Sitting of 20 March 1940

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Argyll, in the room of Frederick Alexander Macquisten, Esquire, K.C., deceased [Mr. James Stuart.]

BRITISH MUSEUM.
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the trustees and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]
Mr. Kirk wood: Would they accept the Government if we offered it to them?
Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  POLAND.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider bringing before the Council of the League of Nations the German aggression against Poland, in order that the Covenant of the League may be put into operation under Article 17, as a result of which it would be incumbent upon the neutrals, members
  1954
  of the League, under Article 16, to sever all trade and financial relations with Germany, to prohibit any intercourse with Germans, and to prevent all financial, commercial or personal contacts between Germany and the nationals of any other State, whether a member of the League or not?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member will be aware that the Polish Government did not appeal to the Council of the League of Nations, either during the course of their dispute with the German Government or upon the invasion of their country by the German forces. His Majesty's Government do not consider that it would be opportune at this stage to refer these matters to the Council.
  Mr. Mander: Would the Government bear in mind that if action of this kind were taken, it would very much strengthen our position, from the point of view of international law, in regard to any action that we may have to take later on in dealing with neutrals?
  Mr. Butler: All these considerations have been borne in mind, but I cannot alter the answer I have given to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mander: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the undesirability of creating the impression that the League is to be used only against Left Wing aggressors?
  Mr. Gallacher: Was not the League revived in order to make a demonstration against the Soviet Union, and is it not now dead again?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: When we are reconstructing the world after the war, will the Government bear in mind what we have lost through not using the Covenant of the League?
  Mr. Butler: I am satisfied that we have done our best to use the Covenant of the League.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Would the right hon. Gentleman bring forward at the same time the case of Russian aggression against Finland?

  MR. SUMNER WELLES'S VISITS.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has been

  1955
  made with the Government of the United States of America to secure information for the British Government concerning the significance of the recent visits of Mr. Sumner Welles, and any conclusions or proposals arising therefrom?
  Mr. Butler: We are content to rely on the courtesy of the United States Government for any information they may wish to give us arising out of this important visit.
  Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand that no approach was made to the United States respecting such a report?
  Mr. Butler: We are so satisfied with our relations with the United States Government that we are content to rely on their courtesy to keep as informed.
  Mr. Sorensen: If the Government get the report and information from them, will there be an opportunity of discussing the matter in this House?

  ANTI-BRITISH ACTIVITIES, CHINA.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the activities, in Tsinan, of an organisation known as the Anti-British Committee; whether this committee purports to be carrying on a trade boycott against British goods; of whom it consists; and by whom it is sponsored?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. An Anti-British Committee exists in Tsinan and has been carrying on an active boycott against British goods. The committee professes to be private, and its chairman is a Chinese. My Noble Friend is calling for a further report on the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
  Mr. Robert Gibson: Is the chairman the only member of this organisation who is Chinese?
  Mr. Butler: It is in order to get a clearer picture of this committee that we have asked for this report.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is there any doubt that this committee is sponsored by the Japanese?
  Mr. Butler: There is very little doubt.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Prime Minister whether a British news service in Chinese is available in North China to counter the untrue anti-British propaganda which is being widely circulated in that area?
  The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): I have been asked to reply. There is an extensive Reuter news service to North China, but the supply of news to Chinese papers is the virtual monopoly of news agencies controlled by the authorities. News broadcasts in Chinese are given daily from Hong Kong and Shanghai.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement on the conversations which have recently taken place between the Japanese Ambassador in London and Lord Halifax; and, in particular, whether any attempt has been made by the Japanese to obtain from His Majesty's Government their good offices in bringing about contact between the Chinese Government at Chungking and Mr. Wang Ching-wei?
  Mr. Butler: The Japanese Ambassador, in accordance with established practice, calls at the Foreign Office from time to time to discuss matters of common interest to our two countries. No such suggestion as is described in the second part of the Question has been made.
  Mr. Price: Does the statement made by the Prime Minister to me last January, that the only Government recognised as the Government of China is the Government of Chungking, still hold good?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; all statements by the Prime Minister hold good.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the attention of the Government been called to the important statement made by the Chinese Ambassador to this country the other day, on the subject of the so-called Government of Wang Ching-wei?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

  ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
  Mr. Rileyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the termination of the invasion of Finland by Russia, he will

  1957
  now consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper setting forth the negotiations for an entente between Great Britain, France and Russia which preceded the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia?
  Mr. Butler: The Government's decision on this matter was conveyed to the House by the Prime Minister on 6th March, and recent events do not cause them to modify that decision.
  Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the country is entitled to know the grounds on which the negotiations broke down, and is he not aware that there is a great desire to get the facts as to what led up to this failure?
  Mr. Butler: I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety to know the full facts, but he will remember that the Prime Minister said that we had had consultations with the French Government, and, after a full review of the circumstances, had decided not to publish a White Paper.
  Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that a statement was made to this House that we should have the facts? After all, it is this House and this Government that have to decide, not other countries.
  Mr. Butler: This Government has decided.
  Mr. Mander: Is the only account we an: to have M. Molotov's account?

  FINLAND.
  Mr. Priceasked the Prime Minister whether, after the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had approached His Majesty's Government with a request to pass on terms of peace with Finland which could not be considered, any steps were taken to find out whether the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarded these as final terms and were not prepared to negotiate on them?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It was considered at the time that the Soviet Government would not be prepared to modify these terms, and this judgment has been confirmed by subsequent events.
  Mr. G. Strauss: Does the Minister appreciate that it was the British Government, and not the German Government, that the Soviet Union approached for the settlement of this matter?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; that is fully appreciated.
  Mr. H. Strauss: Is it not probable that they did so on the suggestion of the German Government?
  Mr. Butler: That is not necessarily so at all.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    BOMBING ATTACK, STEAMSHIP "DOMALA."
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Secretary of State for Air whether any official inquiry has been or will be held into the circumstances surrounding the bombing by a German aircraft of the British steamship "Domala?"
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): The circumstances of this attack have been the subject of investigation, as is the practice in the case of all such enemy operations.
    Sir A. Southby: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the attack was made from mast-head height, and that no British fighter aircraft took off?
    Sir K. Wood: No Sir.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it the case that the German aircraft indicated by signs that they were British aircraft?

    SUB-CONTRACTING.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the business books of the sub-contracting firm are open to the scrutiny of his accountants, in all cases where there is subcontracting, with regard to a Government contract; and whether the terms of the sub-contract itself are disclosed to his accountants?
    Sir K. Wood: It is the normal practice of my Department to include in all negotiated contracts provision for the supervision of sub-contract prices where the items are substantial, and for Departmental access to sub-contractors' works and records for the purpose of making

    1959
    independent costs estimates. As regards the second part of the Question, no difficulty has been experienced in obtaining any requisite information.
    Mr. Gibson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department require the disclosure of any interest that the contracting firm may have in the sub-contracting firm?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question down.

    LEAVE (FRANCE).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that officers and airmen of the Royal Air Force in France receive, in effect, shorter periods of leave than those stationed in the United Kingdom; and will he take steps to remedy this grievance?
    Sir K. Wood: The amount of leave of absence from the unit is broadly the same both at home and in France. I appreciate that more time is spent in travelling by personnel serving in France than by those serving in this country. I am afraid, however, that it is impossible to compensate for the extra time spent in travelling, because the number of personnel who can be absent at the same time from units overseas and the transport available are limited.
    Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend consider, in view of those difficulties, allowing the officers and men overseas to accumulate the time that they spend in travelling, so that when they are posted to a home station they may take that extra accumulated leave?
    Sir K. Wood: Officers commanding may authorise the carrying forward, within the leave year, of any leave not taken, provided that they are satisfied that special circumstances precluded its being taken during the period for which it was granted.
    Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend satisfy me that this time which is spent in travelling will be considered by the air officers commanding?
    Sir K. Wood: I cannot extend the answer I have just given.

    AMERICAN AIRCRAFT (PURCHASE).
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether negotiations for
    1960
    further purchases of American aircraft by the United Kingdom have been discontinued?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, negotiations are proceeding normally.
    Mr. Simmonds: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a growing opinion that if he would take greater advantage of the wood-working industry in this country to produce more wooden aircraft, he could considerably curtail the expenditure of dollars in purchases from American firms?
    Sir K. Wood: Considerable advance is being made in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, but there are other considerations which have to be taken into account in regard to these American purchases.

  CIVIL AVIATION (LONDON-LISBON SERVICE).
  15. Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he the now announce the date for the commencement of the feeder air service between London and Lisbon to connect with the Pan-American Clipper service?
  Sir K. Wood: While the negotiations with the countries concerned in the operation of this service have not yet been concluded, I am hopeful that the necessary permits will be received shortly, and when these are received I shall be able to announce a definite date for the inauguration of the service.

  PALESTINE.

    JEWS AND ARABS (ENLISTMENT).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews and how many Arabs, respectively, have enlisted in Palestine for service overseas since the war began?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Since the war began 1,709 Jews and 392 Arabs have enlisted in Palestine for service overseas. These figures include the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps already in France, which contains 742 Jews and 306 Arabs.
    Mr. T. Williams:Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he could not give the

    1961
    House the figures when they were asked for last week, and since there are two Jewish volunteers to every one Arab, does not that definitely prove the loyalty of the Jews to this country?
    Mr. MacDonald: The reason why I did not give the figures last week was the reason I gave in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, which was that the exact figures were not available in this country, and I had to get them from the High Commissioner. With regard to the second part of the Question, nobody doubts the loyalty of the Jews to this country, and we very greatly appreciate it. We appreciate the help we are getting from both the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine.
    Mr. Williams: May I ask—
    Mr. Speaker rose—
    Mr. Williams: On a point of Order. Statements have been made, presumably officially, that there were 700 members of the Auxiliary Pioneer Corps which left Palestine for France. The right hon. Gentleman now intimates that there are about 1,100 members of that Corps, and surely I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the first so-called official statement of 700 compared with the 1,100 to which he has referred?
    Mr. MacDonald: I am afraid I have not seen the official statement to which the hon. Member refers, and I very much doubt whether it was official. The figures I have given are the accurate figures of the unit serving in France.
    Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many M.Ps. have volunteered for service?

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (GERMAN AGENTS).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that amongst the Jewish illegal immigrants into Palestine there are German citizens, many of whom are German spies; and what steps he proposes to take to stop this illegal traffic on that account?
    Mr. M. MacDonald:Yes, Sir. Though local inquiries have not yet produced conclusive proof, the High Commissioner has strong reasons for suspecting that the passengers of two ships which about a
    1962
    month ago landed illegal immigrants in Palestine included German agents. These persons, together with other illegal immigrants, are held in detention camps. As regards the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Government are taking various measures to suppress the traffic in illegal immigrants.
    Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what he implies when he states that many of these illegal immigrants may or may not be German spies?
    Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add to the answer which I have given, which was that the High Commissioner has strong reasons to suppose, from information at his disposal, that some of these people are German agents.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can the Minister say how many have been detained?
    Mr. MacDonald: Some hundreds.
    Mr. Lipson: Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that these German agents are Jews?
    Mr. MacDonald: As I say, we have not any conclusive proof, but from the information we have received we understand that there are strong possibilities that some of the Jewish members of these parties are German agents.
    Mr. Leach: Would they not be in serious danger of their lives in such company in such a ship?

  SINGAPORE AND MALAYA (LABOUR DISPUTES).
  Captain Alan Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many cases of labour disputes in Singapore and Malaya, since 3rd September, 1939, are traceable to Communist agitation; how many men have been involved; what was the nature of the work on which they had been engaged; and what measures is he taking to counteract this menace?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: In view of the length of the answer, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Is it not time that this bogy about Communist causes of industrial disputes was destroyed, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the workers concerned are suffering from perfectly legitimate industrial grievances?
  Captain Graham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not a bogy, but the actual fact?
  Mr. Paling: So are wages.
  Following is the reply:
  It is difficult to give exact figures of the numbers of disputes attributable to Communist agitation or of the number of men involved; but as regards major disputes, involving more than 1,000 men, there have been at least four in Singapore and one in the Federated Malay States. Including less important strikes, the industries affected have been, among others, saw-mills, rattan factories, building, pineapple canning, rubber mills, rubber packing, engineering shops, lighters, coal mining and the Singapore Harbour Board. Where the law has been broken by Communist agitators, the offenders have been dealt with by prosecution, deportation in the case of aliens, the requirement of residence in restricted areas, the seizure of duplicating plant used for Communist literature and by normal police measures. Generally there has been an absence of actual disturbance.

  GOLD COAST.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Enoch Azu, four other electors and eight elders of the State of Manya Krobo in the Eastern Province of the Gold Coast Colony, have been convicted as political prisoners for playing on the drums in their own houses; what is the reason for this conviction and what is its political character?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: No, Sir. I have, however, asked the Governor for a report and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of his reply.

  MAURITIUS (HARBOUR ADMINISTRATION).
  22. Mr. Palingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any
  1964
  information about the labour trouble between the harbour workers and employers at Port Louis, Mauritius; whether the employers are seeking to get the loading and unloading of cargoes done at prices considerably below the ruling rates; and whether the profit-sharing scheme formed in 1938 has been suspended?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: I have received no information suggesting that there is any labour trouble between the harbour workers and employers at Port Louis or that the employers are seeking to reduce loading and unloading charges. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that a company was formed in 1938 with a view to undertaking stevedoring work at Port Louis on a profit-sharing basis, but my information suggests that they have not been successful in obtaining any material share of the business. I may add that a commission has been appointed by a resolution of the Legislature in Mauritius to study the whole question of harbour administration and charges as part of a general examination of the transport system in the Colony.
  Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether this labour trouble is in actual being, as I have very definite information to that effect?
  Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly make inquiries, and perhaps it would help me if the hon. Member would let me have the information at his disposal.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I take it from the reply to this Question that this is a perfectly genuine industrial agitation and is not due to Communist activities?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am not certain that any agitation exists.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (MINE-WORKERS' STRIKE).
  Dr. Haden Guestasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the strike of mineworkers at the Mufilira copper mine in Northern Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement on the rates of wages and conditions of employment at this mine?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I am in telegraphic communication with the Governor on the matter. Both the Acting

  1965
  Chief Secretary and the Labour Commissioner in Northern Rhodesia have gone to Mufilira to assist in any way that they can in promoting a settlement. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I have asked the Governor for complete information and will send it to the hon. Member as soon as I receive it.
  Dr. Guest: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence as far as possible to see that these men get good wages and good conditions, which they have not had, and prevent profiteering in the Colonial Empire at this time, which surely is just as important as it is in this country?
  Mr. MacDonald: I entirely agree.
  Mr. Paling: Could that information, and also as regards the profits of these companies, be included in the Official Report so that we could all have it?
  Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps the best thing would be for the hon. Member to put down a Question immediately after the House reassembles, when I could publish the information in the Official Report.
  Mr. Maxton: The Minister told us about the authorities going there to secure a settlement. Does he mean by that, driving the men back to work, or going into their grievances with a view to remedying them?
  Mr. MacDonald: It means offering their good offices to the two sides in the dispute, with complete impartiality between the two.
  Mr. Maxton: What do the men say?
  Mr. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say what demands have been made?
  Mr. MacDonald: The working people have put forward a number of demands for improved conditions. They are very long, and I cannot recount them in the course of an answer to a Question, but if hon. Members wish for information, and will put down Questions, I will supply all the information at my disposal.

  TRANSPORT.

    AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS (DRIVING REGULATIONS).
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that youths under 21 years of age are not
    1966
    permitted to drive agricultural tractors on the highway whilst they are allowed to drive two and a-half ton lorry; that this is a hardship to farmers; and will he take steps to get the law amended?
    The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that action has now been taken which has altered the legal position as stated in his Question. The effect of a Defence Regulation which has just been made is that a person of 17 years of age may lawfully drive an agricultural tractor on the road, not merely "in the course of the internal operations of a farm" but also on the public road from one farm to another.

