment which he moved, that is to say, to seeing that a proposal is fairly and honestly described in the advertisements, that the funds are properly treated, that proper accounts are kept, that provision is made for audit, and so on. I hope that he will not hamper such efforts as are made within the provisions of the Bill.
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me on a not particularly relevant Clause and on a not particularly relevant Bill to go into the question whether a Government war risk insurance scheme is possible. The Government have come to the conclusion that the Government scheme for compensation is the only practical scheme there is. We have to consider, therefore, what we can do within this limited Bill. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) used a phrase with an unfortunate double meaning. He said he hoped I would not operate this Bill to try and restrict the activities of those gentlemen whose only desire was to help themselves. Had he used the words "mutual assistance" what he said would perhaps be less liable to misunderstanding. It is just those gentlemen whose only desire is to help themselves whom I want to stop. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman that the thing we really want to do is to see that the limits of these schemes are fairly set out to the

    779
    people who are asked to subscribe to them. If they really know the limits and live under no false idea of the kind of protection they are getting, it is for them and them alone to decide whether it is worth while paying the money for which they are asked, for the benefit which they may get. Apart from the question of honest and proper management of the fund, and so on, the most important part of the Board of Trade's work will be to see that the various circulars and advertisements set out the schemes in a fair light which will give to the prospective applicant a proper chance of judging whether it is in his own personal interest to join the scheme or not. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have that very much in mind.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, "put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Advisory Committee.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.21 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: In the Second Reading Debate I tried to get from the President of the Board of Trade, and afterwards from the Parliamentary Secretary, some information on the meaning of some words in Sub-section (3). I was not successful then and I thought I would try again to-day. The words are:
    "in particular, to the nature and situation of the property which is proposed to be eligible for insurance."
    I thought these words meant that when each fresh property came to be considered application would have to be made to the Advisory Committee. I understand that is not so, and that this is intended to be something which the Advisory Committee will consider before they approve a scheme. If that be so, I would be glad if the President of the Board of Trade would tell us why those words are inserted. Is it suggested that in certain areas these schemes will not be allowed to operate at all? Is the Advisory Committee to be permitted or invited to decide which parts of the country are suitable for insurance of this kind and which are not? If anything of that kind is in view I can imagine the committee saying: "The risks are very great in such and such an area, and we do not think a scheme in that area will function
    780
    properly." Surely the greater the risk the greater the need for insurance, and I am puzzled at the presence of these words.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: The reason for including these words is not among those which have been put forward by the hon. Gentleman as possible reasons. The reason I put them in is simple. The Weir Committee Report drew some distinction between a company or society which appeals broadcast to all and sundry to take part in its activities, and combinations and groups of people with a mutual interest to try and get some cover, however inadequate, for their possible risks. I inserted these, words in order to call the attention of the Advisory Committee to that fact, and, indeed, to ask them to look with a particularly benevolent eye upon societies of that kind. It does not mean to say that they are bound to exclude all other societies, but I do feel that certain kinds of societies which come to my notice, which insure people living in a particular area and have a common interest there, or people owning particular kinds of goods who have a common interest, are really much more the type of society which it is safe for us to allow to continue than some of the more general types which broadcast to the community as a whole. It will be observed that these words have no limiting effect upon the power of the committee to recommend, but they do draw the committee's attention to this aspect of the case. I inserted them so that the administration at the Board of Trade will look favourably, or, I should say, less strictly, on that kind of mutual enterprise, than on the types to which mutual enterprise is only a disguise.
    6.26 p.m.
    Major Milner: I agree with what the President has said. The Committee will appreciate that it is not compulsory on the President to accept the advice of the Advisory Committee. There may be difficulties in making it compulsory, but I hope the Minister will take the committee's advice. I am sitting on one or two advisory committees, and it is a wasteful and useless task to sit on committees and give advice with the best intentions of that advice is not taken. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will, except in special cases, take the advice of the committee. There is nothing in the Bill

    781
    to say what the constitution of the Advisory Committee shall be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make appointments from the widest possible field, and that he will not do as the Government did in the case of the Weir Committee. They appointed distinguished gentlemen, in whom I have every confidence as individuals, but who are interested in particular lines of business, especially insurance and banking, and their interests might conflict. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will constitute the committee as widely as possible and that he will have representatives of small property owners on it.
    The great majority, certainly in numbers if not in value, of property is held by small people. In the report of a well known building society I saw that the average advance, taking into account all advances on both business premises and house property, was only £414. That indicates the widely-spread nature of real property in this country. I hope, therefore, that representatives of small property owners, or even of owner-occupiers, will sit on the Advisory Committee. They are more likely to be able to advise the Minister as to what the man in the street might think of an advertisement or a circular. I approve the benevolent view that the Minister proposes to take of societies formed by classes of persons having a common interest. I wonder whether the building societies, for example, who have large assets, might not be disposed to take some initiative in the formation of a society which might come within the purview of this Bill. It would be formed under the highest auspices and be of undoubted integrity. It would, with all their knowledge and experience, be formed with adequate funds and be able to carry out any responsibilities which they undertook.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising the point as to the constitution of the Advisory Committee. There is one point that I wish to put to the President of the Board of Trade. When permission is granted by the Board of Trade, on the advice of the Advisory Committee, will it be possible for the Board of Trade to devise a formula which shall be included in the notice of approval which will make it clear that the permission to advertise
    782
    does not carry with it the guarantee of the Board of Trade that the scheme as a whole is actuarially sound? That is a point of considerable substance. I will not pretend to say what the formula should be, because the Board has its own legal advisers, but I am anxious that it should be made clear that any approval given to the terms of a prospectus under the limited purposes of this Measure shall not be regarded as a guarantee of the concern. If I can have an assurance that it is intended to devise a satisfactory formula I shall be satisfied.
    6.32 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: I have only one word to say on the constitution of the Advisory Committee, a subject which I dealt with on Second Reading. I will consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). I want the committee to be a small one in order to deal with these matters expeditiously, and I do not want it to be too highly technical. This is largely a matter of common sense. Whether a circular has a misleading appearance is a thing which the hon. and gallant Member or I could determine as well as the most profound actuarial experts in the country. The point raised by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) is one which we have very much in mind. We recognise that if a Government Department has to sanction the operations of some body there is always a danger that the sanction will be used by that body as showing some sort of Government guarantee that its operations are bound to be successful. I will not at the moment give any assurance as to the form of safeguard which we shall draw up, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I very much appreciate the point which he has made, because I recognise that there is a real danger, and we shall certainly make every effort to provide a safeguard against it.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Offences.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, line 7, at the end, add:
    "(4) In the application of this Section to Northern Ireland, the expression ' summary-conviction 'means conviction subject to, and in accordance with, the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, and any Act (including

    783
    any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) amending that Act."—[Major Lloyd George.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [Lords.]

  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.34 p.m
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill can be explained in a very few words. It contains one operative Clause, and its object is to restrict the scope of Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920. As the law stands at present, that Section empowers the police—or any member of His Majesty's Forces engaged on guard, sentry, patrol or other similar duty—to require any person to give any information in his power relating to an offence or suspected offence under the Official Secrets Acts, 1911 and 1920, and any person refusing to give such information on demand is liable to prosecution. That is a drastic power, and it has been generally recognised that it is a power which should be used only in rare and exceptional cases. In fact, according to my information, the power has not been used on more than six occasions since 1920, and I am told that in only two of these cases was there an actual prosecution for refusal to give the information demanded. Certain events in 1937, however—which will be clearly within the recollection of hon. Members—gave rise to some anxiety about the uses to which this power could be put; and there was a general desire that all possible safeguards should be applied to ensure that the powers conferred by this Section should not be lightly invoked. In order to meet this feeling, my predecessor gave certain undertakings to this House on 12th May of last year. The broad effect of those undertakings was that these powers would not in future be used in respect of any
  784
  published matter except with the authority of the Attorney-General—or in Scotland the Lord Advocate—or the Secretary of State, and that such authority would be given only in cases where the information which had been disclosed was itself of serious public importance. Subsequently, on 7th December last, in the course of a Debate in this House on Censorship and Restriction of Liberty, my right hon. Friend announced that the Government were considering whether it was practicable to make these undertakings even more definite and permanent by putting them into statutory form. The present Bill is the result of the further consideration given by the Government to that problem.
  Hon. Members will have observed that the Bill not only gives effect to my right hon. Friend's undertakings, but it goes even further. What it does is to substitute for Section 6 of the Act of 1920 an entirely new Section which limits these special powers of interrogation to cases of offences or suspected offences under Section 1 of the Act of 1911—that is to say, in practice cases of espionage. Moreover, it is to be made a statutory requirement that, except in cases of great emergency, the permission of the Secretary of State must be obtained before these powers of interrogation are exercised. It will be noticed that the permission to be obtained is that of the Secretary of State, not the Attorney-General. That has been done advisedly, because at this stage the matter is one of investigation and, moreover at a later stage the Attorney-General might have to decide whether proceedings should be taken in the event of failure to give the information. It has been thought more appropriate that the Attorney-General should not be brought into the matter at the stage of interrogation.
  In cases of great emergency, a chief officer of police is authorised to act without first obtaining the permission of the Secretary of State. In the view of the Government, it is essential to leave this element of discretion to chief officers of police in grave and urgent cases where time does not permit of prior reference to the Secretary of State. It must be remembered that in future this power of interrogation will apply only to the grave offence of espionage. There may well be cases of suspected espionage in which, by prompt action taken under this Section,