    ROAD HAULAGE (PETROL RATIONING).
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take regarding the dissatisfaction among many firms in Burnley with the inadequate petrol supplies for delivery of goods by road; and whether he is aware that the policy of instructing firms to send by rail is adding to the difficulties of the railways, who cannot supply containers for many classes of goods or cope with the existing traffic?
    Captain Wallace: As the amount of fuel available for the movement of goods by road is limited, it is necessary, in order that it shall be used to the best advantage in the national interest, to divert to other means of transport a certain amount of traffic normally carried by road. In any case where the Regional Transport Commissioner is satisfied that reasonable alternative transport facilities are not available for essential traffic, supplementary fuel rations for movement by road will be granted. Restrictions in the supply of petrol are, I regret, bound to cause inconvenience, but I am not aware that there is any special ground for dissatisfaction in Burnley. The number of railway containers available for the country as a whole is limited, but I understand that the present requirements of Burnley firms are being met.
    Mr. Burke: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a number of firms, the names of which I have sent him, are complaining that they are told to transport their goods on the railways, when the railways are absolutely choked with goods which they cannot move at the present time?
    Captain Wallace: I am afraid that that does not alter the answer which I have given. We have a certain amount of petrol to allocate for goods transport, and we must use it to the best advantage in the national interest, irrespective of the interests of particular firms.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the Minister aware that one result of the congestion on the railways produced by the matters to which my hon. Friend has called attention has been that mills all over Lancashire have been held up because they cannot get coal delivered, and that the loss in the value of export goods resulting from that is really very large indeed; and cannot he do something to assist in that matter?
    Captain Wallace: There is another Question on coal on the Paper, to which I shall reply in a moment.
    Mr. J. Hollins: Would the Minister consider advising those people who cannot send goods by rail to take advantage of the canal system which has been driven out of business by the railway companies?
    Captain Wallace: There is also another Question on canals on the Paper.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Transport whether he will release extra supplies of petrol to firms in Burnley for road-haulage work in order that the rail ways may more easily deal with the problem of improving the serious position in regard to the town's coal supply?
    Captain Wallace: I am not aware that the railways are experiencing any difficulty in transporting coal to Burnley.
    Mr. Burke: Does the Minister not know that last week in Burnley 8,000 looms were stopped because they could not get coal, and that if he will refer to the Secretary for Mines he will find out what is the state of coal supplies in Burnley at the present time?
    Captain Wallace: I have consulted with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, and I must still stick to my statement, that I am not aware that the railways have experienced any difficulty in transporting coal to Burnley.
    Mr. Burkeasked the Minister of Transport what instructions have been issued by his Department or by Regional
    1968
    Commissioners regarding petrol supplies for long-distance road-haulage; and what mileage in the case of Burnley is regarded as a long distance?
    Captain Wallace: No hard and fast rules have been laid down as to what is or is not long-distance haulage. The essential criterion in dealing with applications for supplementary rations is whether the traffic should, in the national interest, go by road or whether, in view of the shortage of fuel, it should preferably be carried by some other form of transport.
    Mr. Burke: Is the Minister not aware that 70 to 75 miles has been laid down by the local officer as being too far for petrol supplies to be allowed and that there are other firms who distribute in Burnley from longer distances, with consequent great disadvantage to Burnley firms from the point of view of competition? Will he look into the general position in Burnley as I can assure him that it is very unsatisfactory?
    Captain Wallace: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at the general position at Burnley, in view of the representations made to me by him on more than one occasion. But it is not a question of any arbitrary limit of 75 miles or any other distance; it is a question of how urgent it is to move particular goods and whether there are goods which, without being detrimental to the national interest, might be moved by some other form of transport, thereby relieving petrol for more urgent uses.

    CANALS.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Minister of Transport whether he will encourage the carriage of coal and goods by making more use of existing canals; and what steps is he taking to revive this important form of transport?
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Transport what steps have been taken to make full use of the canal system of the country, especially in view of the fact that before the war some of these canals were operating below capacity owing to the shortage of bargemasters?
    Captain Wallace: The question of the fuller use of the canals has been very carefully considered both by the Regional Transport Commissioners and by the Canal (Defence) Advisory Committee, on

    1969
    which are represented the waterways and carriers, as well as the various Government Departments concerned in getting traffic moved. Steps have been taken to bring the facilities offered by the canal carriers to the notice of traders and Government Departments.
    My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is taking special measures to fill vacancies for canal boatmen, and at the last meeting of the Canal (Defence) Advisory Committee representatives of the employers and of labour agreed to make jointly an immediate inquiry into the labour position. I have also asked the representatives of the industry whether, upon the basis of some measure of financial assistance from the Government, they can formulate practical plans for carrying more traffic by canal.
    Brigadier-General Brown: Will the Minister consider the case of the Kennet Canal, west of Reading, and use his influence to get the Great Western Railway to take off the embargo which has been on the canal for many years?
    Captain Wallace: I hope the canal people will consider every canal in putting forward their proposals.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that railway-owned canals are brought back into use? Can he make grants available for clearing weeds in such canals as the Kennet and Avon, through which you cannot get a motor boat drawing from 2 feet 8 inches at the moment?
    Captain Wallace: I think that before we distribute any money we shall have to make sure that it will be well spent and that any canal which can be opened will give us a good return.
    Mr. J. Hollins: Will the Minister consider that canals, as a means of transport in bulk, are the cheapest form of transport in the country and have been deliberately put out of commission by the railways? Will steps be taken to encourage canal companies to put their waterways into operation and thus save petrol on the roads?
    Captain Wallace: The fact that I have been able to say in the last part of my answer that we are asking representatives of the industry to work out a plan on the
    1970
    basis of some financial assistance from the Government is, I think, the best assurance I can give to the House that we are taking this matter seriously.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the attitude of the railways on this matter very unsatisfactory?

  GERMAN BROADCAST PROPAGANDA.
  Captain Ramsayasked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the nightly talks at 10·30 on a short wavelength of 51 metres broadcast by a new station, whose signature tune is "Loch Lomond," to the effect that international Jewish finance and Continental freemasonry are pursuing a policy of world domination by wars and revolutions and credit monopoly; whether he proposes to reply to this propaganda; and whether he will confer with the British Broadcasting Corporation to demolish these arguments objectively instead of avoiding the issues by merely labelling them as German propaganda?
  Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir, I know of these broadcasts, and the station is being watched. Arguments of enemy propaganda are constantly being countered by the B.B.C. and otherwise.
  Captain Ramsay: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that most of the neutral countries in Europe and a large and ever-increasing number of people in this country consider this question to be important, and requiring examination, and in view of the admirable way in which the B.B.C. and the Ministry of Information are designed and equipped to deal with such a question, he would consider taking up the matter and not avoiding the issue?
  Sir J. Reith: I thought I had taken up the matter. I said that the specific arguments of enemy propaganda are constantly being countered by the B.B.C. and otherwise, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not satisfied with what has been done so far, I would like to assure him that we will try to do better.
  Sir Archibald Sinclair: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what country this station is broadcasting?
  Sir J. Reith: It is almost certainly known to come from Germany—we think, about 100 miles from Berlin.
  Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that the more lies the Germans tell the better it is for everybody?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ELDERLY PENSIONERS (EXEMPTION).
    Mr. Woodburnasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is in accordance with Admiralty instructions that naval pensioners of over 50 years of age, mobilised since the outbreak of war, are exempt from service on sea-going vessels unless they are medically fit and volunteer for such service?
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill): It has been necessary to employ men of certain branches at sea, up to the age of 55, whether they are volunteers or not. All men are medically examined before being drafted to sea to ensure that they are fit for sea service. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has previously stated, as and when the supply of trained younger men is sufficient to meet all Fleet requirements, the older men will be relieved, and this process is already going on.

    CLYDE RESORTS (BOAT HIRING).
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the representations made by the Largs Town Council on the subject of the restriction on the hiring of small boats and motor-boats this summer, which will bring ruin to the boat-hirers at Clyde resorts; whether he is aware that many young people go with their parents to these resorts, but will not do so if boating facilities are not available; and, as this would be a blow to family life, will he consider these restrictions?
    Mr. Churchill: I have not seen the representations to which the hon. Member refers. No restrictions have yet been imposed, but the considerations advanced by the hon. Member will certainly be taken into account in deciding on the scope of any restrictions deemed to be necessary.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will be received as glad news on the Clyde, because there
    1972
    was a feeling in the Clyde area that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not seeing to it that the Firth of Clyde was being properly safeguarded against German submarines?
    Mr. Churchill: I am not at all sure about that point. We have some evidence to the contrary.

    SEAMEN'S FUNERALS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the unfortunate contrast in the character of the funerals at Blyth, Northumberland, of three German airmen and an unknown British sailor; and whether, whilst preserving the traditions of Britain respecting the treatment of enemies killed in warfare, he will take all steps to secure that British seamen who lose their lives at sea shall be accorded dignified and considerate interment?
    Mr. Churchill: No German airmen have been buried at Blyth. Two unidentified bodies of unknown nationality which were washed ashore on 14th February and 6th March respectively were buried by the local civil authorities in accordance with the usual practice. The naval authorities always endeavour to provide proper funeral ceremonies for British naval personnel who lose their lives at sea, and I am asking that during the war this practice shall be extended as widely as possible to cover the kind of case the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating the reply of the First Lord, may I ask him whether he is aware that this case has aroused considerable interest and feeling and that the Question was directed to securing the very reply which the right hon. Gentleman has made, which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction?
    Mr. Churchill: I am glad that the hon. Member put the Question down. It is certainly one which requires attention.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: While the First Lord's answer will, I am sure, give great satisfaction, in view of the tremendous interest which has been taken in the matter, may I ask him whether his answer will apply to all seamen as well as naval men? Would it be possible to ask the Seamen's Mission to conduct a service somewhat in keeping with the sacrifices which the seamen have to make?
    Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. I intended my reply to apply not only to the regular personnel of the Navy, but to the large number of British seamen who are risking their lives every day in the North Sea in essential measures for our protection. I cannot guarantee that there will be available at every port and at all times a naval firing party, but we will do the best we can to make it available for all these cases which the hon. Member has in mind. May I express my obligation that the matter has been brought forward in this way?
    Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no merchant seaman who loses his life shall be buried during the course of this war by the public assistance authority, but shall be given an appropriate burial?
    Mr. Churchill: I cannot add to what I have said, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prompt action of the seamen's missioner and the local vicar redeemed it from drabness and bareness?

    REQUISITIONED SHIP (HOLT LINE).
    Mr. Maxtonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the ship, built for the Holt Line in the Dundee shipyard, taken over by the Admiralty, in September; for conversion to naval purposes has proved satisfactory; and whether it is now proposed to turn the ship back to merchant purposes?
    Mr. Churchill: Yes, Sir. Until she is needed for Admiralty service, she will be employed on commercial service.
    Mr. Maxton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the expenditure on this ship has been undone, and why all the shipyard labour has been wasted?
    Mr. Churchill: It is rather a lengthy story, but I think I could carry conviction to the hon. Member.

    SCAPA FLOW (DEFENCES).
    Sir A. Southbyasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent air raid upon the naval base at Scapa Flow, he is considering a re organisation of the defences?
    Mr. Churchill: The defences of Scapa Flow and of all naval bases are reviewed
    1974
    constantly in particular relation to the results of enemy attack. We must probably expect attacks of this kind as a regular feature of the war in the coming months, and we shall do our best to resist them and to return them. The evident desire of the enemy to portray this petty and ill-directed raid on Scapa Flow as an important military affair is significant and encouraging.
    Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied, after the recent air raid on Scapa Flow, that there is that efficient co-operation between the three Services which should exist? Would it not be better if the Navy took over the responsibility for the whole defence of the port?
    Mr. Churchill: I think a very good arrangement exists, and there is the closest liaison between the three Services.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    MECHANISATION AND AERO COMPANY, LIMITED.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply whether he will state the amount paid to the Nuffield Mechanisation Company by way of fee for managing the production of the Bofors gun; and whether any other payment whatsoever is made to that company for work in connection therewith?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): It would be contrary to established practice to state the fee paid to Mechanisation and Aero Company, Limited. The only payments made other than the fee are those recouping the firm for its actual expenditure on the work of preparing the factory and producing the guns.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister say on what basis that remuneration is based?
    Mr. Burgin: The principle upon which fees are paid for managing agency factories are settled by the Government as a general policy applicable to all Service Departments.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister state the basis on which remuneration is paid for, the manufacturing process?
    Mr. Burgin: That cannot be done by Question and Answer. Quite obviousy, managerial fees for conducting an agency factory producing a Service equipment

    1975
    must follow in the circumstances, and the general principles are laid down by the Government.

    CENTRAL REGISTER.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Supply the number of persons who have been recruited to his staff from the Central Register since the outbreak of war; and what percentage this is of persons recruited in these grades?
    Mr. Burgin: I regret that the information is not immediately available as it involves reference to outstations, but I will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
    Mr. Parker: Will the Minister publish these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. When I have obtained the figures and communicated them to the hon. Member, there will be no difficulty in publishing them in the Official Report. A large number of appointments are made to outstations, and I must secure a return of them before I give the hon. Member a reply.

    WASTE FOODSTUFFS (SALVAGE).
    Mr. Bensonasked the Minister of Supply whether he will give a list of the larger municipalities which have not yet made adequate provision for the reclaiming of waste?
    Mr. Burgin: I have interpreted the hon. Member's inquiry as relating to county and municipal boroughs in Great Britain with over 100,000 inhabitants, other than London. According to the information at my disposal I should judge that most needs to be done in the following boroughs:

    Coventry.

    South Shields.

    Gateshead.

    Stockport.

    Heston and Isleworth.

    Sunderland.

    Swansea.

    Huddersfield.

    Walsall.

    Liverpool.

    West Ham.

    Reading.

    Willesden.

    St. Helens.

    Wolverhampton.

    Salford.

    York.

    Some of the authorities included in the list, as well as other authorities not included, are already taking steps to improve their salvage returns, and I trust that the authorities themselves, backed by local public opinion in the areas, will show a steadily increasing sense of the
    1976
    essential importance of salvage, especially in time of war, and will rapidly improve their arrangements.
    Mr. Benson: May I ask the Minister to pillory those local authorities which are recalcitrant, through the Ministry of Information or the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Sir Joseph Lamb: Are there any facilities for local authorities to obtain the necessary machinery for drying the food which is salvaged in order to be able to distribute it over a wider area?
    Mr. Burgin: That matter has been dealt with quite recently in Question and Answer. I understand that the Minister of Health will in proper cases sanction a loan for the purchase of the machinery in question.
    Mr. Leach: Is the Minister aware that most of the authorities which are backward in this matter are Tory in administration?
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Ealing has the most' modern and up-to-date plant for reclaiming waste and that they have set an example which should be copied by the rest of the country, and would my right hon. Friend care to visit it some time?

    CONTRACTS (INTERMEDIARIES).
    Mr. Herbert Morrison (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Supply whether, having regard to the wide public interest in the matter and the fact that the House is about to rise for the Easter Recess, he will make a statement as to points left outstanding in relation to the question of commission on contracts, notably in regard to the visiting card of the Minister of Supply used by Captain V. R. Ullman, M.C.?
    Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. As to the general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman it is perhaps sufficient for me to say that the Order-in-Council under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act which I outlined to the House on the 15th March has now been made and copies will be available to-morrow. I should desire to take the opportunity of again making it quite clear to the House that I can find no proof of the existence of a commission system recently developed in securing orders from the Ministry of Supply or

    1977
    placing orders by the Ministry of Supply. The policy of the Ministry is not to employ intermediaries. As regards the matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as left outstanding, I yesterday sent him full letter as to the case of Captain Ullman to which he particularly refers. The substance of this letter is that it has now been definitely established that the only thing given by me to Captain Ullman which could be said to be in the nature of a visiting card was a note admitting him to a Ministry of Supply Exhibition at Savoy Hill, written on a Ministry of Supply envelope which I hold in my hand, dated 9th December, 1939, and reading as follows:
    "MAJOR SCRUTTON,
    Savoy Hill House.
    Please allow Captain Ullman of the Franco-British Electrical Company to see the exhibition of goods for manufacture.
    LESLIE BURGIN.
    9th December, 1939."
    This note has been on the records at Savoy Hill ever since and cannot therefore have been used in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman on 15th March. Captain Ullman has been seen and categorically denies that he has ever had or made use of any card of mine in the way suggested. He is the contracts manager of a firm holding considerable direct contracts from the Ministry of Supply. I am accordingly, as at present advised, quite unable to understand how he has come to be associated with the allegations as to irregular commissions in respect of Ministry of Supply business. I can find no evidence that he has been claiming to act as an intermediary. I have therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to furnish me with full particulars of the information which has reached him and especially particulars of the people who claim to have actually seen the visiting card.
    Mr. Morrison: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, although he has said that agents are not employed by the Government—which was never alleged—it is not the case that the Department, by dealing with these people, have recognised commission agents acting on their own volition on behalf of firms? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman state the salary that Captain Ullman receives from this firm? With regard to the statements which the right hon. Gentleman has made in his letter to
    1978
    me, I have not yet received the letter and am not in a position to deal with it.
    Mr. Burgin: I have stated that the Ministry of Supply do not employ intermediaries. I emphatically deny that the Ministry recognise intermediaries at all, but the House will understand that you cannot interview a limited company. You interview somebody who calls on their behalf. In the case of Captain Ullman, he comes as the accredited contract manager of a limited company with which the Ministry of Supply are doing current business. He comes as of right in connection with contracts which are being performed, as far as I know, completely to the satisfaction of the Ministry. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman the relations between Captain Ullman and his employers. I have no reason to know them, but in view of the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made, I caused a senior official of the Ministry of Supply to interview Captain Ullman on Saturday last, the day following the Debate, and the information I have given to the House is gained from that interview. I am sorry if the letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman by me and handed in in the precincts of the House yesterday has not yet reached him, but there will be an opportunity of dealing with matters in that letter otherwise than by a private notice Question.
    Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that there are thousands of agents of business firms in London who work simply on commission for those firms in every type of industry?