  785
  it may be possible to prevent the communication to an enemy of information which would be very useful to them. In such a case a chief officer of police may have to exercise this power of interrogation as a matter of great urgency, without obtaining the prior permission of the Secretary of State, if he is to prevent the information being communicated to the enemy.
  There are, however, I suggest, safeguards which should in practice prove ample against any abuse of this exceptional power. It may be exercised only where it appears to the chief officer of police that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, and he is required to report the circumstances to the Secretary of State forthwith. Section 9 of the Act of 1911 leaves with chief officers of police a similar discretion, in similar circumstances, to issue a search warrant, for which the authority of a magistrate is normally required.
  I should also draw the attention of the House to two minor points. First, the Bill proposes that in future the power of interrogation for which provision is made shall be exerciseable only by the police, and not by members of His Majesty's Forces as in the existing law. Secondly, the Act as it stands does not deal specifically with the case of a person who does not refuse information but knowingly gives false information; and opportunity has been taken to remedy this defect.
  I hope that this Bill may put an end to the long drawn-out controversy about the use of Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act. I feel that I can assure the House that the Bill strikes a proper balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the State. It has always been recognised that powers of this kind should be used sparingly and under proper safeguards; and this, I suggest, is amply secured by the provisions of this Bill. On the other hand, the Bill does nothing to weaken the powers of the State to protect itself against espionage, and for this reason as well as for the reason that, as the House knows, the Government is now armed with other emergency powers to protect itself against espionage, I make no apology for the Government's decision to ask the House, in fulfilment of a pledge, to proceed with this Bill even though we are now at war. The Bill has already passed through all its stages in another
  786
  place without amendment, and I think I can confidently ask the House to give it a speedy passage into law.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: There are two phases of this matter, the war phase and the peace phase. We are dealing here with peace powers. As the Secretary of State has truly said, everybody, including the journalist, whose grievances were the origin of this Bill, is subject to very much more severe restrictions under, I think, Section 80A of the Defence Regulations, than ever existed under Section 6 of the Official Secrets Act, 1920. Although we are at war, no one need think that in the passage of this Bill anything is being done to weaken the powers of the Executive, because the control of the House is exercised by our unimpaired power. We are dealing with something which is to become a permanent peace legislation, and it is something to our credit that in the middle of war the House of Commons should be enlarging the liberties of the subject in this way. We are fighting the war for freedom, and it is something which the neutrals should observe, that this is the only place in the world where a deliberative assembly is enlarging the freedom of the Press. I am sure that the very existence of this House and the liberty which we enjoy because of its existence is one of the strongest arguments which we can make to the world court to which all the belligerents are at present appealing.
  Of course, if this were peace-time one might say a great deal about the Official Secrets Acts. I remember the passage of both of them. The first of them was introduced by Colonel Seely, now Lord Mottistone, and the second by Lord Hewart, and, in recommending these Bills to the House, they said in that rather secretive, suggestive and ominous way which the Home Secretary and Law Officers adopt, "If you only knew we could give even greater powers." Lord Mottistone and Lord Hewart both assured us that these Bills were passed for the sole purpose of preventing espionage. That was an understood thing, and passages in the Debate bear that out. But when the Bill became law we did not find that sparing and careful use to which the Home Secretary referred. The Amendment to Section 6 was made necessary by the fact that Section 6 was brought

  787
  into operation by a pressman, for an offence which had nothing to do with espionage at all. I think his name was Lewis. He had got from a sergeant of police early information about the impending arrest of a certain person and he published it in an enterprising journal. When asked where he got the information he declined to give the particulars and then found himself subject to this Section; he was, in fact, fined £1.It was so clearly a breach of the intention of the Act that an agitation followed for making clear the original intention of the Act. Here we have the result of that agitation and the fulfilment of the pledge given by the Government. It is certainly a great improvement.
  It is made clear that the failure to disclose information must refer to information in respect of Part I of the principal Act of 1911, which deals purely with being on prohibited premises, or something of that kind, whereas by the time we got to 1920 a whole collection of offences had been created which had only a very distant relationship to espionage. Now this power to require information is given to the police only in the case of information relating to Section 1 of the principal Act, which deals with espionage. In those circumstances, we welcome this because it is the fulfilment of a pledge given by the last Home Secretary, and because, as I say, it is a good thing that we should sit here this afternoon in these circumstances and enlarge the bounds of freedom.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Dingle Foot: Ever since the trial of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, the exercise of powers of interrogation under Section 6 has been of particular concern to the Liberal Members of this House. We welcome this Bill and offer our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman and to his predecessor during whose term of office it was introduced. The Lord Privy Seal, when he gave, on 12th May last year, the answer to which the Home Secretary referred, spoke of these powers of interrogation as being exceptional and drastic. I think they are a good deal more than that. They are quite unique as far as our Statute law is concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  788
  Gorton (Mr. Benn) has pointed out, it is clear to anyone who has looked back through the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the House passed Section 6 in the belief that it would and could be used only against enemies of the State. That belief turned out to be ill-founded, but I suggest that in these days, when we consider matters like Defence regulations, for example, it should be a lesson to us all never to entrust to those in authority or to any Minister or Government powers in excess of what they strictly need, because if we do we may be fairly certain that sooner or later the time will come when these powers will be used in a way never contemplated or intended by the House of Commons.
  Of course, we welcome this Bill. In fairness, I should say I think it goes even further than the amending Bill which we introduced from these benches. But there are two reservations I should like to make. Firstly, we hope that at some future time, at the end of the war, the Government will reconsider the whole of the Official Secrets Acts. We do not take the view that Section 6 is the only Section in need of amendment. We think, for instance, that the wording of Section 7 of the 1911 Act, as amended by the 1920 Act, is far wider than it need be and we would like to see some amendment there. We should also like to see some amendment of the very wide search warrant Sections in these two Statutes. There is also a minor amendment which I would venture to suggest in the case of this Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to cases of emergency, and I would not dissent from his proposition that when you have an emergency you ought not to put upon your chief officer of police the necessity of obtaining prior sanction of the Secretary of State, but I think the wording should be changed; it should be made necessary for this emergency power to be used if the chief officer of police should have reasonable grounds for thinking that it is a case of emergency, and it should, in the last resort, allow the reasonableness of these grounds to be tried out in a court of law. A similar factor was conceded by the Government in the Prevention of Violence Bill shortly before the outbreak of the war, and I think they should concede an alteration of this kind here.