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISIONS, PROCEDURE).
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider proposing a change in procedure which will enable the House to register its votes without the waste of time inevitable under the present procedure?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The question of improving the method of taking Divisions has been considered, but no solution has been put forward which on examination has proved satisfactory.
  Mr. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that recently visitors

  1979
  to the public galleries witnessed a procedure in this House in which for more than an hour and a-half more than 100 Members paraded through the Lobbies in seven successive Divisions, when the matter could have been disposed of by a single vote?
  Mr. McGovern: Is there any need for hon. Members to vote at all, seeing that the whipping system is in operation? Why should not the Whips be given the right to cast the vote?

  MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF DEFENCE.
  47. Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement defining the duties of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and whether there has been any change in the function of this office since the outbreak of hostilities?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 1st February to a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).
  Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when an important officer of the Government was asked recently about referring an important matter to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence he said that he did not have time to do that in these times? What is the function of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence if it is not to co-ordinate the increase of production?
  Sir J. Simon: I hope the hon. Member will look at the answer to which I have referred him. It is a very full answer.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    BEEF (PRICES).
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that under the existing grading and scale of payment there is a difference often of from 12s. to 15s. a cwt. between cow heifers and heifers which have got eight incisor teeth; and whether, in view of the fact that the latter are often as good as prime beef, he will consider a revision of the scale?
    Mr. John Morganasked the Minister of Food, in view of the Government's undertaking to home agriculture that a guaranteed market at remunerative prices will be provided for all fat stock offered by farmers, how the present prices offered for high-grade fat cows are arrived at; and whether first-grade cow beef is sold in the butchers' shops at similar prices to the corresponding cuts of steer and heifer beef?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): After discussion with the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland a special grade for young cows likely to yield carcases of first quality beef was introduced this week. The price which is now being paid for this grade of cow has been increased by 8s. 6d. per cwt. Beef from the special grade of young cows will be sold in butchers' shops at the same prices as that from steers and heifers.
    Mr. Prices: Is the scale of payment in regard to calves being reconsidered?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Paper.
    Mr. T. Williams: What is the new percentage increase for this kind of animal over pre-war prices?
    Mr. J. Morgan: Are second-rate cows also put into the butchers' shops at the same prices on the cut basis, or is there an intermediate price available in the shops?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The regulations apply to special-grade young cows likely to yield carcases of first-quality beef.
    Mr. Morgan: What retail prices do the old cows make in the shops?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That does not strictly arise from the Question. If the hon. Member will examine the schedule, which is very voluminous—I will show it to him afterwards—he will find answers to his questions.
    Major Braithwaite: Are these prices the result of consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.

    SLAUGHTER-HOUSES.
    Mr. J. Morganasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the approach of warmer weather, he is considering an increase in the number of slaughterhouses and meat distributing centres throughout the country; and will he indicate the number of new centres in mind and the areas these will serve?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The question of the adequacy of the number of slaughterhouses and meat distribution depots, both at present and when the warmer weather arrives, is constantly under review in order that adjustments may be made as and when required. Apart from this, independent local tribunals are being set up to consider cases where local interests are not satisfied that adequate slaughtering facilities have been provided.
    Mr. Morgan: May we take it that there is to be an increase in the number of slaughter-houses in view of the approach of the summer, and in view of transport problems?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member may take it that there will be tribunals set up very shortly to decide that question in the light of local knowledge.
    Sir J. Lamb: To what extent will they be local tribunals?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Probably they will be on a county basis.

    MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CONTROL (SOUTH WESTERN AREA AND WALES).
    Mr. E. J. Williamsasked the Minister of Food (1) what are the names of the senior area officers and technical assistants to the South-western area of the meat and livestock control;
    (2) what are the names of the deputy divisional food officers and their assistants in Wales?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the replies consist of tabular statements, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement in reply to Question 53:
    Area Meat and Livestock Officer—Major Cyril Porter, O.B.E.
    Deputy Area Meat and Livestock Officer—E. C. Ingram.
    Area Livestock Supervisor—D. C. Watts.
    Area Livestock Inspector—H. Warner.
    Area Slaughterhouse Agent—A. F. Pugh.
    Area Wholesale Meat Distribution Officer—Major S. L. Hunkin.
    Area Meat Agent (Retail Distribution Officer)—F. Duckham.
    Area Forwarding Officer—J. W. James.
    Area Meat Agent (for South-West England)—H. J. Davy.
    Deputy Area Slaughterhouse Agent (for South-West England)—E. H. Bott.
    Technical Assistants—D. Rowlands, W. A. Sharpe, W. H. Macdonnell, E. G. Evans.
    Following is the statement in reply to Question 54:
    Deputy Divisional Food Officers—John Williams, E. Hill-Snook.
    Assistants to above (excluding two civil servants)—H. Parry, W. J. Mathews, W. Williams, J. H. Jenkins, O. A. Lake, D. P. Jones, S. B. Jones, Major H. Hallam, J. Orchard, C. S. Hallinan.
    Assistants to above—J. W. Mildon, Miss L. Beynon.

    PIGS (EAR-MARKING).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to the cruelty caused by the present method of marking pigs by puncturing their ears; and will he take steps to use some more humane plan?
    Mr. Leachasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice of piercing the ears of pigs for identification or other purposes, as now in vogue at Ludlow and other cattle markets?
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the cruelty practised on pigs by the Order under the grading scheme which permits the boring of the animal's ears by an instrument resembling a pair of large nutcrackers containing 15 to 20 steel pins; who was responsible for authorising this cruel procedure; and will he take immediate steps to prohibit it?
    Mr. Toucheasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the method used to grade pigs in certain markets involves the piercing of both ears of the pig by an instrument containing a number of steel pins; and whether, in view of

    1983
    the cruelty of this practice, he will give instructions that this method is not to be used?
    Mr. Rileyasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the strong objection to the present method of punching holes in the ears of live pigs in connection with the Government's grading scheme, he will instruct his experts to consider some alternative method of marking, or some modification of the present method?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer hon. Members to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 14th March, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will my hon. Friend expedite the use of some less cruel method?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the outcry has been considerably exaggerated.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous answer to which he has referred caused widespread indignation, and that these Questions have been put down in order to persuade the Minister to change his attitude? Will not my hon. Friend consider some more humane method?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the indignation is really based on insufficient knowledge of the situation and a failure to realise that as long as pigs are bought on a carcase weight basis, some marking which will stay all through the processing is essential.
    Sir William Davison: Does my hon. Friend realise the scandalous conditions at these markets, where the animals rush about bleeding?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Not even my hon. Friend could stop pigs squealing.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not have the pigs bought on a live-weight basis?

    PIG AND POULTRY FOOD (CONSIGNMENT, LONDON TO DEVON).
    Mr. Lambertasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that truck-loads of whole rolls and loaves of bread are being sent from Nine Elms Station, Southern Railway, to Devonshire for pig and poultry food; and whether he can state the origin of such bread?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am having further inquiries made.
    Mr. Lambert: Is my hon. Friend aware that good bread is being sent from a station in London to Devonshire for pig and poultry food, and is not this a scandal?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will make inquiries into the matter. If the facts are as my hon. Friend says, certainly it is a scandal.

    ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, with a view to expediting the problems and difficulties in connection with the distribution of feeding-stuffs throughout the country and separating the control which still continues to be exercised by the leaders of the milling combines, the Government will consider acquiring immediately these undertakings?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the adoption of my hon. Friend's suggestion would facilitate the distribution of feeding-stuffs.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that the matter cannot be lightly dismissed, that indeed it cannot be dismissed at all; and is he further aware that one central and vital fact remains, that you will never get the feeding-stuffs problem solved as long as the milling combines remain under their present control?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would point out to my hon. Friend that they are not under their own control, but that under the Order they are under the control of the Ministry of Food. Any change such as my hon. Friend suggests would substitute for management by people who know the job, management by officials who do not.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will the Ministry of Food really control these people? It is an absolute scandal.

    RATIONING (RAILWAYMEN).
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the discontent amongst railwaymen employed on double home shifts of duty owing to the

    1985
    difficulties experienced in regard to food rationing; and whether he has now decided what steps to take to remove the grievance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware that complaints have been made, and the matter is still under consideration. I hope that a decision will be arrived at shortly.
    Mr. Dobbie: Will the hon. Gentleman consider issuing extra ration books to those men, because of their inability to obtain meals at restaurants or hotels?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member had better await the result of our consideration.

    BACON.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that in some cases where retailers have surplus supplies of bacon on hand which have not been purchased by the customers registered with them, such retailers are being informed by their local food offices that they must take delivery of further bacon allotted to them, and that if there is no sale for it they must throw it away; and in view of this most undesirable waste of foodstuffs, will he consider increasing the bacon ration, or taking such other steps as may be necessary to dispose of available bacon supplies in the public interest?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not aware of any cases such as those referred to by my hon. Friend. I shall be glad if he will furnish me with further particulars so that I may make inquiries. If there is any danger of stocks held by a retailer becoming unsuitable for human consumption, application may be made to the local food control committees for permission to sell such stocks off the ration in order to ensure the disposal of supplies without undesirable waste. Retailers, however, who find that their weekly supply of bacon exceeds the demands of their registered customers are expected to reduce their weekly indents on their wholesalers.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that my information was given to me direct by the retailers and may be taken as strictly accurate, and that it does not apply to one locality only, but to many parts of the country; and will he give the matter his serious consideration with a view to taking such steps as may
    1986
    be necessary to prevent a continuance of such reckless and wanton waste?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If my hon. Friend will give me details, I will make an investigation.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Are we to understand from the answer that the bacon will be allocated to the shops on the basis of the demands of their registered customers, and not on the basis of the ration amounts for their registered customers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It will be on the basis of their sales.
    Mr. Morgan: Does not this mean that there will be a reduction in the amounts and that they may have insufficient if, for some reason or other, purchasing power goes up?

    BREAD (FREE SAMPLES).
    Sir F. Sandersonasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to complaints received from Ealing and other areas, particularly in the Western suburbs of London, with regard to the activities of a company primarily engaged in the wholesale bakery business, who have intensively canvassed these areas, already adequately served by established firms holding licences for food distribution, and by such canvassing and wide distribution of sample loaves have caused considerable dislocation of organisation and waste of vital foodstuffs which are the subject of Government subsidy; and whether he will take steps to put an end to practices of this kind?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am informed that in normal times bakers and bakers' roundsmen seeking business not uncommonly distribute free samples of bread. Owing to the possibility of waste, I have already secured an undertaking from the London Bakers Advisory Committee that the distribution of, free samples will not be condoned during the war, and I have reason to believe that the committee's wishes have been generally accepted in the trade. If my hon. Friend can inform me of departures from this undertaking, I shall be glad to investigate them.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the method of working the business has been to occupy empty garages, to bring the bread in bulk from

    1987
    Hayes, and then to distribute it locally by means of barrows? Does he not regard that as a very unfair form of competition against the local bakery trade, and will he take immediate steps to confirm the action of the local food control committee in withdrawing the licence to trade in this case?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that if my hon. Friend will read the answer, he will see that it gives a full reply.

    FISH-FRYERS (POTATO SUPPLIES).
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that fish-fryers have been accustomed to purchase potatoes on wholesale terms in the past; why it is now proposed to penalise them by insisting on their buying on retail terms; and whether, in view of the difficult situation created by this and other difficulties for fish-fryers in Wolverhampton and elsewhere, he will consider the possibility of continuing the usual peace-time practice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The prices which may be charged for potatoes sold to fish-fryers are the maximum wholesale prices. It is not intended to alter the peace-time practice and a notice conveying this information to the trade was issued to the Press on 8th March.
    Mr. Mander: As the hon. Gentleman's answer entirely contradicts the answer given to me on 7th March, am I to understand that the present answer cancels the previous one?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description. That answer stands. Fish-friers will buy their potatoes at maximum wholesale prices.

    MILK.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Food whether he can give an assurance that the increase in the guaranteed price of milk announced to be paid to producers will not mean an increase in the price of liquid milk to consumers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Part of the cost of the increase in returns guaranteed to producers will be obtained from increasing the price of milk used for manufacturing purposes. It will also be necessary to increase the retail price of liquid
    1988
    milk at some date in the summer, but until a closer estimate can be made of the revenue likely to be obtained from the increased prices of manufacturing milk and of the total liabilities to be met, it is impossible to indicate the date on which an increase in liquid milk prices will be necessary.
    Mr. Lipson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the present price of milk makes it impossible for many people who need it to buy as much as they want to have? Will he reconsider the matter before taking any action that will reduce consumption?
    Mr. J. Morgan: May we take it that the Chancellor's undertaking to keep down milk prices has been withdrawn?
    Mr. T. Williams: May I ask whether the contemplated increase is in the neighbourhood of 4d. per gallon, and, if so, is it not the case that such an increase will obviously prevent tens of thousands of families from purchasing their normal requirements of milk, and that this will ultimately re-act to the detriment of the farmers, unless the Treasury step in and do their job?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I appreciate the effect of prices upon consumption, but I think the hon. Member had better wait until my right hon. Friend makes a full statement on the increase next month.
    Mr. Stokes: Is there any reason why the whole increase should not be put on the price of manufactured milk?

    BUTTER.
    Mr. Hall-Caineasked the Minister of Food what arrangements have been made for the disposal of farm-made dairy butter usually made in small quantities and sold locally to private customers or at the local market; and at what price per pound may this butter be sold?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Farmers who make their own butter may dispose of their output either to registered customers against ration coupons, or to retailers or wholesalers who have to make a corresponding reduction in their applications for National Butter. All sales must be within the terms of the Maximum Prices Order. The maximum retail price under this Order is 1s. 7d. per lb.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the fact that farmers are unaware of the regulation thousands of pounds of butter each week are being buried in the ground?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not accept that, and I hope the hon. Member will drive home in his own part of the country the answer I have given to this question.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Is the farmer entitled to give butter away?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A person cannot obtain more of a rationed commodity than he is entitled to receive by his coupon.
    Mr. Hall-Caine: Is the farmer entitled to eat his own butter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Minister of Food whether he will give consideration to the possibility of reducing the present price of butter, as many of the poorer section of the community are quite un able to afford to purchase it at the present high price?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can see no immediate prospect of reducing the present maximum price of butter without consequent loss to the Exchequer.
    Mr. Green: Is the hon. Member aware that retail sales of butter have gone down considerably in poorer districts since this price was fixed, due to the inability of so many to afford the present price?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member will appreciate that, unlike some subsidised commodities, there is an adequate alternative available.
    Mr. Watkins: How much of the 1s. 7d. per lb. charged goes to the profit of the Government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no profit to the Government.
    Mr. Greenasked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to a case before the Blandford, Dorset, Bench, in which Major Castleman was fined £35 for instructing his dairy man to give away butter rather than that it should be wasted; whether he is aware that during the hearing of this case, evidence was given that a food officer in an adjoining county advised a woman retailer to bury her surplus butter in the garden, rather than it should be given
    1990
    away to those needing it but unable to purchase same; and what action he proposes to take to prevent butter being wasted instead of being used?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but the full facts are not yet before me, and I am making inquiries.
    Mr. Green: Is the hon. Member aware of the deep revulsion of feeling which this sort of thing is causing, and will he advise the House and traders, if they find themselves with a surplus after having their ration of butter, what they are to do with it other than to destroy it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I advise the hon. Member to wait until we make our full inquiries before he makes up his mind on this question.

    FOOD MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, GREENOCK (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the number of men unemployed in the food-manufacturing industries in Greenock rose from 69, on 15th January, 1940, to 139 on 12th February, 1940, bringing the percentage employed up to 14·2; what were the causes of this increase; and what proposals he has to bring these men into productive employment?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am aware that a reduction in employment in the Greenock area has resulted from the curtailment of raw sugar supplies. From the replies given to his earlier Questions on 31st January and 22nd February, the hon. and learned Member will be aware that it is not in my power to supply the raw sugar required for the full-time working of the Greenock refineries.

    FRESH-WATER FISH.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Food whether he is prepared to issue an Order for the importation of fresh water fish during the close season in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An Order is being issued permitting the sale between 14th March and 16th June, 1940, which is the close season, of fresh-water fish other than salmon or trout imported from abroad or caught in Scotland or Northern Ireland, provided that such fish has been legally

    1991
    caught in its country of origin and is accompanied by a certificate of origin.
    Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries informed me a month ago that he had agreed on this course and that it has taken the Department of Food over a month to implement the promise made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman?

    EGGS.
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the serious consequences to producers arising from the slump in local market prices for eggs as, for instance, Swindon since the beginning of March; and what steps he is taking to safeguard the interests of producers during the spring glut period?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The prices during the last three weeks of first quality English eggs at Swindon market represent increases of 133 per cent., 38 per cent. and 70 per cent. on the average prices for the corresponding weeks of the three previous years. The corresponding percentage increases for the country as a whole were 86 per cent., 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. The present level of prices cannot, therefore, be regarded as unsatisfactory to producers. In reply to the last part of the Question my right hon. Friend has arranged for a publicity campaign to encourage housewives to purchase eggs in the spring for domestic storage, and in order to give confidence to traders who desire to undertake the cold storage of English eggs he has announced that in the event of the introduction of price control of home-produced cold-stored or pickled eggs next autumn or winter, due consideration will be given in fixing the maximum prices to the average spring price of home-produced eggs and to the costs of storage.
    Sir P. Hurd: Would my hon. Friend say exactly what is the method of publicity given to this subject?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By extensive statements in the Press, and I hope the hon. Member will help us by speeches and otherwise in the country.

    PIGS (GRADING).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food since, under the present Government scheme the small pig owner is not paid by the Government until the pig is
    1992
    actually killed and since the small pig owner has to pay cash for everything, he will consider reverting to the old control system of estimating the weight of the live pig on the day of the sale and paying cash before the farmer leaves the market?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) on 11th March.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers are being compelled to finance the Government? Is he aware that the pigs delivered to the Government on 5th February have not yet been paid for, and can he not really do something about this? Fanners cannot go on delivering pigs and not being paid for them for weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks.

  AGRICULTURE (FOOD PRODUCTION, ALLOTMENTS).
  Mr. J. Morganasked the Minister of Food under what conditions allotment-holders growing food in war-time will be able to sell their surplus produce, as and when available?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): I have been asked to reply. The question to which the hon. Member refers is now engaging the attention of the Advisory Council set up to deal with matters relating to the development of the allotment movement, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred in the answer given to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 22nd February.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that those concerned will take into account the fact that the produce of an allotment amounts, to only about £7 a year, and will he remove the embargo against the unemployed selling a little of what they produce on their allotments?
  Captain McEwen: All relevant facts will be taken into consideration.

  IMPORTED OIL FUEL.

    HOME-PRODUCED SUBSTITUTES.
    Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can

    1993
    make a statement on the steps he is taking to secure the most effective use of home-produced substitutes for imported fuels.
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The effective use of home-produced substitutes for imported oil is a subject of such wide scope and importance that it calls for the mobilisation of the best technical and business experience available. I accordingly appointed Sir Harold Hartley as honorary adviser on the development of home-produced fuels and asked a number of leading representatives of industry, finance and technical science, under the chairmanship of Sir William Bragg, the President of the Royal Society, to make a rapid survey of the subject in the light of war conditions. Within a month this authoritative body completed its survey, and on its recommendations the following six specific problems are being investigated simultaneously:

    (1) The production of oil from coal by synthetic processes, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt);

    (2) The products of low temperature carbonisation, under Lord Henley;

    (3) The liquid products of high temperature carbonisation, under Mr. Davidson Pratt;

    (4) Alternative fuels for internal combustion engines, under Major the Viscount Ridley;

    (5) The development of the use of colloidal fuel, under Mr. Irvine Geddes; and

    (6) The more efficient use of fuel generally, under Sir Clement Hindley.

    Interim reports were asked for wherever possible in order that immediate action might be taken. I have in fact received a report on the recovery of benzole. This report indicates that already additional crude benzole is being recovered at the estimated rate of 15,000,000 gallons a year, and that an extension of voluntary effort should secure a further 12,000,000 gallons a year. I should like to express my appreciation of what has already been done by voluntary effort and to appeal to those who are not doing so, to recover all possible benzole. The maximum production of benzole of all qualities is urgently required in the national interest.
    1994
    A most valuable survey has also been completed which shows how our production of tar creosote and pitch can take the place of imported fuel oil and bitumen to the extent of some 300,000 tons in the current year. Arrangements have already been made for making use of these products in this way.
    The House will appreciate that a number of highly qualified men are giving a great deal of time and thought to this work, and I wish to express, on behalf of the Government, gratitude for their valuable assistance. I am circulating a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Attlee: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that on any recommendations made very vigorous and immediate action will be taken?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance, and I think it is borne out by the fact that having received some interim reports, action has at once been taken which will result in obtaining in the current year some 32,000,000 gallons of substitutes for imported oil.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has said nothing about the production of synthetic petrol and that there are many existing installations which are not in operation that could be put into immediate operation if the Hon. Gentleman cared to take the necessary action? Is he also aware that he has spoken only of a number of laboratory experiments similar to numerous experiments that have been conducted over a long period of years, that the time for laboratory experiment is past, and that immediate action is necessary if we are to become less dependent on imported fuel?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The synthetic processes he has mentioned are under examination with a view to action by the committee under his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyme (Sir W. Jowitt).
    Mr. Higgs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will be received with considerable satisfaction by the industries concerned and that business men will be gratified to know that the Minister is making use of external technical experts?
    Mr. A. Edwards: In view of the fact that there is a general impression that this committee is favourably disposed to the Fischer-Tropsch process, will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to what is called the synthetic oil process, which has been developed in this country, which has all the advantages of the Fischer process, which is almost identical with it, and which, if it were developed here, would not have to pay fees abroad?
    Mr. Lloyd: This process is also under examination by that committee.
    Mr. Batey: Why did the Minister appoint these committees to deal with low temperature carbonisation and hydrogenation when there are already plants at work in this country? Have we not sufficient knowledge and experience of these processes without wasting time in making further inquiries?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question is whether or not they ought to be extended.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister taking into account the value of the contribution that can be made by the Scottish shale oil industry?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: Should there be any doubt in the mind of the Minister and that of the Government whether the experiments which are already in operation should be extended in what is necessarily a war emergency? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that in the circumstances we had better have a full Debate on this subject?
    Mr. Messer: Do the inquiries include the production of methane gas, and has the hon. Gentleman seen the report of Middlesex County Council, who say that they can produce it at 11d. per gallon less than petrol?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is included in the Inquiry into alternative fuels for internal combustion engines.
    Captain Alan Graham: Seeing that most of these processes came before the Department of Industrial and Scientific Research at least 15 years ago, and also came up for consideration during Lord Baldwin's first Government, 1924–29, can my hon. Friend explain why, in view of the urgent necessity which now exists, speedier action has not been taken?
    Mr. Lloyd: It must be understood that the value of these various processes for practical application on a large scale varies considerably and that one of the things which is being considered at the present time by practical men and technical experts, is the best way of developing processes that are really useful.
    Mr. Attlee: May I give notice, in view of the vital importance of this matter to the country and the need for action being taken, that we shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Batey: May I ask—
    Mr. Speaker: Notice has been given that the subject is to be raised in Debate.
    Mr. Batey: Yes, but this is very important.
    Following is the fuller statement:
    In November, 1939, Sir Harold Hartley, C.B.E., M.C., F.R.S., was appointed Honorary Adviser to the Mines Department on the development of home-produced fuels, and, early in December an authoritative body, consisting of leading representatives of industry, finance and technical science, was set up
    "to consider and review in the light of war conditions the scope for the substitution of imported fuels by home-produced fuels and to recommend what detailed inquiries should be undertaken with a view to securing the best use of home-produced fuels in war-time."
    The Chairman of this Committee was Sir William Bragg, O.M., K.B.E., P.R.S., and the members were as follows:
    Lord Cadman, G.C.M.G., D.Sc, LL.D.; Sir Harold Hartley, C.B.E., M.C., F.R.S.; Lord Hyndley, G.B.E.; Sir David Milne-Watson, Bt, LL.D.; Sir Edward Peacock, G.C.V.O., D.C.L.; Lord Perry, K.B.E., LL.D.; Sir Thomas Royden, Bt., C.H.; Mr. George Thomson.
    In a unanimous report, submitted on 8th January, 1940, this Committee made a rapid survey of the fields into which detailed inquiry might usefully be directed, and recommended six specific problems for prompt investigation, which could best be secured by the appointment of six separate committees to deal with the problems concurrently. In pursuance of this recommendation the inquiries were at once set on foot, and the committees have been at work for some time past on the questions remitted to them. The terms

    1997
    of reference and constitution of the committees are set out below.

  I.—COMMITTEE ON SYNTHETIC PROCESSES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL FROM COAL.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and examine the Fischer-Tropsch and similar synthetic processes for the production of oil and to report on their economic possibilities and the advantages of establishing such processes in this country in wartime.
  Constitution.
  Chairman.
  The Rt. Hon. Sir William Jowitt, K.C., M.P.
  Members.
  Mr. James Bowman.
  Professor C. N. Hinshelwood, F.R.S.
  Sir Walter Benton Jones, Bt.
  Sir William Larke, K.B.E.
  Sir Robert Robertson, K.B.E., F.R.S.
  Mr. George Thomson.
  Assessors.
  Mr. J. G. King, Ph.D.
  Mr. W. A MacFarlane, Ph.D.

  II.—COMMITTEE ON LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on (a) the production of liquid fuels and other products by low-temperature carbonisation of coal, and the desirability or otherwise of increasing the amount of coal carbonised in this way in war-time, bearing in mind the possible demand for suitable low temperature coke in producer gas equipment,
  Constitution.
  Chairman.
  The Rt. Hon. Lord Henley.
  Members.
  Mr. Gordon Macdonald, M.P.
  Professor W. H. Mills, Sc.D., F.R.S.
  Mr. W. E. Mortimer.
  Mr. F. B. Richards.
  Mr. T. E. B. Young.
  Assessor.
  Dr. F. S. Sinnatt, C.B., M.B.E., D.Sc, F.R.S.

  III.—COMMITTEE ON THE LIQUID PRODUCTS OBTAINED BY HIGH TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and examine the possibility of increasing the amount of liquid products (tar, creosote, benzole, toluole, etc.) obtained by high-temperature carbonisation in gas-works and coke-ovens and the most advantageous means of utilising such products in war-time.
  Constitution:
  Chairman.
  Mr. J. Davidson Pratt, O.B.E.
  Members.
  Mr. W. Gordon Adam.
  Mr. S. Billborough.
  Mr. G. A. Hebden.
  Mr. A. H. Middleton.
  Mr. Stanley Robinson.
  Mr. A. W. Smith.
  Mr. T. A. Smith.
  Assessors.
  Mr. J. F. Ronca, O.B.E.
  Mr. J. G. King, Ph.D.
  This committee has submitted an interim report on the recovery of benzole, and has also made a survey into the production and use of tar, creosote and pitch.

  IV.—COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the best means of encouraging and developing the use of home-produced fuels in internal combustion engines under war conditions.
  Constitution:
  Chairman.
  Major the Viscount Ridley, C.B.E.
  Members.
  Mr. A. A. M. Durrant, M.I.A.E., M.I.Mech.E.
  Mr. J. S. Nicholl, C.B.E.
  Mr. J. Arthur Reavell, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.Chem.E.
  Mr. H. R. Ricardo. F.R.S.
  Assessors
  Mr. C.G.Williams, M.Sc., M.I.A.E., A.M.I.Mech.E.
  Mr. O. W. J. Watson, M.I.Mech.E., M.I.A.E.
  Mr. T. F. Hurley, B.Sc, A.M.Inst.C.E.
  This committee is following up, on a much wider field, the work already done by the committee on the emergency conversion of motor vehicles to producer gas, whose report was published 6th February, and is also dealing with the use of steam and electricity as alternative means of propulsion for road transport.

  V.—COMMITTEE ON "COLLOIDAL" FUEL.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the possibilities of developing the use of coal-oil mixtures for steam raising on land or sea and in furnaces.
  Constitution.
  Chairman.
  Mr. Irvine Geddes.
  Members.
  Mr. S. B. Freeman, C.B.E., M.Inst.C.E.
  Sir Leonard Pearce, C.B.E., D.Sc, M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.
  Professor E. K. Rideal, M.B.E., F.R.S., F.I.C.
  Mr. W. J. Drummond, M.Inst.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.
  Mr. H. Hicken.
  Assessors.
  Mr. A. T. Barber, B.Sc., M.I.Mech.E.
  Mr. R. A. Acton Taylor, M.Sc., A.R.C.S.
  This Committee is dealing with the practical application of the successful experiments carried out originally by the Cunard Steamship Company and later by the Mines Department, the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Messrs. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, Limited, into the use of coal-oil mixtures as fuel.

  VI.—COMMITTEE ON THE EFFICIENT USE OF FUEL IN WAR-TIME.
  Terms of Reference.—To consider and report on the possibilities of effecting economies in the use of fuel, with particular reference to any special problems arising from war conditions.
  Constitution.
  Chairman.
  Sir Clement Hindley, K.C.I.E., P.Inst.C.E.
  Members.
  Captain J. G. Bennett.
  Mr. E. S. Grumell, D.Sc.
  Mr. E. G. Hicks, M.P.
  Professor C. H. Lander, C.B.E., D.Sc, M.Inst.C.E.
  Mr. C. A. Masterman.
  Mr. R. J. Sarjant, M.Sc.
  Mr. G. B. Sharples, O.B.E., M.Sc, M.Inst.C.E.
  Mr. Johnston Wright, M.Inst.C.E., P.I.E.E.
  Assessors.
  Mr. R. Fitzmaurice.
  Mr. D. T. Davies, Ph.D.

  ISLAND OF SYLT.

    BRITISH BOMBING RAIDS.
    Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make about the attacks carried out last night by the Royal Air Force on the island of Sylt?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Squadrons of the Royal Air Force last night delivered a continuous series of attacks for a period of six hours on the base at Hoernum in the island of Sylt from which German seaplanes have been engaged in mine-laying and in attacks on our shipping. These operations were carried out in answer to the raid by German aircraft on land bases in the Orkney Islands last Saturday. A strong force, involving more than double the number of German aircraft engaged on Saturday, took part in the operation. The weather conditions over the target were clear moonlight during the early part of the raid, gradually clouding over towards morning.
    The aircraft encountered intense antiaircraft fire from gun positions on Sylt and on adjacent islands, but this did not prevent them reaching and dropping a large number of bombs on their target. Such fighter aircraft as were encountered sheered off on meeting our fire. With one exception all our aircraft taking part in the attack returned safely to their bases. Both high and low altitude attacks were

    2001
    carried out, and many tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs were dropped. The reports already received from the pilots show how extensive is the damage that has been done. Direct hits were obtained on the hangars which were set on fire. The oil storage tanks were also seen to be on fire, and many hits were obtained on the jetty, light railway and other parts of the base.
    A further reconnaissance of the island of Sylt was carried out this morning. Although the aircraft were heavily engaged they were able to make observations of the island which confirm the success of the operation. All these aircraft have returned to their bases. I may add that the Royal Air Force has been very gratified and encouraged to have had this opportunity. This action has once more demonstrated the fighting spirit and the skill of our captains and crews and their willingness and readiness to meet the call.
    Mr. Simmonds: May I ask my right hon. Friend will he bear in mind that the country sincerely hopes that this will be no isolated instance and that there will be given to the Royal Air Force wide liberty of action to distinguish itself in similar enterprises?
    Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say how many casualties there were?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I have no information.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Resolved,
    "That this House do meet To-morrow at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; and that at Four of the Clock Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—[Sir J. Simon.]

    ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).
    Resolved,
    "That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 2nd April." [Sir J. Simon.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 32, at the end, insert:

  OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Power of Northern Ireland Parliament to amend S. 14 (3) (a) of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 84.)
    Such of the provisions of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, as relate to the payment of additional amounts in respect of pensions shall, so far as those provisions extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to make laws, be treated for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as an enactment passed before the appointed day.
    4.5 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a drafting Amendment which gives the Parliament of Northern Ireland power to amend the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. Otherwise, it would not have power to do so, that Act having been passed after the appointed day.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Provision for dealing with special cases.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 35, leave out Sub-sections (3) and (4).
    Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It will be remembered that Sub-section (3) of Clause 10 is one on which we had some debate during the Report stage and that I undertook to investigate the matter further and to direct my attention to meeting certain views which had been
    2028
    expressed by many hon. Members in all parts of the House. As the House will also remember, Sub-section (3) of this Clause was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of providing convenient machinery for dealing with differences of opinion which might arise on the question whether it was in the best interests of an applicant that he should receive a supplementary pension, or that he should become an inmate of an institution. The cases contemplated were those in which an infirm old age pensioner without friends or relations and who clearly should be looked after in an institution was reluctant to enter one, or, more rarely, where a difference of opinion arose between the officers of the Board and the public assistance authority as to the proper treatment of a particular case.
    The proposal in the Bill was criticised by hon. Members on the ground that the procedure contemplated might be operated harshly and to the detriment of the old age pensioners. I do not admit that there was any foundation for this apprehension, but I promised to review the question further before the Bill became law, and, having done so, I have come to the conclusion that the number of cases in which recourse would need to be had to the machinery of the Subsection is likely to be so small that I think the power in the Sub-section can safely be omitted from the Bill. Therefore, in order to avoid any possibility of hardship arising from the Sub-section, the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the simplest course would be to drop this Sub-section (3), and also Sub-section (4) which is consequential upon it.
    It will be clearly understood, of course, that the omission of these provisions from the Bill is not to be regarded as relieving local authorities from their duty of providing institutional accommodation and care for persons whose interests would best be secured by admission to an institution. There are needs which can be met by the grant of money from the Assistance Board and which are their responsibility, but other needs remain the responsibility of the public assistance authorities. The most obvious of these is the need of medical treatment either in the home or in hospital, and the need for institutional care which in the case of old age pensioners may well arise from the natural infirmities of age

    2029
    and the lack of relatives who are able and willing to provide the necessary care and attention for the pensioners.
    We feel confident that public assistance authorities and their officers will treat this concession in the spirit in which it is made and will be ready to co-operate with the officers of the Board in dealing suitably with old age pensioners in cases where the needs of the pensioner could be provided for best by care of an institutional character, rather than by the payment of a supplementary pension. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I propose to send out a circular to local authorities calling attention to the fact that such cases will, no doubt, arise and pointing out the need for co-operation.
    Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the House that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    4.10 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am glad that this matter has had a happy ending. Those who were present some 10 days or more ago will remember that we had, I will not say an acrimonious, but a protracted Debate in which some of my hon. Friends and I expressed ourselves strongly about Subsection (3). The decision which the right hon. Gentleman has now taken does him credit. It shows that he has taken into serious account the criticisms which were offered from these benches. I can understand the fact that, until that Debate, the right hon. Gentleman had not been fully conscious of the serious possible consequences of this Sub-section in the form in which it appeared in the Bill. It might have given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding and it might have affected two entirely different classes of people. First the old age pensioners themselves might have been deterred by it from putting in perfectly proper applications for supplementary pensions and, secondly, it might have acted adversely on the local authorities. Some of these, including my own local authority in the City of Edinburgh, were very much alarmed by the Sub-section as it stood. Therefore when we came to consider this matter we found it necessary to express our views very definitely and strongly.