  789
  I particularly remember the considered reply given by the Home Secretary on the 12th May last year, after weeks of consideration. He told us that while the powers of interrogation would not be used without the permission of the Attorney-General or the Home Secretary, nevertheless it was quite impossible that there should be any statutory restrictions of these powers, and the Department really could not consider any question of an amending Bill. On that occasion and on subsequent occasions the House showed that it was not satisfied with that answer, and as a result we have got the second thoughts of the Home Office here. I think we might draw the moral that when the Government are pressed on a matter they can dispense with powers which at one time they thought were indispensable.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Maxton: No one could have spoken fairer than the Home Secretary has done in introducing this matter, and I do not wish to oppose it in any way. The great safeguard, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, is that the responsibility definitely rests upon the Minister's own shoulders, and presumably we may take it that the Minister will exercise those powers only after very serious consideration. He assures us that this can only be operated in relation to matters of espionage, where everybody will agree that action of a swift and definite kind should be taken in the interest of the country's safety. I hope that in our experience of the operation of this Section this will be proved to be true. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) will remember that he and I sat together for some weeks on the Committee dealing with Incitmeent to Disaffection, and we then had from the Attorney-General the most specific assurance that this legislation was being introduced only to deal with people who were definitely working inside the ranks of the armed forces to destroy the morale and withdraw the allegiance of the men from the Crown.
  The Attorney-General, now the Lord Chancellor, has assured us again and again that that was the case and that the powers would be used only against people
  790
  for whom even the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton) could not find a good word to say. As a matter of fact, when the powers were used they were used against a student—a callow youth from Sheffield or Leeds—the son of a clergyman, who went into a railway station refreshment room at the time when the Spanish trouble was on, fell in with an airman and got talking to him. He said, "You are an airman?" and the man replied, "Yes." He said, "Can you fly an aeroplane?" and the airman replied, "Yes." He said, "What about flying over to Spain and helping the Republicans?" That was the first, and I think the only, case under the Incitement to Disaffection Act, and I think he received 12 months' imprisonment.
  Mr, Foot: Was it not nine months?
  Mr. Maxton: I think the sentence was 12 months, and there was a subsequent reduction. I think that was shocking and there are the same possibilities here. Our safeguard is that the Home Secretary will examine with meticulous care any case that is put up to him. But while he stands here to-night and tells us that that is what would be done, we know from experience that while the right hon. Gentleman means that to-night, when the papers actually come up to him containing a case of this description on which he has to put his initials, unless it is specifically put to him the possibilities are that his signature will go down if the matter is brought to him from one of these responsible civil servants. Some innocent person such as the young student to whom I referred may find himself within the clutches of the law, while the Home Secretary feels morally bound to stand by his subordinates who have initiated the Acts. I think an adequate safeguard lies in the probability that any innocent person caught in this way would have opportunities of letting the facts be known to friends, who would convey them to Members of this House, who in turn would probably not be slow in duly ventilating the point. With that as the ultimate safeguard, and on the assumption that the House of Commons will continue in being, I do not propose to oppose the Second Reading.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven o'Clock.

  HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
  HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
POST OFFICE.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (FREE POSTAGE).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (FREE POSTAGE).
  PRESS MESSAGES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
  PRESS MESSAGES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY RATIONING.
  GAS AND ELECTRICITY RATIONING.
  PETROL RATIONING.
  PETROL RATIONING.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS).
  FOOTBALL MATCHES (SPECTATORS).
  FOOTBALL MATCHES (SPECTATORS).
  AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
  AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
  COST (STATISTICS).
  COST (STATISTICS).
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  INDIA (NEWS CENSORSHIP).
  INDIA (NEWS CENSORSHIP).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ASSISTANCE (WINTER ALLOWANCES).
  ASSISTANCE (WINTER ALLOWANCES).
  OXFORD.
  OXFORD.
  ALIENS (GERMAN CONSULAR STAFF, GLASGOW).
  ALIENS (GERMAN CONSULAR STAFF, GLASGOW).
ROYAL NAVY.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES, DOCKYARDS.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES, DOCKYARDS.
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RECALL).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (RECALL).
  AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES).
  AGRICULTURE (GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  VOLUNTEER RESERVE.
  OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  CANADIAN TIMBER IMPORTS.
  CANADIAN TIMBER IMPORTS.
  TIMBER CONTROL.
  TIMBER CONTROL.
  CURRENCY (BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES).
  CURRENCY (BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES).
  COD-LIVER OIL (IMPORT DUTY).
  COD-LIVER OIL (IMPORT DUTY).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  PROFITEERING (PROSECUTIONS).
  PROFITEERING (PROSECUTIONS).
  RATIONING (BLIND MEN).
  RATIONING (BLIND MEN).
  BUTTER (PARCELS FROM DOMINIONS).
  BUTTER (PARCELS FROM DOMINIONS).
  BUTTER DISTRIBUTION.
  BUTTER DISTRIBUTION.
Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PRICES OF GOODS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

PROPOSED SECRET SESSION.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to the desirability of the House of Lords meeting for a Secret Session; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which I am submitting for your consideration is not a new one. Various requests for a Secret Session have been made both in your Lordships' House and in another place. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, what has happened is that the Leader of the House the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said that the Government would consider the matter. Meanwhile time passes on, and in my submission the need for a Secret Session becomes not less urgent but more urgent. Accordingly I have put this Motion down in order that the whole question may be discussed. I do not claim that I have any special qualification for this task except, perhaps, that of experience. By "experience" I mean that I am one of the very few persons still living and in Parliament who were present through all the Secret Sessions in another place during the last war. I say the need for a Secret Session becomes more urgent.
No one could contend—the most ardent admirer of your Lordships' House could not contend—that the debates on the war and the international situation which take place here are satisfactory. That is not the fault of your Lordships or of your Lordships' House; it is inherent in the circumstances. We are at war, and noble Lords who speak feel, when they do so, that they must exercise extreme care lest anything which they say—which might perhaps be detached from its context and used unscrupulously—might be of service to the enemy. The necessity to speak with this meticulous restraint means, of
1802
course, that noble Lords, with their knowledge and experience, are not making anything like the full contribution which they could make to the solution of the various problems which now face the country. What in fact happens now? We have the weekly statements by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, about the war. Each Thursday he gives to your Lordships a statement which purports to be on the progress of the war, but, in fact, all that he says, or practically all that he says, we know before he gets up. That is not his fault, but it is the truth. Not only so, but, in general, the subsequent debate carries matters very little further. Actually, of course, no really free discussion is possible because we are at war.
To my certain knowledge various noble Lords whose opinion carries weight, and rightly carries weight, in your Lordships' House would speak in a Secret Session but, as it is, they do not speak at all. We are faced with a situation where, because noble Lords cannot say what they really think, many of them prefer to say nothing at all. On the other hand, there is a small minority who make speeches verging on the critical, but here again no adequate reply is made to them because the Government spokesman in his turn feels that he has to be extremely guarded in what he says. Some points of great substance have never been replied to at all. Therefore I say that about these war debates there is a sense of unreality, ineffectiveness, and frustration. Meanwhile the attendance in your Lordships' House, not unnaturally, grows less and less, and sometimes it scarcely seems worth while calling the House at all. Yet, whatever else is in dispute, this will not be in dispute—we are living in a time of grave crisis for our country and for all the nations of Europe, and indeed of the world. Surely, then, anything which might be of service at such a time should not be left undone. Hence, in my submission, there is a strong case for holding in your Lordships' House a Secret Session at which noble Lords can speak freely and the Government also can speak much more freely than they do at the present time.
It is only reasonable to suppose that the result of free and unfettered discussion would be to the public good. This view that a Secret Session would be in the national interest is supported and, in my view, confirmed by the experience

1803
of the last war. I now come to a point which I hold to be of great importance in this matter, and it is this, that during the last war there were held in all six Secret Sessions—one in your Lordships' House and five in another place. These Secret Sessions were held over a period of almost two years, two of the most critical years of the war. The Secret Session in your Lordships' House was held on April 25, 1916. The first Secret Session in another place was held on April 25 and April 26, 1916—it lasted two days. The second Secret Session in another place was held on May 10 and May 11, 1917; the third was held on July 9, 1917; the fourth was held on December 13, 1917; and the fifth was held on January 17, 1918. The very fact that these six Secret Sessions were held knocks the bottom out of most of the objections urged against a Secret Session now. In fact, nearly all the arguments against a Secret Session are rendered untenable, or are greatly weakened in force, by the fact that in the last war these six Secret Sessions were held over nearly two years, approved and arranged by both the Coalition Governments.
If it be the case that a Secret Session is not worth holding, or if it be the case, as has actually been urged in some quarters, that it would do harm, how is it that all these Secret Sessions were held in the last war? If the objections urged had any real validity they could be countered by the experience of the last war. In fact the very reverse is the case, because of the six Secret Sessions which were held then. A proposal was made on October 3 by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for a Secret Session in your Lordships' House, and he was supported by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. In his reply the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said that if the Session was to be secret he did not see how it could be for the public good. If I may respectfully say so, I will as I proceed endeavour to enlighten him and to demonstrate in what way a Secret Session would be for the public good.
The noble Earl also said the Government would consider the matter, but he admitted that he was only at one Secret Session during the period of the last war, and said he understood that a good deal leaked out afterwards as to what had been
1804
said by various individuals. I think the noble Earl is quite mistaken. Apart from my own recollection, I have made most careful inquiries into the whole matter from those who are in a position to know, and they deny that entirely. I do not think anything of any importance leaked out. Surely if it had been so, if important matters were leaking out, Secret Sessions would have been stopped; in that case they would not have gone on, as they did, for nearly two years of time. Moreover, I would submit that this suggestion that matters would leak out is not very complimentary to the members of your Lordships' House. As a matter of fact, large and important meetings of Members of Parliament have been recently addressed by Ministers at which confidential speeches have been made. The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, the Foreign Secretary, addressed a very large meeting of Unionist members not long ago. I am told that 170 Unionist members were there. Then last week, I think, the Secretary of State for War, Mr. Hore-Belisha, addressed a large meeting of Unionist members, made a confidential speech, and answered questions. Nothing leaked out from either of those two meetings. If this kind of thing is going on, if the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, can make a confidential speech to a large number of Unionist Members of Parliament. I suggest he can also make a confidential speech to your Lordships' House. There is indeed much in common between a Secret Session and such meetings addressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, and these meetings constitute an argument for a Secret Session.
Nevertheless, I know it is said that because of the fear that something would leak out, the Government in a Secret Session would not say much more than they do in a Public Session. Even if that were true—and this is what I want to put to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—it would still be worth while holding a Secret Session, not because of what noble Lords who are members of the Government would say, but because of what noble Lords who are not members of the Government would say. In fact the request for a Secret Session really arises, not so much because of what the Government would say to the House as because of what the House would say to the Government. Now the rejoinder to this is that if a noble Lord has anything to

1805
say to the Government or to a Minister, he can write to him a letter or he can speak to him, and therefore there is no need for a Secret Session. This view of the matter overlooks some very important considerations. The views which a noble Lord desired to put before the Government and which he would put in a Secret Session are far too long to be incorporated in a letter. If we assume that the average length of speeches in a Secret Session would be, say, twenty minutes and the average rate of speaking 120 words a minute, then a speech would work out at a total of 2,400 words. Now no noble Lord would write a letter of 2,400 words to a Minister, and, if he did, no Minister would read it. Similarly, if a noble Lord is fortunate enough to buttonhole a Minister, he cannot speak to him to the extent of 2,400 words. In these days noble Lords are properly very considerate, and it is not often they ask for a definite interview with a Minister. They do not do that even if they may readily get one.
Furthermore, let me point out that it is a mistake to suppose that the only noble Lords concerned in a Secret Session are those on the Government Bench who would speak or listen, and the other noble Lords in the House who would speak. That is not so at all. There is a large and influential body of noble Lords who would not speak but who would listen, and whose views might be affected by the discussion, and that is important in the formation of opinion. Moreover, not infrequently valuable speeches are made in debates of a debating nature. Some point or argument made by a noble Lord germinates in the mind of another noble Lord, and without any premeditation but in the course of the debate a very helpful speech or suggestion results. That is much more likely to happen in a Secret Session than even in a Public Session, because in a Secret Session noble Lords can speak perfectly freely and something of untold advantage may result in that way.
Next I would base my appeal on the ground that a Secret Session is a means of giving protection to minorities. Minorities are entitled to protection in all legislative chambers. They ought to have it, and especially is that true in war time. In fact, in past wars minorities have again and again been right in opposing the popular view. May I submit to the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, that it is one of his
1806
duties, especially in a House like your Lordships' House where there is no Speaker in the Chair in the ordinary sense, to do all that he can to help to safeguard the interests of minorities, and to see that they have opportunities for speaking and fully stating their views. In a time of war like this they can only do that in a Secret Session. And when I say "minorities" I do not only mean those who do not support the war; I mean various noble Lords who, on other grounds, are not satisfied with what the Government are doing. I suggest that it would be a very good thing to hear all these views. Let them all speak. Let us have it all out. I can hardly conceive of anything which would be of more advantage to the Government and to your Lordships than that certain noble Lords—I will not mention their names—should be un-muzzled and should say what they think without any reservation, qualification or equivocation.
I hope, then, that the Government will give this whole matter very careful consideration, and if, unhappily, they should not see their way to grant a Secret Session, that they will state their objections fully, because that has not yet been done. And if they come to do that, I trust that they will not give as one of their objections the reason so often used by Governments in rejecting a proposal in wartime, that it would be helpful to the enemy. That is a stock phrase used by all Governments when they do not want to do something. I remember that my noble friend Lord Templemore—I have a very great respect for him; he really ought to be able to do better and can do better than this—in turning down a proposal I made that there should be a small private committee of two or three experts to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the best way of financing the war, actually said that it might be helpful to the enemy. Well, my Lords, I leave that there. I have finished. I have broadly put before your Lordships the arguments for a Secret Session, and I have endeavoured not to overstate them, not to exaggerate them. It is always a mistake to overstate a case, especially when it is strong enough without that, as this one is. I submit with confidence that in all the circumstances there are solid advantages which are not outweighed by any disadvantages which there may be in having a Secret Session. I beg to move.
3.52 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I want to support the proposal of my noble friend because I am profoundly convinced that his case is a very strong one. He has so well stated it that to my mind there is very little to add, but I would like to support it particularly on the ground that I was a member of another place during the last war and I saw the advantage that accrued to the Government, as much as to those members who wished for a Secret Session, from the several Secret Sessions which were then held. That the Government saw the advantage of those Sessions was proved by the fact that they repeatedly arranged for them. If the Government to-day see objection to a Secret Session, I hope His Majesty's Ministers will be good enough to tell us what new reason, what reason of a different kind, has arisen in these days to change the case that then weighed with the Government of the day. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said the other day that it was possible that leakage might occur. But that argument weighed just as strongly in 1916, 1917 and 1918, and it is a striking fact that after the first Secret Session in April of 1916 there were no fewer than three in 1917 and one in 1918. Everyone must sympathise with the attachment of His Majesty's Ministers to the principle of discretion, but the proposal which my noble friend has made is not in the direction of indiscretion. One might rather truly say that it represents a more discreet view than that which was expressed, I hope only temporarily, by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, the other day.
The fact is that we are in a dilemma in this matter between two loyalties. I myself feel most strongly the objection to free public discussion, for instance, of war aims, on which we are not to-day engaged. I think there is the greatest objection to saying all the things we would like to say when the discussion would be known to all the world. On the other hand, it is the duty of a Member of Parliament, whether he is in one House or the other, to inform the Government and to inform also other members of the House of his views. That is one of the essences of democracy, and it would be lamentable if that democratic practice cannot be freely pursued. In some respects, of course, it cannot be
1808
pursued with complete freedom in war time, but it ought to be pursued as freely as possible. On the whole, I trust that the Government have come to the conclusion that the advantages outweigh the risks of a Secret Session. I feel that if the Government prefer that differences—there must be differences about war policy—should be made known in public, they take a grave responsibility. It cannot be thought that no views will be expressed about war aims, and I would urge in conclusion that the proposal which my noble friend has made is not in any sense hostile to the Government but is aimed at being helpful. I do hope His Majesty's Government will agree to my noble friend's proposal.
3.57 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I listened with close attention to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, in making this Motion and equally, of course, to what the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, said. If the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, will forgive me, I think I can say that he does not always find himself in complete agreement with the majority of your Lordships' House. That I have no doubt is a matter of indifference to him, and the House does always welcome free expression of independent opinion. But, on this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, finds himself with, at any rate, I think, a substantial degree of support in your Lordships' House.
I think in a way it is unfortunate that the adjective "secret" is the one which is applied to these unreported Sessions. The word is liable to give an impression outside that all sorts of mysterious and blood-curdling revelations might be made, and that your Lordships' House would be turned into something of a Bluebeard's Chamber. It might be supposed, for instance, that one of His Majesty's Ministers—probably the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield—would announce to these privileged Benches a number of strategical facts relating either to the sea, land or the air, which could not be made known to the public. I am sure my noble and gallant friend would do nothing of the kind, and there is no conceivable reason why he should, because surely it is the case that neither we here nor honourable members in another place have any right to know more of those facts than an