    I recall saying to the right hon. Gentleman, who had already promised to look into the matter, that I felt that there was
    2030
    no way out except the withdrawal of the Sub-section. It is, as I say, a credit to the right hon. Gentleman that, on reconsideration, he has seen the necessity of that step. I appreciate, as I imagine all my hon. Friends appreciate, that there may be old people who would be better in an institution, but that is clearly a matter for the local authority to decide as the right hon. Gentleman has now recognised. I do not think the provisions of the Bill as they will stand now after the omission of this Sub-section will prevent that proper consideration, which the right hon. Gentleman has adumbrated, being given to those cases. Therefore, I support the Amendment which has been made in the other place and I hope that it will be acquiesced in by this House.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. Graham White: I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman with all sincerity for having put to rest one of the unfortunately large number of controversial issues which arose during our earlier discussions of the Bill. I think his decision will give satisfaction to all who are interested in the matter. I am not sure that the most welcome feature of his announcement was not the statement of his intention to issue a circular to local authorities. It is urgent that their attention should be directed to this matter and that they should know exactly what the Minister expects them to do. In all these fields, where there is a division of authority or the possibility of a division of authority, the person most likely to suffer is the person in whose benefit these arrangements are being made.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: I also would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this concession. There might have been trouble had this Sub-section been put into operation in Scotland. He will remember that I drew attention to the fact that it violated the Scottish law on the question of placing anyone in a mental institution. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland who, I expect will be issuing a circular for Scotland, will be very careful with the wording of it and the instructions that are given to the officials of local authorities. He will know that the Sub-section which has been withdrawn would have meant a direct violation of the lunacy law of

    2031
    Scotland, and if in that circular he gives instructions which even to a minor degree carry out the provisions which were in that Sub-section and are in violation of the law of Scotland, he will find himself running the risk of litigation on the part of the relatives of those who may be concerned.
    4.16 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I can answer the hon. Gentleman's point in a word. I do not wish to argue the point he made about the law of Scotland, but in sending out the circular I shall certainly take very good care to see that the law of Scotland is not infringed. All we desire is to assist the local authorities in the proper discharge of their duties, and I shall be careful to watch the points which have been raised in this Debate.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: While we are obliged to the Minister for what he has done, I should like to inquire whether there is to be any alteration in the financial arrangements between the Board and the local authorities in this regard. If a local authority carry out the recommendations in the circular, will they be reimbursed by the Board for any expense they incur?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. This Amendment does not alter in any way the main structure of the law, but deals merely with the procedure to be adopted in the case of persons who, it is thought, might be benefited by institutional care. The arrangement previously proposed would have provided for the final decision to be in the hands of an appeal tribunal. The alteration we are making leaves the responsibility for ordering institutional care with the local authority.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Special entry made.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Superannuation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 40, leave out "persons" and insert:
    "pensionable officers or servants of local authorities."
    4.18 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, "That this House doth
    2032
    agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the two that follow are identical in their effect with Amendments which stood in the names of the hon. Members for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and Dundee (Mr. Foot). They concern the pension rights of officers of local authorities who take office under the Board. The first Amendment, which is practically a drafting Amendment, inserts the words "pensionable officers or servants of local authorities," because it is thought better that these words should be used throughout the Clause.
    Mr. Lawson: I take it that later the hon. Lady will give us an explanation of this matter, because it is tied to quite a lot of other Amendments.
    Miss Horsbrugh: Certainly.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 12, line 41, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 2, after "servants," insert:
    "and the rules so made shall provide for treating any pensionable officer or servant of a local authority who becomes an officer or servant of the Board within one year after that date as a pensionable officer or servant of a local authority to which those rules apply, notwithstanding that the Treasury may not have directed that the rules should apply to that authority and that no application may have been made by the authority in that behalf."
    4.21 p.m.
    Miss Horsbrugh: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The other Amendments having been practically drafting Amendments, perhaps it would be as well to give an explanation on this Amendment. As the Clause stands, a pensionable local government employétransferred to the Board would not carry with him any pension rights in respect of his past local government service unless, on the request of the local authority, the Treasury directed that the rules made under the Superannuation Act, 1935, should apply to that authority. It has been suggested that it would be better if the pensionable local government employé had the right, apart from this request being made, to have his pension rights transferred. No doubt most local

    2033
    authorities would make the request and the Treasury would readily comply, but it has been thought that under the special conditions of this transfer it would be better to give the employé a definite right. In another Clause later in the Bill the right to compensation is given, but in many cases the employé might not wish to apply for compensation and give up his work.
    4.22 p.m.
    Mr. Lawson: I think the House will agree that it is a very wise step to provide that if an officer is transferred, say, from the public assistance committee to the Board, he shall not lose his pension rights in respect of his past work. I was very surprised when looking into the matter to find that he might fall between two stools. I think those concerned will be glad to know that this matter has been dealt with in this simple and straightforward way.
    4.23 p.m.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: I should like to say on behalf of those with whom I have been acting how very grateful we are to the Minister for managing to get round the difficulty that was presented by the Rules of the House when this subject was brought forward at a previous stage of the proceedings. I am particularly interested in these movements that are made on behalf of local government officers, because I foresee, as an old local authority official myself, an enormous future before the local government service, and hope to see it by degrees being built up into a civil service complementary to and supplementary to the national Civil Service, on which we depend so much and of which we are rightly so proud. I hope those in local government service will be given all the rights which are necessary to make it a complete service, and this is a small but typical instance of what should be done with that object in view.

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 26, line 26, agreed to.

  EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Modification of enactments relating to relief of the poor.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 31, leave out "otherwise than in money."
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Colville: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House will recollect that before the Bill left the Committee stage the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) and other hon. Members raised the point that Scottish local authorities would give relief in money rather than in kind, even in emergency cases. After that I had a discussion on the matter with representatives of Scottish local authorities, and came to the conclusion that it was wise in the case of Scotland to make this Amendment. It relates, of course, only to relief in sudden or urgent cases of necessity. The practice in that country has been to give relief in cash rather than in kind and the Amendment enables local authorities to do so in sudden or urgent cases. A consequential Amendment will enable the local authorities to be recouped.
  Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
  4.29 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): I have to express, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends, our appreciation of the action of the Minister in having this Amendment inserted in the House of Lords. On behalf of the local authorities, which speak through us, I should also like to express their appreciation of the fact that he has agreed to recoup them for this outlay.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Special Entry made.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Land drainage.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 31, after "land," insert "for agricultural purposes."
    4.30 p.m.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment is inserted to make it clear that drainage works to be carried out by catchment boards shall be confined to agricultural land. This was the intention of the Clause, but the Amendment makes it absolutely clear.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 10, line 16, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
    (6) Where, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or is payable to a Catchment Board by virtue of a scheme under this Section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that any works executed in pursuance of the scheme were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord compensation equal to so much of the net cost of the scheme as was attributable to the execution of those works:
    Provided that, where any agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this Sub-section.
    For the purpose of any arbitration under this Sub-section, a certificate by the Catchment Board that such part of the net cost of the scheme as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the execution of works so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment is inserted to meet an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) to deal with the question of the owner's liability to recoup a catchment board for the cost of works carried out by virtue of Sub-section (4, b) of the Clause. It was pointed out that there were many cases where work might be done by a catchment board in respect of ditches, the obligation to clean out which was a liability of the tenant under the tenancy agreement. It was suggested that it was unfair that the owner should bear the full liability of the
    2036
    net cost. It is proposed that the State should pay 50 per cent. and the owner the other 50 per cent. The Government undertook to look into the position and see whether anything could be done to meet the point. The effect of the Amendment is that where a scheme has been carried out by a catchment board under the Clause and the cost has been incurred by the landowner in accordance with Sub-section (4, b) the landowner on the termination of the tenancy should be entitled to recover from the tenant the net cost of doing the work, that is to say, the balance after the Government's grant has been taken into account. The Amendment is framed on the lines of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, Section 10, which deals with the question of dilapidations. The proviso makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent landlord and tenant agreeing between themselves as to some different basis. That is the normal thing, and it will probably happen that agreement will be arrived at. The Amendment will bring about fairness between the landlord and the tenant.
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: We have no objection to the Amendment. I think it is strictly in accordance with the promise made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. So long as the tenant has the right to go before an arbitrator to submit his case, should there be a dispute, we see no reason for dissenting from this House of Lords Amendment. The only other thing I would say is that the landlords are to be complimented on the watch dogs they have here and elsewhere.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Control of Sluices.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 9, at the end, insert:
    "(a) no such notice shall require anything to be done before the expiration of forty-eight hours from the service of the notice unless it is stated in the notice that in the opinion of the board immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency;"
    4.34 p.m.
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment was also discussed in Committee. Its object is to give definite notice to those concerned when an

    2037
    occupier of land is ordered by a board to do something to a sluice in accordance with the Clause. The Amendment provides for 48 hours notice being given, unless it is stated in the notice that immediate action is necessary to meet an emergency. We do not want the whole thing held up if there is an emergency.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 13, after "dam," insert:
    "or any other person interested in the water controlled by the sluice."
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This matter was also discussed in Committee, and it was suggested that protection should be given to the various types of users of water. It was pointed out that certain other interests might be affected, such as the water supply of public authorities or electricity companies. An assurance was given that the Clause would be amended to provide adequate protection for those who might be in need of it. This is the first of four Amendments to achieve this object.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 14, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Expenses of Minister in providing goods and services required for agriculture.)
    Lords Amendment: In line 33, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Particulars of any such arrangements shall be laid before Parliament by the Minister as soon as may be after they are made."
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    In Committee the point covered by the Amendment was raised by the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley), and I promised that we would try to meet the point. We have inserted this new Subsection in order to meet the arguments which the hon. Member advanced, and I hope it will satisfy him and his colleagues that we have met him as we promised.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: It is true that on the Committee stage or the Report stage a
    2038
    promise was made by the right hon. Gentleman that any scheme under Clause 25 would be laid on the Table of the House, but I am convinced from conversations which have ensued since that there was an element of misunderstanding about the actual depth and width of the promise. However, I think the Amendment partially, if not wholly, fulfils the promise made. We contemplated the possibility of putting down an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, so that wherever a scheme was laid on the Table of the House of Commons it would be subject to a Prayer, whereby hon. Members who felt disposed to discuss the contents of any scheme would be permitted to do so. We learned, however, that although the scheme was laid on the Table of the House and there would be no opportunities for discussing the scheme, if Members of the Opposition or hon. Members in any part of the House felt disposed to discuss the scheme that had been laid on the Table, time would be arranged for that purpose. That being so, there is no reason for an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, and in the circumstances we are inclined to accept the Amendment.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. John Morgan: Does that mean, if my hon. Friend's statement is correct, that we shall be entitled to discuss a particular scheme if it is laid before the House, assuming that we ask to do so?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Exclusion of certain holdings from Agricultural Holdings Act.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 6, after "act," insert:
    "and thereafter until the beginning of the said term."
    4.40 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This matter concerns Scotland perhaps more than England. The active words in it are "from the commencement of the Act." When the Clause was discussed in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) stated

    2039
    that it was open to criticism in that it failed to deal with two points both of which are met by the Amendments, the first of which I am now moving being introductory to the others. The Clause as drafted applied only to certain tenancies beginning after the commencement of the Act. It was pointed out that in many cases, particularly in Scotland, landlords and tenants had entered into contracts in anticipation of legislation of the kind being introduced. Accordingly, the Amendments now inserted make the provisions of the Clause retrospective from the date of the commencement of the war applicable to any case where the landlord satisfies an arbitrator, which, in the case of Scotland would be the Land Court, that the contract of tenancy would otherwise have come within the provisions of this Clause. The second defect pointed out was that whereas the Clause applied when an owner of land had been in the habit of letting it for grazing, it did not apply when an owner had himself occupied and grazed the land. The second Amendment of the series therefore deals with this point, as is only reasonable.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 14, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 31.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 17, leave out from "them" to "this," in line 19, and insert:
    "or any question required to be determined by them under."
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. T. Williams: Some explanation might be given of this Amendment. Where a catchment board acting on the instructions of a war agricultural executive committee, produces a scheme for draining, it is quite proper for the owner of the land to be able to make submissions to the Minister. It is equally fair and reasonable to presume that where such observations are made to the Minister he would have to examine them and either to amend or leave the scheme as it was, according to his will or desire. Presumably, that is the only good point in the Amendment. What we ask is whether this procedure is likely to involve undue
    2040
    delay in the putting into operation of any drainage scheme that may have been produced by a catchment board. If the Minister assures us that that is not intended, we have no objection to the Amendment.
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot give any definite assurance, but we are not going to have any delay. It is only fair to the Minister to consider the objections of all concerned.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill); I should like some explanation. The Scottish Land Court has been set up to deal with the question of appeals until the Minister has taken steps as laid down in the Bill. The Minister deals with a particular landlord or landowner. The original purpose was that the appeal should be made to the Scottish Land Court on a question on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken action. Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland give us an indication of what is meant by the words "or any question requiring to be determined"? What will the other questions be, other than those laid down in the Bill?
    Captain McEwen: I am not clear as to what the hon. Member is referring. The only place where the Land Court comes in, in the matter of arbitration, is in Clause 26, and I do not think it comes in as an arbitrament board in any matter except in dealing with that particular case under Clause 26. I am not quite sure what it is the hon. Gentleman is referring to.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a small Bill which, I think, does not raise any truly controversial issues, and it is in line with other Measures which have been introduced since the beginning of the war in order to assist, whether it

  2041
  be ourselves or outside bodies, in the transaction of business in the changed conditions of war-time. I will run through the Clauses. Four different groups of questions are raised, and for the convenience of the House I will explain them at no great length. First of all, I will refer to the definition Clause. It defines a society as
  "any trade union, friendly society or building society, any such unincorporated society as is mentioned in Section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1874, any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, and any society certified under the Loan Societies Act, 1840."
  So by and large that covers the great bulk of organisations of this type. The first Clause gives power to modify certain of the rules regarding meetings, the appointment of officers and the arrangements for amending rules. In the Great War a Measure similar to this was found to be necessary, and the Societies (Suspension of Meetings) Act was passed in 1917. Nowadays, with the difficulties of the black-out and evacuation, there is even greater need for a Measure of this sort than there was 20 years ago. Not only are many of these organisations scattered, owing to the war work they are doing, but with regard to the question of having conferences evacuation has made such a congestion in towns where conferences are likely to take place that it becomes necessary to prepare other measures. The first Clause deals with that aspect of the problem. The Committee of Management may apply to the Chief Registrar, and he may give directions on these various points.
  We hoped to get this Bill through a good deal earlier because it would have made matters easier, but it was not possible owing to the pressure of other business. It may well be, knowing that this sort of Measure was to be introduced, that some societies may have anticipated its terms. Sub-section (3) of the first Clause gives the Chief Registrar authority to deal with such cases as that. The fourth Sub-section of the first Clause deals with the possibility, which may very well arise, of members objecting to the appointment of particular officers or to the amendment of rules which have been made under the procedure outlined earlier in the Clause, although with the direction of the Chief Registrar. There is therefore a safeguard in that the Chief Registrar may direct that the appointment
  2042
  or the amendment to which objection has been taken shall cease to have effect at a given date unless it was confirmed in the ordinary way.
  The second Clause is very much the same in its effect in that it makes it possible for the central body of a society to take the place of the Chief Registrar and give a direction so as to get uniformity and obtain the same safeguards with regard to the rules of the branches. I understand that there are some 80 such societies and 17,000 branches, and some procedure of this kind has been asked for by those concerned. The Government are not forcing anything upon the organisations, but it is at their request that these alterations are being made. The third Clause, I think, is obviously a necessity in regard to the postponement during the war of the whole of the ordinary basis of valuation. For the time being all such matters must be very difficult to estimate, quite apart from the fact that there is a great deal of work involved. This Bill is drafted extremely simply, and there is no difficulty in understanding what it means. The Clause merely deals with the position of societies which are affected by the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, Section 10 of which provides that a society which was registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, before 26th July, 1938, and certified by the Registrar to be a society which could not now become so registered, can either convert itself into a company registered under the Companies Act, 1929, or amalgamate or transfer its engagements to such a company without payment of Stamp Duties provided it did so before 28th April this year. In the circumstances, since last September it may very well be that such societies may not have had the time nor the opportunity of doing it, and therefore there is a year's extension. I think it will be agreed by everybody that this is a wise decision. That is the first group of Clauses which deal with the modification of rules and statutory requirements.
  The next group concerns Clauses 5 and 6, which deal with amalgamations and transfers of engagements of building societies and trade unions. This is a simplification of the existing procedure again, but is not limited to war time. It is therefore not a war emergency arrangement, but a continuing arrangement. It