1809
equivalent number of agricultural labourers or miners, who are just as much interested in the whereabouts and the activities of their relations and friends as any of us. Therefore, surely, that conceivable side of a Secret Session ought to be dismissed altogether.
On the other hand, there are subjects which might quite conceivably be discussed in an unreported Session better and more fruitfully than they could be at one of our ordinary sittings. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, mentioned the question of war aims. Nobody who reads the daily or weekly Press can fail to have been struck by the interest which is taken in what are called war aims: that is to say, two entirely different matters, two matters which ought to be kept completely separate and which unhappily were not kept separate in 1919—namely, the actual terms on which peace could be arranged, and the possible new ordering of a better state of things in the world. It may well be, as Lord Noel-Buxton suggested, that much might be said in a discussion of that kind, a Secret Session, both by His Majesty's Government and by other members of the House, which had better not be said if it were to spread all over the world. That is one subject connected with the war on which such a sitting might be useful. As regards domestic questions, there are matters connected with various features in the emergency legislation and the hardships to some classes and some individuals which that legislation is bound to produce, which if publicly discussed might create, particularly in enemy countries, false impressions as to the temper of the people and their determination to carry through the war.
I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will take those and similar points into consideration. It is for them to consider whether there is such a wide and substantial demand for a sitting of that kind as would justify them in repeating a practice of the last war and one to which the objections do not appear to me very substantial. It is undoubtedly true that the matter cannot be considered singly here. A great deal would depend upon what it is found possible and desirable to do in another place. It clearly would be difficult to hold a Session of that kind in one House and not in the other. But, that being so, I trust that
1810
His Majesty's Government will take into careful consideration the possibility of holding, if not at once, at any rate in the not very distant future, some such meeting of the House as has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I should like to support the proposal that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, and has been supported by the other noble Lords who have just spoken. I do so with the full realisation that if the Government were to decide to have a Secret Session here, it would be, as the last speaker has said, necessary and inevitable that there should be discussions in another place. I do not see that the Government really have anything to lose by a Secret Session. It would be an opportunity to give information, to remove misgivings and suspicions, and to hear what many private members of your Lordships' House and of another place who do not hold office have to say on certain major questions.
Just over a year ago, after the Munich settlement, we had a three-day debate, and I remember a speaker saying from the Government Bench that the Government would have had a great deal more support for their policy—a policy which, incidentally, I support: that of the Munich settlement—if people had had more information. It was partly for that reason and partly because, looking ahead, I felt that we ought to have more information on what the Government proposed to do, that I then, on that occasion in October, 1938, suggested that there should be a Secret Session. Some of us then had grave misgivings that the Government, while hoping for the best, were not at the same time preparing for the worst. We felt that they were not taking adequate steps to provide the necessary men and material at the right moment. Subsequent events have, I think, justified us in those misgivings and those fears, and in thinking that there would have been no loss whatever had we had a full and frank debate in secret in your Lordships' House.
I remember being present as a member of another place in the last war when we had some Secret Sessions. Looking back, my very clear recollection is that nothing but good came out of those Secret Sessions. A certain amount may have

1811
leaked out, but nothing which helped the enemy; and I do not see that anything could be said here which would in any way frustrate our desire for a successful prosecution of the war and a successful early peace. Secret Sessions, as I remember them, were held for two reasons. The first was discontent with the way in which the Government of the time were prosecuting the war; and the second was probably, at a subsequent stage, a desire on the part of the Government—a very wise desire—to speak to members of all Parties with a frankness which was impossible for them to adopt in the ordinary open Session. Therefore, I do venture to suggest that His Majesty's Government should not wait until events and clamour force them to have a Secret Session. They had far better do it in time than be forced to do it.
I understand from some friends of mine who are members of another place that there have recently been meetings of a body which I believe is called the "1922 Committee"—a body which consists of supporters of the Government and meets sometimes for blowing-off steam and exchange of opinion, and to hear full, frank, free statements of policy by some of His Majesty's Ministers. I understand that recently representatives of the Government have met that Committee and that nothing but good has resulted from those meetings. Why should a meeting like that, which in fact is nothing but a Secret Session, be limited to Back-bench supporters of His Majesty's Government in another place? Why should not exactly the same thing be said to members of the Opposition? After all, they are supporting the Government and very often putting a great deal of ginger behind the Government, and there is no reason why they should not be given some of this vital information and argument. Moreover, I do not see why we in your Lordships' House should not have the same privilege and opportunity of taking part in such a discussion and hearing such statements.
I am not to-day going to discuss the sort of points into which we might go. I think it would be a very useful thing if we could have a frank statement of policy from the Government on the whole question of economics. It is so big a question that I am not going in any way to dwell upon that. There is an article in a London newspaper to-day by Mr.
1812
Keynes indicating one aspect. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, a year ago saying it was essential that we should mobilise industry. To what extent have we mobilised industry to-day for the successful prosecution of the war? There are some of us who feel that industry has not been sufficiently mobilised. There are some of us who feel also that we may get into a spiral where wages and prices chase each other because there has not been a sufficiently thought-out policy on the part of the Government. A frank discussion on qustions such as that would not in any way help the enemy, even if some of it did leak out. Then there is the question of war aims, which has been referred to. There is a public discussion going on in the Press, there is a public discussion at almost every dinner table, on war aims. We have public discussions here, but it is quite obvious that we might have a more frank discussion—perhaps not so frank a discussion as would necessarily take place in the Cabinet room, but nevertheless a discussion at which a great deal more could be said than can reasonably be expected to be said when there is full reporting.
I really do not think that the risks are serious. Some people oppose this proposal on the assumption that the Government would be asked, and might be tempted, for instance, to indicate the exact number of aeroplanes being built every month. That is not the sort of question which we want to raise. It is more questions of major strategy and questions of major policy. Questions of that sort are the questions which I think could be usefully debated. Our Parliamentary government has survived because it is elastic. I believe that this is a moment to show the elasticity of our procedure by having what is called a Secret Session. The Government have indicated that they are preparing for a long war. Some of us are not absolutely convinced yet that they are making every effort necessary in order to have a short war and a successful war, and I cannot but think that if we were to have a heart-to-heart talk here in a Secret Session nothing but good would result.
4.13 p.m.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I could almost wish, in order to impart variety to the debate, that I were in a position to oppose the Motion of my noble friend Lord Arnold, but in point of fact

1813
I am very strongly in favour of the holding of Secret Sessions in Parliament. In the short time that I have been a member of your Lordships' House I have been greatly impressed by the extraordinary wealth of knowledge and experience to be found among your Lordships. There are members who have had experience in every branch of public life, political life, in business, and in the Empire, and they are capable of sustaining on any given subject as well informed a debate as any Parliament in the world. Under the conditions that prevail at this moment, a great deal of that knowledge and experience is entirely in abeyance; it is not available under the conditions of open Session for the consideration of the greater issues that confront us. We pass Bills, many Bills, with great rapidity, and we argue smaller questions—important questions indeed, but not important relatively to the greater questions that are occupying the minds of every one of us in this House and of every thinking man in the country. We avoid altogether the major problems of policy; and why? Because we do not want to say what we think in an open Session. We wish to avoid any possible risk of embarrassing the Government; we wish to avoid any tendency to shake the confidence of the people; and again, as noble Lords have suggested, we wish very particularly to avoid providing any raw material for an ever-watchful foreign propaganda.
His Majesty's Ministers have very generously invited us to buttonhole them in the Lobbies or to write letters to them. I have never been able to bring myself to adopt either expedient. His Majesty's Ministers are exceedingly busy men, and I for one—and I think most of your Lordships—shrink from troubling them individually. There is, I believe, only one argument against Secret Sessions, and that was overcome years ago: it is the possibility that they might excite apprehension in the public mind. That argument has not been brought forward this afternoon. I can imagine that argument weighing in a good many people's minds. But that was not the result of Secret Sessions held during the last war. With other noble Lords, I was present at every Secret Session in the last war in another place. No secrets were divulged by His Majesty's Ministers, nor were they expected, and none, so far as anybody knows, ever got outside the walls of
1814
Parliament. It was a case, as a noble Lord has suggested to your Lordships, not so much of extracting secret information from Ministers, which no member of your Lordships' House would desire for a moment, as of affording Parliament—this House of Parliament and the other House, too, if they choose—an opportunity of telling Ministers what Parliament thinks about them. And that, I think, would occasionally be a very salutary process.
I remember one Secret Session that ran over two days in the Great War, which was devoted to the question of the food supply of this country. I was intimately associated with the question, as then, with my noble friend Lord Astor, I was working in close association with the Prime Minister, and I have no hesitation in saying that Secret Sessions brought about nothing but the best possible results. Parliament was perturbed about the food situation—and not merely members of the Opposition, but a great number of supporters of the then existing Government—and a full and frank statement was made during those two days. I would go a little further. I think the suggestion has been made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, not that we should have one Secret Session in a year, but that Secret Sessions should be a part of the normal procedure of your Lordships' House. I can see no objection whatever to that. Whether that further suggestion is adopted—it is a rather bold one, I think—I have no doubt whatever that Secret Sessions in this House would be to the advantage of your Lordships, and of the Ministerial Front Bench as well, and I know of no experience of past Secret Sessions that would lead us to have any misgivings that confidences given in this House or in another place would ever go outside the walls of Parliament.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, Unlike other speakers to-day, I have not had the advantage of having been in another place and seeing how Secret Sessions work. I look at it, though, from a different angle, having been inside for many years during all the last war. I cannot help remembering that no alteration in policy or organisation or anything was ever made without pressure from public opinion, even in that time. There are subjects about which one cannot talk now except in a Secret Session.

1815
I have heard (and no doubt it is correct) what the noble Lords have said, that the Government cannot give much fuller information at a Secret Session than they do now; and I heard the present leader of your Lordships' House, Lord Stanhope, not long ago say that if he were criticised he could not give the full answer without giving away information.
Well, that is not quite why I am pressing for a Secret Session. It seems to be very difficult indeed in these days to get any suggestions really reviewed by the Government, who are fully occupied; it is very difficult. One noble Lord said you would have to write a letter—I forget how many columns he said it would take. But I remember that when one did write such letters in the last war they went to the Department concerned. I naturally used to prefer my suggestions as to how to run the war to the ones which were very often sent in. Those suggestions could not go and did not go to the whole Cabinet. They were looked at by the Departments concerned. I feel that if suggestions could be made in a Secret Session in this place, implying in some cases criticisms or suggestions of something different from what is being done now, if they were supported by other members of your Lordships' House, it would give the Government an idea of what the public were really thinking. These discussions go on, as one noble Lord this afternoon has said, at every dinner table and at every breakfast table everywhere. But we do not know that all of these suggestions could go to the Government.
It may be said that the suggestions would be very voluminous, very long, and that there would be a great many of them in your Lordships' House. I would like to suggest that, having a Secret Session, it should be a two-day Session; that all suggestions or subjects that were discussed on the first day should be re-discussed and followed up by other noble Lords on the second day, and that no new matter should be introduced on the second day, so as to give His Majesty's Government an opportunity of considering whether they saw a general pressure of opinion on one particular point. I hope I have put my points as clearly as I want to put them. I feel that there is that side of the value of a Secret Session that is not thoroughly
1816
recognised by the Government. Anyhow, I have been told that in these days one should do one's best to avoid boredom, and I think that Secret Sessions would help to alleviate boredom.
4.24 p.m.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULEBREDE: My Lords, I started this question a few months ago and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Arnold has returned to it. I cannot say that I could give him much hope that his request will be acquiesced in. In fact, I think I could make the speech that the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, is going to make shortly. But I want to put to your Lordships the alternative; that is to say, what sort of method we are going to drift into now. What happened last Thursday? There was supposed to be a statement made in your Lordships' House on that day; but when I arrived here, in good time, and saw some of my noble friends with their pockets bulging with notes, I was told that there was to be no statement, and I was told to go and look at the "tape." Well, the "tape" is never a very inspiring means of giving information. It has a somewhat spasmodic power of expression. I went and looked at it. It did not convey much to me, but I gathered that a speech was being made in the City which was to take the place of a statement in your Lordships' House. I saw a noble friend of mine who had been at the function; he is an extremely abstemious man; and I asked him if at the luncheon he had heard anything of importance. He said he could not remember but he did not think that anything particular was said. That was to take the place of a debate in your Lordships' House!
I do not know whether there are going to be other occasions outside, where information is to be given and where your Lordships are not to be informed in such a way as to allow you to express your opinions. It may be the policy of the Government not to embark on embarrassing debates and, as my noble friend has said, it is certainly the firm intention of all of us in this House not to embarrass the Government and not to say one word that should help the enemy. But if the alternatives to debates here are going to be functions outside and, I would add

1817
also, broadcasts, then I think that Parliament, and more especially your Lordships' House, is being very badly treated. I myself came down with notes on the broadcast of the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, upon which I had a good deal to say; but since then we have had another broadcast upon which some of us have still more to say. But we have not an opportunity. We are not very fully reported in the Press in the debates here. But still I do feel that the safeguard of no report ought to allow the Government to provide us with an opportunity for a full debate.
I agree with the noble Marquess that the word "secret" is rather an unnecessary name to give a Session. It might just as well be called a Private Session, with no reports, because I quite agree that the word "secret" looks as if there were some sort of conspiracy going on or as if we were all met to oppose the Government. Nothing of the kind. It is merely a matter of allowing us an opportunity to say fully what we think. I think it would do the Government a lot of good; I am convinced of that; and, as previous speakers have said, we have absolutely no desire for the Government to disclose questions of tactics in the military field to us at all. I hope that the support that has been given to my noble friend's Motion will allow the Leader of the House to regard this matter quite seriously and to give it very full consideration. It is far better that they should begin to do that now than be forced to do it later on when there might be some dilemma. If it were the practice, not frequently, but from time to time, to allow full expression of opinion In your Lordships' House, and of course also in another place, the Government would benefit by it.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, when I entered this House to-day I had no intention of taking part in the proceedings, but I must apologise to your Lordships for saying that the traditions and education of a lifetime prevent me from sitting still. I feel therefore I must say a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord behind me. There is no question here of any Party. There is no question of condemning the Government, not even of criticising the Government.
1818
On the contrary, we owe to them, and to each one of them, our grateful thanks for the hard work they are doing at this time of great public anxiety. There is an old maxim which ought to apply in this House, and that is to hear both sides. To every question there are two sides. Although one's own side may be wrong, although it may be explained to one why one's own side is wrong, at any rate we do like to have the opportunity of putting our own views before the other side.
We do not want to hear any secrets. What we want to do is to be allowed in this House to make suggestions—and let me say that there are in this House men, not in the Government, who are capable of giving a wise, knowledgeable, and careful opinion on any subject which may be broached, and they sit here tongue-tied. Why? Because they do not like even to be thought to be criticising the Government, because of the harm it may do outside. I am jealous of the honour of your Lordships' House. I also think that the experience of members of your Lordships' House would be useful to the Government, and I beg the Government to consider that there may be men in this House who could make suggestions, in perfect good faith, perfect generosity, without any desire to run them down or to get any advantage to themselves, which might be a very considerable help to the prosecution of the war. Therefore I do hope that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, will be good enough to convey to the Government this expression of opinion. I am not speaking for myself. I do not want to trouble your Lordships. On questions of law I might be of some use; but on ordinary questions of public policy I see in front of me numerous men who, out of loyalty to the country and loyalty to the Government, do not rise in their places, and who would be able to make a most useful contribution to debate and also to public policy if they could be quite sure that the debate would be a secret one and that anything that was said would not be taken as showing want of confidence in or want of loyalty to the Government.
4.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it is not my intention unduly to detain your Lordships to-day, but I should like to say how much I support the Motion that has been moved by Lord

1819
Arnold. I would put before your Lordships this point, that when there is a Motion of this description, which has received so much support, the Government should consider very carefully the points which have been mentioned. I agree with my noble friend Lord Crewe, who said that the word "secret" may certainly have an element of prejudice about it. One would hope that we could have some arrangement by which our opinions could be put forward at some form of Session which would not be open to the public. There are many members of your Lordships' House who are most anxious to play their part as members of your Lordships' House but who feel themselves muzzled and controlled by reason of the fact that some of their speeches might savour of criticism of the Government. These criticisms would go out to the Press and they would run the risk of being misrepresented. They would run the equal risk of being exaggerated, and one would no doubt find in the German broadcast of that evening in some form or another an interpretation quite different from that which was intended and these opinions would go out to neutral countries all over the world. That is the reason why many of us—and I am speaking for myself—have remained silent through all these debates: because we know quite well that whatever we may say we should run the risk of these indictments which I have suggested. The only opportunity which we can have is in some form of Session which is not open to the public and will not be reported in the Press.
Some of your Lordships may have greater audacity than I can claim to have, and may buttonhole Ministers, write to them, or stand on their doorsteps. I am afraid I do not do that, and the result is that I have very few contacts with those who are controlling these very difficult matters. We should have that opportunity if we followed the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord. I would go further, and would say that these Sessions would be of great assistance to the Government. If we read the newspapers we can see that there is a volume of criticism of a very gentle, placid type. That is the manner in which people in this country try to express their disagreement with the Government at a time when they know that
1820
the expression of their disagreement may be of great difficulty to the Government and may be what is called helping the enemy; but, reading between the lines of many of these letters in the newspapers, one can realise the feelings of the writers.
I do most earnestly ask the Government to consider this matter very carefully. The noble Viscount the Foreign Secretary has, I understand, had confidential conversations with various bodies. I welcome these conversations. I only wish I had been a member of those bodies and received an invitation, because then I should be in the possession of information I badly require. One does not like to go and ask for it individually, though if there is an opportunity of hearing it, one is very glad to receive it. Unless there is a better suggestion, what the noble Lord has put forward fulfils what is in our minds, not only with a view to knowing more of what is going on, but as to the feeling, perhaps, that by the knowledge and experience we may possess we should be able to render some help and assistance to the Government. It is for these reasons, and not, as your Lordships know, in any hostile spirit, that I want to support the Motion that the noble Lord has put forward, and I sincerely hope the Government will give it the consideration it deserves.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I have never attended a Secret Session, so I am afraid I cannot speak, like many of my noble friends, with experience either here or in another House, but I remember that after certain Secret Sessions twenty-five years ago the whole place was buzzing with gossip. Every journalist in the place was trying to pick up titbits. A good deal of information, right or wrong, reached me as to what occurred in Secret Sessions, and whether I misused it or not I do not know. But do not think that a Secret Session is not a source of great activity to people who want to know what they are not themselves expected or otherwise allowed to know. So I listened today with great interest to ascertain what noble Lords really wanted a Secret Session for, and, as the debate has gone on, I have made an anthology.
Much the best speech made this evening, if I may say so, was that of my noble friend Lord Arnold. He did not want to hear a bit what Ministers had to