  2043
  is convenient to introduce it now because there may now be reasons for amalgamations which would not have been so obvious perhaps a little time back. The only point I wish to deal with in Clause 5 is that Sub-section (3) deals with building societies and associations in connection with cases which have aroused public attention at the time, where small but wealthy building societies, under the pretence of dissolving, effect the transfer of engagements to larger societies and when doing so large sums out of all proportion to what would have been proper compensation for loss of office were offered by the large societies and accepted by the officials of the smaller societies. It is because of that rather undesirable practice that the Sub-section (3) is inserted.
  Now I will come to Clauses 7 and 8 in the next group, dealing with rights of persons engaged in war service. Clause 7 deals with the case of some friendly societies where apparently on joining the services of the Crown a member automatically loses, under the rules, his membership or his benefits. I would say that, of course, all these matters which are being dealt with in this Bill could be dealt with properly, so far as I know, by any individual society amending its rules, but in view of the war situation and of the labour involved, certain questions have been put to us asking that they might be covered as a whole. This is the provision in regard to the rights of members who are either called up or who voluntarily joined the Armed Forces of the Crown, and it provides that no rule or amendment of rule shall deprive such a member of his membership, but that his rights to any benefits shall be suspended so long as he fails to pay contributions.
  Mr. Burke: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "These questions have been put to us, and we have received representations." Are we to understand that the three kinds of institutions which are dealt with in this Bill—building societies, friendly societies, and trade unions—have each of them asked for a measure along these lines to be introduced?
  Captain Crookshank: Yes, that is as I understand it. The whole purpose is to get something agreed by everybody. I
  2044
  do not wish this to be controversial, because if there is any controversy in connection with this Measure there is no object in the Government fathering it. Clause 8 brings me to a more difficult matter, because this Clause provides that persons who are otherwise entitled to benefits from societies in respect of war injuries should have those benefits reduced by the amount received under the Personal Injuries scheme. That is to say, if a person was injured and received benefit under the Government scheme, those benefits to which he might be entitled from his society would be pro tanto reduced. I gather that the object there was to try and protect the finances of societies which, when they had collected the various sums and had drawn out their benefits scheme, may not have had in mind the possibility of civilian casualties in time of war. On the other hand, it has been represented to me that there is by no means unanimous feeling about this Clause, and, if that is so, I will certainly be prepared to consider dropping it, because I do not want to ask the House to accept anything which is not generally agreed. As it is possible, as I said just now, for any society to make amendments in its own rules should it so desire, it would be better to let the Clause go on to the Committee stage rather than let any controversy arise about it.
  The next group consists of Clause 9, which from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself is one in regard to which I should like publicly to express gratitude to the societies, because they came forward and suggested that they should be given powers as a result of which it would be possible for them to set up and administer rules for the purchase of defence bonds or national savings certificates, and in that way assist the great financial effort which is required for financing a war. Needless to say, that suggestion was warmly approved of by us. This is the Clause which makes it possible for that course of action to be taken. Having made sure that these societies are only too anxious to play their part in that way if they are given the authority, it may well be that we can look forward to a very large increase in the money going into the savings movement as a result of this Clause. The first lot of Clauses in the Bill were devised for the protection of societies and to

  2045
  assist them to carry on, and the last Clause was devised to help the Government to carry on the financial burden of the war. We propose that the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill to-day, and we propose to take the Committee stage after Easter so that there will be ample time in the intervening period for consideration of any points which may arise to-day. So far as I know, it is an agreed Measure to facilitate the business of a great number of societies.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the clear statement he has made on the provisions of the Bill. On the surface it looks a very innocent little Measure, but on close examination there are certain points contained in it which are open to some criticism. Those who are closely connected with friendly societies and trade unions and who are not members of committees of management are a little alarmed at some of the provisions of the Measure. Since the war commenced we have been asked to pass certain Bills just to ratify arrangements which executives and companies had arrived at in conjunction with the Government. The other day we debated a Bill which was arranged between the insurance companies and the Government, and it fell to us as an Opposition to champion the cause of the millions of policy holders who never had a say at all as to whether the provisions of that Bill should be passed into law or not. I wish therefore to say a few words that an ordinary member of a friendly society or trade union might feel about a Measure of this kind. We do not intend to divide against the Bill to-day; but in Committee we shall move some Amendments which may probably be acceptable to the Government.

  I was glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman dwelt on Clause 8, because it is indeed a very fundamental section of the Bill. The largest part of the Bill need not be put into operation at all unless societies make a request to that effect. On the other hand, Clause 8 is mandatory, and in that sense the society would have to contract out of it, otherwise the mandatory provisions would operate automatically. The Measure, of course, is brought forward because of the national emergency. Were it not for the
  2046
  war, some of us in the trade union movement would have nothing at all to do with some of its provisions. The fact is that we are not quite satisfied that the Government should interfere in the private affairs of friendly societies and trade unions; but we are at war, and consequently friendly societies and trade unions paying sickness benefit are very anxious to safeguard their funds and their organisation. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to emphasise unduly the difficulty of convening annual delegate meetings and the holding of committee meetings because of evacuation. Most trade unions, as far as I know, are carrying on their business now just the same as before, and I trust they may continue to do so.
  I now come to the actual provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 gives committees of management of societies very large powers over their membership. When I point out one such power, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see why some of us are a little disturbed. Not only do you hand over to the committee of management all the powers of delegate meetings and of the branches of the organisation, but the committee can transfer those very powers to a sub-committee of its own. It does not say how many members shall compose that sub-committee; it may be only two or three; and so you may have a very large society with perhaps millions of members being governed during the emergency by just two or three members of its committee of management. Some of these friendly societies are colossal organisations. I believe one of them has investments amounting to £25,000,000. Therefore, we are dealing with rather important problems in this Bill. Clause 1 does something else; it allows the trustees and the officers to remain in their seats during the period of the war, following, I suppose, the practice of Parliament, with a sort of political truce inside the society or union. I do not know how the trade union rank and file will feel about that, but I should imagine that there will be some criticism of that provision if the war lasts, say, for five, seven or ten years and the same people are left in control as at the beginning of the conflict. I should think there would be some criticism of the provision that no election is to take place for certain officers. As a matter of fact, some trade unions are now holding elec-

  2047
  tions annually just as if the war had not taken place. If I offered my own opinion I should say definitely that it is the business of a trade union or friendly society to undertake its own tasks without the Government intervening at all in its affairs. That is my personal view.
  These committees of management can also amend rules without submitting the amendments at all to any delegate meeting or the membership of the society. That is rather an important provision. Clause 2 deals with registered branches of friendly societies; and there are thousands of these branches. There may be thousands in one single friendly society; every branch is a unit of its own and can deal with its own finances, pay what benefits it likes, and manage its own affairs; and its link with the central organisation is almost nothing more than a name. Under this Bill the central committee of a friendly society at its headquarters will be able to decide for each separate unit of the organisation what it ordinarily does for itself. Representatives of friendly societies have probably been to the Treasury asking for this Bill, but unless I am greatly mistaken they do not represent the membership of these thousands of separate branches on this issue. I apprehend that there will be criticism from them on the ground that they have not been consulted at all in regard to the power that is given over them. There may, of course, be very little objection to Clause 3, which suspends the quinquennial valuation of the funds of societies. At the same time if we are going to safeguard the funds of societies I should not like to see the valuation set aside for too long a period. Contribution income and benefit payments are, after all, based on what you can disburse as the result of actuarial calculations and valuations quinquennial or otherwise. Though I can see no objection at all to that I feel that we must not be too loose even on this point of valuation.
  Clause 6 deals with amalgamation and transfer of engagements of trade unions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that this provision is going to be permanent. I want Members connected with trade unions to take particular note of that. Some people will argue that the amalgamation of trade unions ought to be made very much easier; that amalga-
  2048
  mations have been frustrated because the present legal conditions are too onerous for the membership. In spite of that I should not like to give to the executive of any organisation such easy means of amalgamation which would offend the, membership.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in some doubt about Clause 8 and there is quite frankly a division of opinion about it. Let me try to put both sides of the case. No friendly society or trade union paying sickness benefit has ever laid down in its scales of contribution anything to cover injuries which might be caused by a terrible air raid. To that extent the argument in favour of Clause 8 holds good and is very forcible. On the other hand, it is argued that you are doing an injustice to such members. An injured member may get £1 a week by way of pension from the State, and if the friendly society only paid 15s. sickness benefit he would not in that case get a penny piece from his friendly society. If on the other hand a member of a friendly society or trade union is injured at work in the course of his employment he will get workmen's compensation and sickness benefit as well and the same would apply if he recovered damages at Common Law. I do not know of any trade union or friendly society which asks a member claiming sickness benefit, when he is otherwise qualified for the benefit, "Do you belong to any other society? Do you draw compensation or benefits from any other source?" Those two arguments are pitted against each other and for my part the second is the stronger of the two.
  There is another fundamental point in Clause 8. A friendly society or a trade union paying sickness or disablement benefit will have to contract out of it, otherwise it automatically operates over all societies alike. It is still possible, I hope, for a friendly society or a trade union paying sickness benefit to re-draft their scales of contributions and benefits to do exactly for themselves what Parliament is trying to do on their behalf in this Bill. Once again, I confess that, on balance, I would prefer the friendly societies and trade unions to do all this themselves; they know best how to do it. I gather from the right hon. and gallant Gentle-

  2049
  man that building societies, friendly societies, and trade unions have made representations to the Government for this Bill. I wonder why on earth building societies have been mixed up with trade unions in this Bill? The Bill has several sets of Clauses. I should have preferred to see trade unions dealt with in one set of Clauses, building societies dealt with in another, and friendly societies dealt with in a third, instead of bundling them together in this way. My feelings on this Bill are not quite so definite as they are on other Measures; and, therefore, I hope the House will forgive me if I have tried to state the case just as a lawyer would put it if he were paid to do so.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Jagger: Like my hon. Friend, I approach the Bill with very mixed feelings. I will start by stressing the point at which my hon. Friend left off. Why did we have a Bill which made all these provisions for a certain number of chartered bodies, and then have a second Bill which lumps together three sets of societies, more different from each other than some of them are from the societies which are covered by the previous Bill? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the difficulty of holding conferences and delegate meetings and of consulting the members of these organisations, yet, in Clause 8, he provides that we have to hold these conferences and call these delegate meetings unless we are to be compelled by law to refuse to pay to our members the benefits for which they have contributed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mention it, but the only way of escape that I can see for any organisation which wants to carry out its obligations is for it to summon a special delegate meeting and to alter its rules, because Clause 8 says:
  "the amount of any payments by way of benefits for sickness or infirmity (other than benefits conferred by the National Health Insurance Act, 1936), which he would otherwise be entitled to receive from the society or union shall, unless the rules of the society or union expressly provide to the contrary, be reduced by the weekly amount…."
  Obviously, as there has never previously been any provision for compensation to be paid by the Government for war injuries to civilians, the rules of none of these organisations make any special pro-
  2050
  vision. Unless we are to escape from honouring our obligations, we must hold those special delegate meetings, which, the Minister has said, it will be so difficult to hold, and the difficulty of holding which is given as a reason for the introduction of this Bill. As one who, only last week, was re-elected president of a very large union by an enormous majority, I must protest against the Government giving an opportunity to people like me to stay in our places without the formality of re-election.
  Nothing has happened so far to make it impossible for us to have a meeting or to make it difficult for us to meet our obligations. Had those eventualities come, the Bill might have been too late; as they have not, I am inclined to think that it is perhaps a little too early. There is only one possible justification for the Bill that I can see. It is perfectly true that the calculations fixing the benefits to be paid by the friendly societies and trade unions do not include the calculations of war risks. As the State is undertaking that liability, it may well be argued that there is no serious injustice done to the person because he is deprived of the benefit—
  Mr. Buchanan: Employers often undertake the liability of paying wages during sickness. Does the hon. Member argue that if wages are being paid, organisations should not pay sickness benefit to which their members are entitled?
  Mr. Jagger: I was not saying that it was an advisable thing, but that the Government have undertaken this liability, and, therefore, it might be argued that the societies have been relieved of their obligations. It is possible that if civilians were injured on an enormous scale, the amount which the friendly societies and trade unions would have to pay in disability benefit would cripple them financially, and make them unable, at a later stage, to pay benefits for other forms of disability, caused otherwise than by the war. To that extent, I suppose, there is some justification for saying that the societies should have power so to safeguard the rights of their members who are not injured as a result of the war that the benefits they would otherwise have got should not be paid away to people already compensated in some way by the Government. That is, to me, the only possible

  2051
  justification for the Bill. I do not know that my feelings in regard to this Measure are as mixed as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). In my mind, the bias is very largely in favour of saying that the trade unions and friendly societies can themselves be trusted to alter their rules in such ways as the emergency may make necessary; and I view with great apprehension this compulsory alteration, without any consultation with the members who have provided the funds.
  5.25 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I want to say a few words on this Bill, because I have come into contact with building societies of late, and have been much interested in their activities. I am delighted to see this legislation, which aims at further support and encouragement of the organisations mentioned in the Bill, and also, to some extent, at the protection of the public. Recently, I put a Question concerning building societies to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and, in reply, he said that a Bill was being introduced, and that it would contain provisions for the better protection of the public and would increase the powers of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. I wish the Registrar-General had been given still further powers. The trade unions, friendly societies, and building societies are part of our national life, and it needs no words of mine to point out what an unpayable debt we owe them for all that they have done for the people of this country. We are fortunate in possessing these organisations, but we are also fortunate in possessing, in the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, a watchdog who does his utmost to promote their interest, and also to protect people against the errors which may at times creep into the management of all such organisations. Amid the wealth of virtue and good will and efficiency of these movements, we find that tiny percentage of error that runs like the "rogue's yarn" in naval rope, through almost every national activity and profession. It is that slight percentage of error which I hope Clause 5 will help to prevent.

  It is a queer, unpleasant, but justifiable, reflection, that so much of our legislation is designed to protect the public against the misuse of power and
  2052
  the acquisitive tendencies of a tiny minority. In saying that, I am fortified by the annual report of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. One or two paragraphs have a direct bearing on Clause 5 of this Bill. Of the building societies alone, I note that, since 1928, no fewer than 35 have been absorbed by larger concerns. I have no objection to absorption, but there can be, and often is, objection to the method of absorption. Something like 26 of them have been absorbed in the last four years, and all except one have been small concerns. The thing which puzzles, and bothers, me is that there has been competition among some of the larger societies to get hold of the assets, the good will, and the energies of the smaller societies. There is no harm in competition so long as it is properly controlled, but it is proved by the Registrar-General's report that this is not always the case. The report refers to the type of advertisement which is meant to attract some of the smaller societies into allowing themselves to be swallowed up by some of the larger societies. At the end of an advertisement, published in the "Building Society's Gazette," and inserted by the Brighton and Sussex Building Society, appear these words:
  "The Secretary of any society of which the board would care to consider proposals on these lines of amalgamation, whereby the officials and directors are amply safeguarded, should communicate in strict confidence with….."
  Then follows the name of the managing director. I must confess that these two words "strict confidence" make no appeal to me. I do not like the idea at all, and I feel that it is not square and is not entirely above board. It should not be in strict confidence, or for the boards to go behind the backs of members of the societies. I would remind the House that in many instances the smaller societies are approached by several big societies. It is a form of approach which I am sure does not make an appeal to anybody in this House. There is another thing I would point out about the society in question concerning which I know practically nothing, except what I read in the report of the Registrar-General. Of one of the societies that was absorbed by the society that I have mentioned, the Registrar-General reported that the directors received payments representing about

  2053
  61 years' salary, and that the secretary of the absorbed society received the equivalent of his salary in perpetuity. [Interruption.] I presume that these must be the facts if they are in the report of the Registrar-General. Is it any wonder that he asked for certain powers to enable him to investigate these matters? I do not know anything about the society where the directors received 61 years' salary, but I maintain that the members of these societies are not given sufficient consideration, and the thing ought to be much more open and put before the members of these societies.
  As a further instance, I see that five small societies that were absorbed by a boa constrictor received only 18 per cent. of the reserves and unappropriated profits that had been built up by their energy and by their directorates over many years. But a higher figure—which goes to show again that the Registrar-General should have more power of investigation—one of 29 per cent. went in compensation to directors and officials, and 11 per cent. was used for expenses. I do not want to quote any more figures, but only to try and make a case for the protection of the members of these admirable societies, and I hope that I may be allowed in Committee to move an Amendment to Clause 5 still further to protect the members of these societies.
  5.34 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: I rise to say a few words on this Bill, particularly in relation to Clause 8. I recognise from the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this is not a Government Measure in the ordinary sense, but that it has really been introduced to oblige the parties concerned. I would like him, if possible, to look again at Clause 8. In some respects I do not agree with the provisions of certain other Clauses, but it is really Clause 8 to which I take exception. I do not like the provisions about meetings and the continuation of officers for long periods. I do not accept the view that it is impossible to collect votes because of the war emergency. The temptation to accept the provisions of Clause 1 enabling me to continue in office might be very great. I am the chairman of my union and I am due to retire in the next few months, and this Clause, I suppose, would allow me to continue in office. [An
  2054
  HON. MEMBER: "If the Registrar-General agreed."] He would agree, and he agrees in other cases. I have not heard of any case where he has disagreed. I see no insuperable difficulties at all in the taking of votes.
  But I feel strongly in regard to Clause 8, and I want to say something about the unjustifiable and unfair treatment of friendly society and trade union members who have paid for friendly society benefits. No one can defend that Clause on its merits. When one joined these societies war was not on the horizon, and it is unfair to ask these bodies to take on a war risk. That could be argued about a lot of other things, and I am surprised at hon. Members who have used that argument. When I joined a trade union and insured against unemployment, I did not expect that unemployment would reach the colossal figure of 3,000,000. Unemployment is a disease just as deadly as war, and, indeed, is a war in another form. When trade unions had to contend with 3,000,000 unemployed, they had to face a set of circumstances which they had not contemplated. The trade unions, with a few exceptions, came through the terrible depression with funds depleted and with serious inroads into their membership. There was no trade union that did not face up to that situation. They did not need to come to Parliament and ask for an Act of Parliament similar to the Measure that has been introduced to-day.
  The union of which I am chairman has three benefits for its members—unemployment, sickness and superannuation. They are heavy commitments. When the depression came we found that we could not pay the unemployment, sickness and superannuation benefits for which the rules made provision, but we did not rush to Parliament to try and secure the passage of a Bill. We had to face the situation. Trade unions are empowered at any time to take measures to safeguard their finances. We had to reduce the sickness, unemployment and superannuation benefits, and increase contributions. We did this without reference to our members, but we had to face them for re-election, and not one of us was defeated. Here we are introducing a Bill which I do not think is really necessary. If it be a war risk, as the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger)

  2055
  said, the executive should have power to act.
  I believe that under Clause 8 the trade union and friendly society member is put in a worse position than the recipient of Poor Law relief. The first £1 of a disability pension is exempted under Poor Law relief, and also under unemployment assistance, but under this Bill there is no exemption for the member of a friendly society who receives a pension of £1 a week. It is said that the State compensates him. The private employer compensates the man under workmen's compensation. Does anybody suggest that because he is compensated by workmen's compensation, he ought not to get sickness benefit from a trade union or friendly society? A man with £1 a week disability pension is to get no friendly or trade union sickness benefit, but if he is hurt in another field of industry, he will get 30s., and shortly, in the case of married men, it is to be increased. He is to get his sickness benefit in full. I used to get £1 a week sickness benefit from my trade union, and 30s. if out of work. If I get hurt inside Fairfield Shipbuilding Yard, I get my friendly society money, but if I walk outside and get hurt by a splinter from a bomb, I get nothing. If I am knocked down by a motor car, I claim at common law for damages and receive, say, £1,000, and I get my friendly society benefit, but if I am injured by a bomb from the air and I receive £300, I get no friendly society benefit. Is there any defence to a position like that? I want to go further. There is not, in this Bill, a single safeguard for an aggrieved member who comes back, injured, from the war, and gets a miserable pension. I am surprised when people say that he is being compensated. If I join a friendly society, I do so in order to get something more than the man who does not join. What is the use of joining a friendly society and paying for benefit if I cannot get something more than the man who does not pay?
  Take the case of two men coming out of the Army. One is a non-unionist and the other a trade unionist. One has paid, all his working days, 2s. a week to his union, and the other has not paid a penny. Both get £1 a week pension, and the one who is a trade unionist gets no
  2056
  assistance, although he has paid for it, while the non-unionist also gets nothing, but with this difference—that he has never paid anything. The thing for which a man has contracted is not received by him. Frankly, there is no justification for this at all, and I say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we may well be faced with casualties. My views on the war are not popular, but so long as you have sickness members there is no justification for dealing with one member in a different way from another. They should all be treated alike. The Co-operative movement usually pays a man his full wages when he is away from work. He will receive his sickness benefit, but another man coming back from the Army, who may not have been in Co-operative employment and who receives a small pension, will get nothing at all. On the grounds of equity and human decency this should not be allowed. If you asked the average trade unionist to-morrow for power to raise the premium to cover this risk, every decent man of a union, and of a friendly society, would say that they would pay 1d. or 2d. a week more for this extra risk rather than see a man who has served his country treated worse than any other class of member. Under this Bill you have no right of appeal. The Ministry of Pensions says "You get this amount for an injury," and it is done. But a man may become ill again 12 months later, and have paid contributions for the 12 months, and the Minister says, "You are off again for the second time because of this injury, and no sickness benefit will be paid." Clause 8 is a shockingly reactionary Clause, and I trust we shall not proceed with it.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East): I find myself largely in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I approach this Bill from the point of view of an unofficial member of a friendly society and of a trade union, and I ask myself whether there is anything in the Bill that could not be done by a friendly society or a trade union without any assistance whatever from the State. The Bill proposes to eliminate the right of the ordinary member of these societies to say whether or not he will agree to continue membership on the

  2057
  terms on which he joined. This is to be done without any prior consultation with the members affected. One might well ask, especially of the Law Officers of the Crown, whether these members, not having been consulted, agreed to a Measure of this kind and whether it is legally or morally right that they should have forced upon them an Act of Parliament upon which they have offered no opinion and to which their executives have no authority, under their rules, to consent.
  I object to the Bill largely on principle, and that applies to Clause 1 as well as Clause 8. It is proposed to delegate the powers now possessed by these democratic societies into the hands of the committees of management without the members themselves having previously been consulted. I am also opposed to the principle on the ground that there is nothing in the Bill that could not be prescribed, by properly adopted rules, by a friendly society or a trade union. I know of one trade union which, three months ago, recognised that there was a possibility of serious charges becoming due, and, desiring to preserve themselves against these adverse conditions, passed a rule providing that the executive could, if, in their opinion, the emergency justified it, modify or reduce benefits. What one union has done others could have done, and it is not too late for them to do it now. Conditions are comparatively normal so far as holding meetings and the taking of ballots are concerned, and it ought to be possible for the friendly societies and unions to call their members together and ask them whether they would modify their rules to protect themselves against the circumstances which might arise as the result of war, or whether they would be prepared to conform to the conditions laid down in this Measure.
  Clause 7 is certainly something which commends itself to me. It says that the mere suspension of payments of contributions by men of the Services shall not disentitle them to the benefit of the rules. I am wondering whether that applies to trade unions as well as friendly societies, because it is not quite clear as the Clause reads. One would suppose that it applies only to friendly societies, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make that clear. I refer to this because I wonder whether this is some kind of
  2058
  sugar coating for the bitter pill contained in Clause 8. If we are prepared to hand over these powers by passing a Measure of this kind, without the men and women affected being consulted, I think we should be false to the interests of all members of a democracy, of which we form a part. What becomes of our democratic principles if we are to go over the heads of the members of the societies and do this injurious thing?
  The hon. Member for Gorbals, in referring to Clause 8, dealt with the case of a man who happens to be in receipt of compensation on account of war service, or is a casualty in an air raid, and is deprived of the benefit for which he has paid. Supposing this Clause ultimately stands in the Bill, what about those members who have paid considerable sums, amounting to many shillings per week, for benefits? Is there to be any refund of those contributions in the event of their being deprived of benefit? If they make payments for certain benefits, and those benefits are taken away because of the provisions of this Bill, surely they ought to be entitled to a refund of the contributions they have paid. That seems to me to be a necessary corollary in a Clause of this description. While the Second Reading is to be allowed to go through, I hope that there will be substantial alterations made in the Bill in Committee. Otherwise it seems to me that those who are in favour of our democratic institutions will be unable to vote in support of the Third Reading. If I do not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill, it is only because I am more loyal to my party than to my own convictions.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for some observations made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I was intrigued by the argument which he put forward, and which was repeated by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, but when he made reference to the fact that the trade unionists will be deprived of benefit, I, with great respect, beg to differ. The trade unionist is not to be robbed of benefit if I understand the Clause aright. The hon. Member for Gorbals says that the member pays his contributions to meet the contingencies of industrial life. It is quite

  2059
  true that if this Bill is passed the obligations on the trade unions will remain precisely the same: to meet the liability of the industrial worker if he should fall sick, whether through a motor accident, the weather, some industrial disease, or is receiving workmen's compensation. When this particular Clause is passed those liabilities remain unimpaired. The member has not paid for the liability which the Bill intends to cover. It is a liability which is peculiar to the war situation. It is wrong and misleading to suggest that something is being taken from the member of a trade union or friendly society because they must meet every liability which they have undertaken to meet. This is an additional liability which has never been contemplated, and is a liability due to war conditions.
  Mr. Buchanan: Then the hon. Member would stop paying funeral benefit if the member was killed in the war?
  Mr. Oliver: It makes no difference when the death occurs; the liability is there for the trade union. With respect to the death benefit, there can be no doubt that the obligation of the trade union and friendly society must be met. The point I am emphasising is that this is a liability which the trade unions have not undertaken but which the Bill seeks to meet, and thus relieve trade unions from the obligation. It is an obligation the magnitude of which no one can foretell. It may be of such enormous dimensions that many trade unions would be insolvent if they attempted to meet such a liability.
  Mr. Naylor: It may be next to nothing; and where will the member be? The Bill is based on the assumption that there are going to be great disasters, that large numbers of members will be hurt in the war and that trade unions and friendly societies will not be able to pay the benefits. Experience has shown that it is not persons but property that suffers in air raids, but the member is still under the compulsion of this Bill.
  Mr. Oliver: That may be true, but the principle is not at all distorted, whether it is one person or a thousand persons. The liability is peculiar to war conditions, and it is a liability from whch the Bill seeks to relieve trade unions. I cannot
  2060
  see how the principle can be vitiated whether it is one unfortunate member who is injured or a dozen unfortunate members. But provision is made so that trade unions, if they wish, can alter their rules and pay benefit to those members who are injured as a result of war conditions. It is quite competent for a trade union at their next revision so to amend their rules that they can incorporate this liability in their rules and pay their members. [Interruption.] I only want to point out to the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) that in the Bill there is provision for adjustment if trade unions do not like it, but I think there will be very few trade unions which will so amend their rules as to incorporate the liability in the Bill. If the trade unions are incensed about it they have the remedy in their own hands on the next occasion when the rules revision committee meets. On Clause 1 the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to officers being appointed for the duration of the war. I have read the Clause closely, and I think that is quite an erroneous conclusion to draw. The Clause says "for the period which the Registrar determines," and in Sub-section (4) there is a check. If the members of an organisation object to the executive or officials holding their jobs too long this Sub-section would come into operation and representations could be made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies objecting to a prolongation of the period.
  From September of last year I know that there have been many factors operating in trade unions which have made it impossible for them to conform to the rules which have been provided by the rule-making body, and one can think that circumstances may arise in this country when it will be completely impossible for trade unions, friendly societies, or building societies to subscribe religiously to the rules which bind them. I think it is a wise contingency that if Clause 1 is not to the liking of an organisation they have no reason to employ it, they can keep away from it altogether; it does not affect trade unions if they do not wish to employ it. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not read the Clause with his usual diligence. My only complaint about the Bill is that it groups three different bodies together, and criticisms which one might apply to one group may

  2061
  not be applicable to the others. I can only speak in respect of trade unions because of my long and early association with them, and I cannot see very great objections to the Bill. There may be some, and when the Committee stage is reached one or two appropriate Amendments may be submitted.
  6.9 p.m.
  Major Milner: In my view this Bill contains some valuable provisions but also a number of matters to which attention should be directed. I am a little surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). I cannot conceive why Clause 8 should have been inserted. I cannot conceive why it should not be open to any individual who suffers injury by reason of the war to draw the amount which this House has provided under the Personal Injuries Act and also to draw the benefit for which he has paid for a number of years to his trade union or friendly society. I do not know what authority the Financial Secretary has for bringing forward this proposal. It would, it is true, affect a saving in the funds of trade unions and friendly societies, but I take the view that there being a war on there is an additional risk on all. It is surely, therefore, perfectly competent for those who are so unfortunate as to be injured—they may be few or many—to receive the compensation which the State has provided and also the benefit for which they have paid as a member of a trade union or friendly society. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will consider carefully whether this particular Clause ought to remain in the Bill.
  As to the general principle, I think the provision in Clause 1 to enable the rules and the practice of trade unions and friendly societies to be modified is a useful provision. I recognise that there is a case to be made out that in some degree our democratic rights as members of these organisations may have to be interfered with, but at the same time these powers are purely permissive and I think we can rely on the Chief Registrar to look at any proposals very carefully and to have regard to the interests of the members of the organisations concerned. In my view, therefore, some, if not all, of the provisions with regard to trade unions and friendly societies might very well be supported in the House.
  2062
  I really rose, however, to address myself to the question of building societies. I think I am the father of the proposal to make the provisions for amalgamating building societies more simple than they are at present. On the Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill, almost a year ago, I expressed regret that some such provision was not included in that Bill. But if I am not the father, it may be that the Chief Registrar is the step-father. There are some 900 building societies in this country, of varying degrees of strength, financial and otherwise. In war-time and in a time of financial stringency through which we may have to pass I think it is particularly desirable that there should be facilities whereby smaller societies, not necessarily less sound societies, but those societies which for one reason or another do not feel competent themselves to carry on during these difficult times, or which think that they cannot render proper service to their members, should be able to bring about an amalgamation with a larger or stronger society, provided that the terms of the amalgamation are fully disclosed and that it is carried through, as I understand will be largely the case, under the general direction of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) referred to this matter, and I do not know that I take any very great exception to what he said, except that he mentioned one society in particular and seemed to imply that it was necessarily a sinister matter to insert an advertisement asking for particulars to be furnished in strict confidence. I hold no brief for that society, but I do not think it ought to be said that an advertisement inviting particulars to be furnished in strict confidence in a matter of this sort is necessarily sinister: Surely, these matters are necessarily confidential, at any rate in the first stages. There may be cases where there are improper practices, but certainly, I do not think that the insertion of an advertisement by a society like that mentioned which I believe to be of the highest repute should be considered to be in any way sinister. The essential thing is that the full facts should be disclosed, and that any compensation payable should not be disproportionate or unfair having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the vacated office.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I did not wish to quote the name of any society. My whole object in speaking was to deal with the general principle of the protection of the members, but I found it impossible not to quote the name because I was reading from the report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. There was nothing in my mind directed against any society.
  Major Milner: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for making that plain. Clearly, on general principles, the matter of amalgamation is an important one, and it is right that provision should be made whereby it can be brought about in a simpler fashion and under proper control. The real point of this provision, and indeed of most of the provisions of the Bill, is that the trade unions, friendly societies and building societies concerned are brought rather more closely under the survey, and indeed, even under the direction, of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. That is all to the good. At present, as in the past, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies carries out his statutory duties with exemplary care, patience and capacity; he is one of our most useful officials, acting as he does primarily in the public interest. I welcome the fact that he is to have a rather greater say in these matters than he has had in the past.
  There are several other matters in connection with trade unions, friendly societies and building societies which I should like to see dealt with. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chief Registrar will have full knowledge of, and some control over, the question of the compensation, and so on, paid to the directors and officials of building societies. I do not think anyone ought to jump to the conclusion that those payments are necessarily wrong. The amounts must, of course, largely depend upon the length of service of the director or official concerned, but if they are proper payments, which are fully disclosed and which have the approval of the members of the society, I see no objection to them.
  There is one matter which I think ought to receive the attention of directors of building societies and indeed of public companies also, particularly at a time when the maxim is, "Equality of sacrifice." Only a few days ago, it was brought to my notice that the rules of
  2064
  one society—and probably of very many others—and certainly the Articles of some public companies provide for the payment of directors' remuneration free of tax. I think that it places a very great burden on the members of the societies if they are to be called upon to pay the very much increased Income Tax of the last Budget, and possibly the still more greatly increased Income Tax of the next Budget which could never have been foreseen by the members. It ought also to be made clear that the provisions of the Bill—at any rate, as I understand them—do not do away with the necessity of the members giving their approval. The Bill will do away with the necessity for the shareholders approval, but I understand it will still be necessary to have a resolution passed by three-quarters of the members present at a general meeting called for the purpose. For the reasons I have given, I think that, in general, the Bill deserves to receive our support, but I feel that on the Committee stage and in particular on Clause 8, there ought to be some considerable amendment.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Watkins: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been surprised by the rather mixed reception which this innocent little Measure has received. He submitted it to us in a most disarming way; he really was not interested in it, the Government were not interested in it, but people outside had asked them to bring forward the Bill. I take it that one of the bodies which approached the Government was the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and I suppose it was that fact which led my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) to be rather more impartial and objective than he usually is. I share many of the misgivings on Clause 8 that have been expressed from this side of the House, and I welcome the Financial Secretary's statement that if that matter proves to be too controversial, consideration will be given to the question whether Clause 8 should be proceeded with. In any case, the Bill will not be considered in Committee until after the Easter Recess, and by that time we shall have clearer views as to whether or not we want Clause 8 to be incorporated.