1821
say; he was determined that Ministers and others should hear what he thinks about it. During Lord Arnold's speech I felt my feet tingling all over, and I hope that Ministers would have that experience after Lord Arnold had addressed the Secret Session. That was rather the view of my noble friend behind me, who recalled that at one of the Secret Sessions in the other House a useful debate took place about food supplies. Lord Astor wants a Secret Session to remove suspicion. Whose suspicion, pray? His suspicion, or the suspicion of Ministers? If it is his suspicion, let it be removed in public and not in private. The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, said that there are lots of domestic affairs arising out of emergency legislation that might suitably he discussed by Parliament. I invite Lord Crewe to mention half a dozen subjects of domestic affairs that are causing trouble in this country arising out of emergency legislation which have not been amply discussed already here and elsewhere. Parliament is meeting two or three times a week regularly, and all those subjects have been already discussed or are in process of being discussed.
Lord Astor said: "Let us discuss the article of Mr. Keynes in The Times this morning." Gracious me, we do not want a Secret Session to discuss that. It is also said, "Let us mobilise industry." The papers are full of discussions about mobilising industry. We who are connected with industry know all the troubles about mobilising industry, and the way to get those troubles settled is not to make polemical speeches here or elsewhere, but to tackle the people who are doing it. They are finding it, I know, very difficult indeed to untie some of the knots that have been tied, but it is not from lack of good will on the part of those who see the mistakes that have been made. I do not think those mistakes are going to be corrected in Parliament. I think they are much more likely to be corrected by the people who know and suffer approaching the people in charge. Then, it is said, "We want to discuss war aims." The newspapers seem to me to be full of discussions about war aims. Ministers have made statements constantly about war aims. The real difficulty about war aims is that you cannot define your war aims until it is settled whom you are going to fight and who are going to fight you. Moreover, we do not know how long the
1822
war is going on, nor do we know how and where it is to end. When a few of these difficulties have been overcome we can discuss war aims, but I prefer to do it not in Secret Session.
Lord Harmsworth wants to tell off Ministers about food—a very good idea too! Lord Trenchard said nothing at all—he did not speak 2,400 words that I counted—except that suggestions might be made. A very mysterious speech. I do not know what his suggestions are likely to be about. I imagine, coming rfom Lord Trenchard, they will not be about small things. They would be about major strategy. I have not a doubt but that Lord Trenchard has conveyed those suggestions already in a more direct way than he would do in a Secret Session to those who are responsible for questions of strategy. Lord Ponsonby wanted to discuss a broadcast. I am sure, for the pleasure and hilarity of Britain as a whole, that had better be discussed in open rather than in Secret Session, and I would very much like to hear what he has to say about that if we are thinking about the same broadcast. Lord Sankey merely dropped an obiter dictum that he would like to loosen his tongue, and my noble friend Lord Londonderry, again, wanted a Secret Session in order to avoid misapprehension or misconception. I think Lord Londonderry's speech was very serious, because he indicated that the Secret Session would be serviceable to him, as it would enable him to conceal from the public his disagreement with the attitude of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I really must protest. The last person I should like to disagree with would be my noble friend on the Front Bench. My noble friend (the Earl of Crawford) makes accusations against me that I resent. I said nothing of the kind. I said that if we addressed any criticism openly in the House of Lords both misrepresentation and exaggeration might arise in the Press. That was what I wished to avoid.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, I was wrong. I thought the Secret Session was to avoid misrepresentation or misconception here and abroad.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: And exaggeration.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Unless it is critical there is no object in misrepresenting or misconceiving is there? If it was a strong statement in support of Lord Halifax I do not think anybody would trouble to make really heavy weather of that. I thought it was only to enable Peers who disagreed with the Government to do so without being misrepresented either here or abroad, or misconceived. If I misheard the remark I am very sorry. So I think, on the whole, there are very few subjects which have been suggested which cannot be discussed in open Session. A great many of them are being discussed, or have been discussed, and in the future will again be discussed, in Public Session. I quite understand that the time may come, sooner perhaps than we expect, when it may be necessary for the Government to make communications of a very serious character to Parliament, but I express the hope that until the very last moment our traditional policy of open and public Sessions of Parliament may be retained for the benefit of Parliament and for the benefit of the public as well.
4.48 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I must confess, after listening to the debate so far, including the speech of the noble Earl in front of me (the Earl of Crawford) on Secret Sessions, I am still not entirely clear as to when and under what conditions your Lordships ought to debate in secret; but I am at least clear on one point, and that is the sort of debate which I personally should like to hear in your Lordships' House. I should like to hear a searching debate, with all respect to those in front of me, upon our war aims, and I hope to hear from His Majesty's Government this evening whether in their view such a debate could be conducted in secret. Up to the present His Majesty's Government, doubtless for entirely adequate reasons, have not found it possible to make any explicit public statement of what we are fighting for or, what in my judgment is perhaps more important at present, what we are not fighting for. In the meantime there seems to be an increasing danger that in various ways, through our replies to peace interventions from neutral countries, through semi-official or official statements, through broadcasts, even through articles in the Press, we may be gradually accumulating a burden of war
1824
aims which have never been discussed or sanctioned by Parliament or even by His Majesty's Government.
For example, when we went to war ten weeks ago we were informed that we were fighting for Poland and to rid Europe of the menace of constant aggression. A little later it began to appear that we were also fighting for Czecho-Slovakia, and, to judge from the French reply to the recent intervention of the King of the Belgians and the Queen of the Netherlands, it would seem that we are now fighting to free Austria. Well, there may be much to be said in favour of that proposition, but it is a proposition which has never been discussed, much less sanctioned, by your Lordships' House or another place and it is a proposition which should be discussed. I very much hope that the noble Earl this evening will tell us whether in his view it should be discussed in secret. According to his reply will depend my attitude to the Motion introduced with such eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold.
4.51 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I only wish to say one or two words on the general subject from my own personal experience during a life spent in assisting in the conduct of foreign affairs. From that point of view it seems to me that at certain critical times there would be great advantage in an opportunity being offered to your Lordships' House to have a discussion in Secret Session in order to bring out certain things which it is practically impossible to bring out in Public Session. I have now left the diplomatic profession for some twenty years, but I move about the world a great deal and I am in continual contact with authorities of other countries who have been occupied in that particular direction also. Having known me for so many years they are very often very frank with me, and from many quarters in those countries from time to time I hear something which is interesting, often from men who have left office, who in talking of their experiences give one light on certain tendencies which are likely to produce action in their country or which may often have done so in the past. Well, of course, anything that is heard which is of importance to his country it is the duty of a Privy Councillor to report, but on several occasions when something has come to me that appeared

1825
to me to be of value, if I went to an official quarter or to a Government office to see somebody there, although I do not say it was not received with attention, there was a general attitude that they already knew much better, and, generally speaking, one received the impression that one was looked upon rather as a busybody.
These occasions do not occur very often—there would not be many of them—but from time to time one may come into possession of some information from a source which it would be impossible to betray in Public Session because it would be fully reported the following day in the OFFICIAL REPORT and would be studied by every Embassy and Legation in the country and reported home by them. I therefore put forward this very small contribution to the debate to-day from that point of view. It may sometimes be impossible publicly to explain a source of information, or even several sources of information, whereas in your Lordships' House in a Private Session which was not reported it appears to me one would be able to go much further in making known what was the source of information and how far it might be regarded as trustworthy. I can only say that very often what I have been told by people who have been in authority or may still be in authority in other countries has modified my own private assumption of what was likely to happen. If it were possible in any way to modify the general sense of your Lordships' House by knowledge that might not be obtained in any other way, I think that a Private Session might from that point of view have a certain value.
4.56 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, until this debate was drawing to a conclusion I felt that I might be placed in the same position as an ancestor of mine, who many years ago I believe kept your Lordships' House sitting all night and then found himself in a minority of one. His supporters outside were so pleased at the event that a medal was struck to commemorate the occasion, and it is now in my possession. I do not think anybody is likely to present me with a medal on this occasion, and I am still less likely to keep your Lordships up all night. Some noble Lords have referred to the Secret
1826
Sessions which were held during the last war, and your Lordships have been reminded that this House had only one. It was held on April 25, 1916, and was Proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, on behalf of the Government of the day. It was criticised severely by another noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who said it was absolutely unprecedented in modern times. In another place there were five or six Secret Sessions, as the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, said; but may I point out that at each one of those Secret Sessions there was a definite subject for discussion?
In your Lordships' House the subject debated was the question of compulsory military service. As your Lordships will remember, there was a very great division of opinion on that, not only in both Houses of Parliament but throughout the country, and I have no doubt the Government of the day found it a very great advantage to discuss with members of both Houses the whole of that extremely important question to find out how far they were likely to get support in proposing compulsory service. I can conceive of no such question to-day. There is no substantial division of opinion in the country on any great matter. Indeed, my own feeling is that never in all our history has this country been so united and so determined as it is at this moment. There is another question which affects this matter, and it is this. There is far more publicity to-day in every kind of way than there was twenty-five years ago. Your Lordships will remember that in the last war, when the "Audacious" was sunk, no word was said about it and nothing was known until, I think, nearly the end of the war, if indeed the war was not over. At any rate nothing was said until a very long time afterwards.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was published in the American newspapers.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It was made public at once.
EARL STANHOPE: It was not made public in this country. In this war every one of our losses has been made public without delay. First of all there was the sinking of the "Courageous," then of the "Royal Oak," quite recently the sinking of a submarine, and, only yesterday, the sinking of a destroyer. Each one of those losses was made known to

1827
the public at once. So, too, in regard to other matters. Publicity has not been confined to the fighting Services, but really has run through the whole of the action taken by the Government as far as I can see in every direction. Statements have been made in Parliament at regular intervals, covering the whole field not only of the fighting Services but of the Home Front, and when it is said—as I think it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold—that when these statements are made there is nothing new in them, that only shows how much has already been given to the public through the Press and how the public is being kept fully informed in every direction.
Then there is another medium through which publicity is given, and that is through the radio. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the admirable broadcasts, as I think we should all agree, of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. He said he would have liked to have come and criticised them in Secret Session. But why in Secret Session? If he has any criticism to make of my noble friend's broadcast I suppose my noble friend would be prepared to withstand it here and now. So, too, in regard to other broadcasts made by other members of His Majesty's Government, including two by the First Lord of the Admiralty, which I think your Lordships will have very sincerely welcomed. So far from trying to keep these matters secret, the situation is entirely different from that of the last war. Indeed, I am one of those who think that publicity has in some ways gone too far. We are accustomed now to have speeches blared at us across the ether dealing with all sorts of delicate international questions; and although I am not one who would wish to return entirely to the days of secret diplomacy, at any rate I feel that those matters would have been more easily and more successfully dealt with if there had been less publicity about them than was given them in the speeches which are now produced in autocratic countries.
No one, of course, would for a moment suggest that details should be given of either the disposition or the movements of His Majesty's Forces. No one in this debate, of course, has suggested any such thing, although the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, Lord Astor, suggested that we might consider questions of
1828
major strategy. That I should have thought would have been most unwise, and the suggestion is certainly not one that I could recommend. But of course all your Lordships desire only to assist in winning the war, and not to give any information to the enemy—and indeed not to take any Party action against the Government, but to give them all the support that you may. Surely the moment the Government agree that a Secret Session should be held, at once the public feel that they are not being taken into the full confidence of the Government and are not being given all the truth. After all, the mere word "secret" means that there is something to hide, and the only thing that the Government feel that it is necessary to hide is anything which might assist the enemy. I am not going to suggest that there would be leakage after debates in this House, although I should like to point out to Lord Arnold that before the first Secret Session was held in the last war, an Order in Council was passed making it a serious offence if any publicity came of it.
LORD ARNOLD: Certainly.
EARL STANHOPE: Your Lordships have said, and particularly Lord Arnold, that it is really not what the Government might say to Parliament, but rather what Parliament might say to the Government, which would be of advantage. But why wait for an audience to say these things? I have been approached since the war began by a number of your Lordships, sometimes offering criticisms of the Government and sometimes, I am glad to say, making suggestions; and in each case I have passed them on. I have no reason to think that those suggestions and criticisms have received less consideration because they were made in a private manner than they would have received if they had been made in a Secret Session, when obviously no record of them could be kept.
There is another and much weightier reason, which Lord Arnold hoped I should not use, but which I am certainly going to use: that is, the effect of a Secret Session abroad. Not only has the radio developed in this country, but also it has developed abroad, perhaps almost more for purposes of propaganda, and particularly of untrue propaganda. Dr. Goebbels, the moment a Secret Session was held, would at once say that in this House or in another place there

1829
had been apparent a very strong move in favour of immediate peace on Germany's terms, and various other untruths of that kind. How are we going to deny that? What is the good of simply saying this, that and the other did not happen? I should doubt whether my noble and learned friend the Minister of Information would tell your Lordships that an effective means of countering untrue propaganda is merely to deny it. You have to give chapter and verse to a very considerable extent if you are really going to meet it adequately and properly. That, of course, you cannot do after a Secret Session; you cannot say what was in fact said or disprove what was not said.
Many questions have been suggested for discussion at a Secret Session; but is there in fact any topic at this moment which is really ripe for such a discussion? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to war aims. They have been discussed and laid down in general terms, both by the Prime Minister and by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary, over and over again. Surely at this moment we are wise in sticking to general principles and not going further into detail. Similarly, in regard to other questions which might be discussed, we are anxious to get all the assistance and all the help from members of both Houses of Parliament that it is possible to get. I agree completely with what was said by my noble friend Lord Harmsworth, as to the immense knowledge and experience of members of your Lordships' House. But why have a Secret Session in order to give us the benefit of that knowledge and experience? Why not come to us and give us your criticisms, or, as I said, preferably your suggestions—as was said by the noble and gallant Viscount on the Cross Benches—which might be of great value to the Government? Let us have them. I cannot believe that every one of your Lordships is in the position of Lord Arnold, who cannot do with less than whatever it was—24,000 words?—in order to give us the benefit of his advice! I am quite sure that Lord Harmsworth, in the suggestions he would make, would be very much shorter than that, and so would Lord Arnold himself.
So far from it being a burden to Ministers to receive suggestions of value, of course we welcome them, and we
1830
should welcome them all the more when they were given us in the real confidence of a heart-to-heart talk than in the more limited confidence which is all that you can have even in a Secret Session. Lord Rennell said he could not give the authority for some of the statements that had been made to him if he were to give them in public; nor could he give it in confidence to your Lordships' House. But he could give it by talking privately to the noble Lord beside me or to any other member of the Government, and I hope he will. It may be that the time will come when some special question is ripe for a Secret Session of Parliament. It may be that some sort of division may arise in the country which we should like to have cleared up by frank and full discussion. But that moment has not arrived yet; because, as I said before, all of us are agreed that the country is peculiarly united at this moment and peculiarly determined as to the objects for which it is fighting and the methods by which they should be attained. Therefore, although at this moment the Government feel that there is no advantage in holding such a Session, I shall certainly report to my noble friends in the War Cabinet the views that your Lordships have expressed to-night, and the door is by no means closed should an occasion arise when the Government and your Lordships feel later on that a Private Session is necessary.
5.8 p.m.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I will only speak for one moment in concluding this debate. I have naturally been much gratified by the wide and very influential support given to the Motion. Of course I take no credit for that; the merit is inherent in the Motion itself. I can scarcely say that I am satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—if reply it was. In fact he did not attempt to reply to the main arguments in favour of a Secret Session. If what he said is sound, how is it that there were six Secret Sessions held in the last war over a period of nearly two years? He did not answer that, and he cannot answer that. In view of the very wide support given to the Motion in the very important speeches which were made, I felt much tempted to carry this Motion to a Division; and if I were to do that, I have no doubt that the

1831
Motion would be carried. Having regard, however, to wider considerations, I will refrain from doing that, and will beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.