  With regard to Clause 1, a great deal of the discussion seems to have been

  2065
  based on the assumption that we are living in normal times. We are not. I welcome the provisions of this Clause, which will enable trade unions to carry on whatever may be the circumstances of the time and whatever may be the dislocation in our national life. Trade unions are governed by rules, and those rules are binding upon the executive committees of the trade unions. The term of office of the officers is also a matter that is governed by the provisions in the rules. Circumstances might easily arise in which a rule would need to be amended in the interests of all the members of the trade union. For instance, it might be found that the funds of a union could not in war time stand the charges which the existing rules would impose upon them. Something would have to be done to meet the situation, and the only way in which that could be done, under the rules, would be to call a national conference representative of all the branches. It might be a physical impossibility, in the conditions of the time, to call together the representatives of the branches and to take a vote. Many trade unions hold annual conferences at which 500 or 1,000 delegates attend. The situation at the time when such a conference was called might be such that the chief constable of the town in which the conference was to beheld would not permit the meeting because of the risks that would be involved. Therefore, were it not for the provisions of this Bill, the executive of the union would be in an impossible position. They would continue in office with no right to do so, they would seek to operate under rules that were no longer possible, and indeed, the whole situation would become entirely impossible.
  Clause 1 gives trade unions the right to apply to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in order to get a relaxation of the rules or the substitution of amended rules, on certain conditions. Some of the semi-jocular remarks that have been made in various speeches might lead one to think that a trade union official could make application to the Chief Registrar in order that he might remain in office merely because he wanted to do so. That would not be possible. The Chief Registrar has to be satisfied that, by reason of circumstances attributable to the emergency, the alteration in the rules, or the continuation in office, should be authorised. It seems to me
  2066
  that the principle of this Clause is the principle of appointing an arbitrator, someone who is impartial and outside the trade union movement, to give a decision on the question whether the rules should be amended if the executive, in their judgment, deem it to be wise to amend them. Under the provisions of the Clause, if circumstances arise in which the rules cannot be amended because it is impossible to summon an annual conference—which at present is the only way in which the rules can be amended—authority can be obtained from the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, in whom the whole trade union movement has the utmost confidence and who will give an impartial and fair verdict on the question whether the rules should be altered. Therefore, as we may very shortly encounter circumstances in which ordinary trade union organisation is no longer possible, and yet, as everybody will agree, the trade union organisation must be carried on, I think it is a wise thing that someone should have approached the Government and persuaded them to introduce a Measure to enable the trade union movement to carry on whatever may be the circumstances of the future.
  6.29 p.m.
  Mr. Collindridge: I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not think that because we criticise the Bill we feel that there is nothing good in it. It would be foolish to say that there are not good points in the Bill, but I think that the discussion will have convinced the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that certain parts of the Bill will have to be amended. Although, generally, the speeches that are made from these benches are true to type and seek the same objectives, on this occasion there has been a difference of opinion. I hope that the Minister will consider the strong plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) with regard to Clause 8. I differ to some extent from my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I am very much concerned with Clause 1, and particularly Subsection (2) of that Clause. I view with some degree of diffidence the power which is given to decide that meetings shall not be held. In my trade union, the Yorkshire Miners'Association, and the friendly society movement, with which I am connected—at least the rank and file of the members—would, I think, wish their

  2067
  meetings to go on untrammelled. It is a safety-valve if an emergency arises that the members' representatives can be called together to deal with the situation. My association have had some idea of what war may mean in this regard. After the first month of war the representatives were called together and they immediately decided that in the emergency all members serving with the Colours should be allowed, without contributions, the continuing benefits which they would have had if they had remained in civilian life. I can, however, visualise instances which might arise and which could not be dealt with in that particular way.
  I believe that this legislation must have resulted from the atmosphere existing at the beginning of war, but, for my part, I would say that the more we keep to normal conditions the better. We are fighting here for democracy, and I wonder what the rank and file of trade union movements, or friendly societies, would feel if they were prevented from making their voices heard. If at the end of a year, as frequently happens, there is a surplus, friendly societies arrange a system of distributing greater benefits amongst their members. While I do not suggest that an executive would be precluded from doing that by this legislation, members would not have the same chance of expressing their views. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 is also a very dangerous provision. It says:
  "Where, on the application of the committee of management of any society within 12 months after the passing of this Act, the Chief Registrar is satisfied that before the passing of this Act there has been, by reason of circumstances attributable to the emergency, failure to comply with the rules of the society or any statutory requirement…."
  It goes on to say that this will be agreed to. I think that that is hardly in accordance with the democratic principles upon which friendly societies and trade unions have been founded. The hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) struck, I think, a correct note when he said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had endeavoured to link together organisations which had dissimilar tendencies. I think the effect of joining trade unions and friendly societies who generally conduct their business in a certain form, with certain organisations who act differently is altogether wrong. I feel sure that if this
  2068
  legislation had been submitted to the trade unions, or friendly societies they would certainly, on the point I have mentioned, have decided to vote against it.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: We can all recall the memorable Parliament when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a member of the Opposition and set himself, almost every night, to throw discord into the ranks of the Labour party. He is up to his old tricks again. I suppose that my task which is not a very enviable one is to pour a little oil on the troubled waters. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepted paternity for this Measure, although I am bound to say he hardly said a kind word about the child. Nevertheless there are, I shall not say valuable features in the Bill, but features which have been rendered necessary, and, indeed, inevitable, by the war emergency. Whatever may be said by way of adverse criticism on certain Clauses, there is ample justification for a Measure of this kind. No one can tell what is to happen in the next few months, or, it may be, in the next few years. There may be heavy casualties and in consequence the funds of societies affected by this Measure may be seriously depleted. Some of these organisations are under contractual obligation to their members, and some provision, therefore, is necessary for the relaxation of rules in that emergency so that they may keep faith, as far as may be, with their membership.

  It must be confessed that if this were a normal occasion we should be justified in taking very strong exception to Clause 1, because, undoubtedly, it places very wide powers in the hands of the committee of management or executive of the organisations concerned. It may be, indeed I think it is necessary that there should be some Amendment of this Clause on the Committee stage. For example, in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, it will be observed that the committee of management may exercise functions which, ordinarily, are vested in the whole membership. That is a provision of a very sweeping character. What are the functions of the membership as represented by a delegate conference? They are very varied, but they include the right of dissolution, and I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say

  2069
  whether, if the Clause is passed in its present form, a committee of management or an executive of any of the organisations affected, would have the right without appeal to the membership to dissolve the organisation. Some protection is necessary in that respect. Moreover, I take it that if the Clause is passed in its present form it will enable an executive body to increase the salaries of officials, without considering the views of the members, and while that might be highly satisfactory from the standpoint of the executive, it would be regarded as highly detrimental to the interests of the members.
  Over and above that, the Clause provides that a sub-committee may exercise the functions ordinarily vested in the committee or the general body of members, so that we may find ourselves in a position in which two or three members may decide the conduct, and determine the administration of an organisation affecting several thousands of people. That, I think, is highly unsatisfactory. At the same time, I welcome the first part of the Clause. It is permissive in character and enables an organisation, whatever it may be, a trade union, friendly society, industrial insurance society, or building society—although it may not occur in the latter case—to approach the Chief Registrar and seek for a relaxation of rules. I am content. I think that places all the power which is necessary in war time in the hands of an executive body for the purpose of carrying on the administration of an organisation. As I hope to show in a moment or two, it may be, subject to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may say later, that this makes it unnecessary to proceed with Clause 9 in its present form.
  May I say now a word about the Chief Registrar? Frequently that gentleman comes in for considerable criticism, but I do not join in that criticism, because my view is that, generally speaking, he holds the balance fairly as between an organisation and its members. From my knowledge of industrial insurance societies, and having read the annual reports of the Industrial Insurance Commissioner, which is another name for the Chief Registrar, I can say that, almost invariably, any partiality he displays is in the direction of the members. So it appears to me that if in a particular emergency one of the
  2070
  organisations affected seeks the direction of the Chief Registrar, it is almost inevitable, having regard to his knowledge of the situation, that he will give such a direction as will safeguard the members, while leaving sufficient power in the hands of the executive to enable the administration of an organisation to be satisfactorily conducted.
  I come now to Clause 8which has given rise to considerable variation of opinions. First of all I wish to ask a question, and perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will oblige me by giving an answer, if he can, at this stage. The purpose of Clause 8 is to give power to an organisation to reduce benefits, not as regards all its members, but as regards one section, namely, those who suffer from war casualties and who, in consequence, receive benefit at the hands of the State. Suppose a society declines to avail itself of this provision. The Clause says
  "the society or union shall, unless the rules of the society or union expressly provide to the contrary."
  I fail to see how the latter provision is to operate, but if an organisation is, under its rules, expected to reduce benefits in a certain contingency but declines to reduce them, what happens? There is no penalty Clause in the Bill. If you say to a trade union, "You have refused to reduce benefits in a particular case where someone has received £1 from the Ministry of Pensions," you cannot take the union to court or summon any member of the executive. If you did, what charge would lie against them and what penalty could be imposed under this Measure? It would appear that, in spite of the obligatory provision making it incumbent upon the organisation to reduce benefits, the matter remains where it was if the organisation declines to do so. I do not know who drafted the Bill, but I am certain it was not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Whoever drafted it left out this method of imposing the obligation on the organisation affected. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will advance his opinions on that point.
  There are, on the whole, excellent reasons why in certain circumstances benefits should be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in one respect. If there is to be a reduction in benefits on the ground

  2071
  of financial stringency because funds are depleted owing to war casualties, it ought to apply to everyone alike. There ought to be no discrimination. On the other hand, it may be impracticable to adopt such a proposal and that may be the reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested that this Clause might be abandoned. That view has been supported to some extent by hon. Members on this side. I express no opinion about it. It is a matter for consideration. The hon. Member for Gorbals seemed to speak somewhat illogically with regard to Clause 8. He said that, after all, the trade unions can do this if they like, and obviously, apart from the present situation before the Bill passes, they could, if Clause I passed, have vested in them special powers. That is to say, the committee of management could do what is ordinarily done by the whole membership at a delegate conference. To that extent my hon. Friend is right, but if that is so, if they can do all this and if the Clause passed even in its present form, they would still have the power, because they have vested in them certain rights under the protection of the Chief Registrar, not to put Clause 8 into operation. That being so, I do not see any serious objection to the passing of Clause 8.
  Mr. Buchanan: Other than this, that they all clamour to get on the executive, and for goodness sake do not let them get away from their responsibilities and make Parliament do their dirty work. If the executive wants to reduce benefits let them do so, but do not let them run away from the responsibility of doing it.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is a great deal to be said for that point of view. Not being a member of any executive, except the executive on this bench, an unpaid executive with no funds to dispense and, therefore, with very little power—
  Mr. Buchanan: But with great hopes for the future.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to say that hopes for the future are not confined to those who sit on the Front Bench. It would be a very sad thought if that were so. I agree with my hon. Friend that Parliament ought not to be asked to undertake a task which properly resides in the organisation itself. Frequently,
  2072
  however, we are called upon to undertake tasks which other people are not prepared to undertake. That is the purpose of Parliament and its main function. That being so, I should not make too much fuss about it. I venture to say to my hon. Friends that, while there are certain features of the Bill which must be closely examined on the Committee stage and seriously amended, we ought to accept the Bill and appeal to the Financial Secretary to respond to the wishes that have been expressed so that we may make this a useful Measure which will assist the organisations concerned in a time of national emergency.
  6.53 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) accused me of throwing discord into the party opposite. I should put it rather that he has exposed what we have always suspected to be latent. When he says that there is ample justification for the Bill, I agree with him. I am sorry if he did not think I was very enthusiastic in propounding its provisions, but the Bill is not one that lends itself to wild enthusiasm. It is a purely businesslike Measure and tries to facilitate certain things which the times make it necessary to have speeded up or dealt with in other than the usual way. I admit that to that extent Parliament is giving attention to matters which, in ordinary times, are the proper business of these societies. That is because Parliament can, in a large way, help them along and save them a great deal of unnecessary trouble in war-time.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if this were an ordinary occasion strong exception would be taken to Clause 1. If it were an ordinary occasion there would be no Clause 1. Of course, one could never tell what would happen under a Labour Government, but I was speaking of normal times. In normal times it would not enter into the ideas of Parliament to deal with detailed matters of this kind affecting these societies—great, independent bodies which do so much good in their respective spheres. But we are not in ordinary times and the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) as well as the hon. Member for Seaham took a realistic view of the situation. The hon. Member for Ilkeston said that one could not tell from day to day what will happen in war-time, and the

  2073
  hon. Member for Central Hackney welcomed the Clause because these were extraordinary times and the Clause would make it possible for trade unions to carry on, whatever happened. That applies to the other bodies as well, and it is the fundamental reason for most of the proposals in the Bill.
  Some two hours ago, the Question was proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," but the Debate has really been mainly on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill or not. I am not surprised, because I said in my opening remarks that I felt considerable doubt about the wisdom of the Clause and several hon. Gentlemen have asked me to say why it was in the Bill. I will answer that question in this way. As regards the financial problems which are raised by Clause 8, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is right in saying that societies can safeguard themselves by amending their rules; and he suggested that they should call for higher premiums if necessary because it is within their power to do that. The assumption, I think, was that in view of what is feared about whether there will be a great number of casualties or not—and whether there is likely to be a great financial strain none of us can say—it was likely that societies would probably want to do something of this kind.
  If that assumption was correct the view was that this Clause was a reasonably workmanlike way of doing it. I admit that the Clause as it stands requires drafting Amendments. The general trend of the Debate however rather points the other way and the view of the House apparently is that the Clause should not be kept in the Bill. The hon. Member for Seaham did not come down on either side of the fence or say whether he wanted the Clause or not. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate thought it had better come out, and most of the other hon. Members who spoke took that view. It looks to me, therefore, that the feeling of the House this afternoon is that it is not quite right that Parliament in a matter of this kind should do the work of these societies, and the impression I got was that hon. Members would prefer societies to deal with this matter as they want to. I shall carefully weigh up what has been said to see whether or not it is necessary to leave the Clause in the Bill at all or whether it would not be wiser,
  2074
  as the hon. Member for Gorbals said, to leave it to the societies to deal with the problem as they want to and when they want to, rather than by way of a Clause like this, out of which it would be possible for them to contract.
  I would only add a word to say how much I appreciate what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and the hon. Member for Seaham—and the same note was running through some of the other speeches—in recognition of the very able and fair way in which these difficult problems were handled by the Chief Registrar and the confidence which hon. Members have shown in putting into his hands the powers sought for in this Bill. As to the building societies, I would say that it is true that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds can claim some share in advancing the proposals which are in the Bill, and as to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) we will see that under the Sub-section of Clause 5 to which he alluded, some of the worst standards which he brought to our notice can be, and presumably will be, dealt with. After the discussion we have had and on my assurance that I will carefully consider whether we should retain Clause 8 at all in view of the feeling of hon. Members opposite being against it, I hope the House will now let us have the Bill.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

  SPECIAL ENACTMENTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.2 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill, which was passed without opposition in another place, proposes to make provisions similar to those included in the Special Acts (Extension of Time) Act, 1915. Its predecessor was unanimously accepted by both Houses, and I hope that this Bill will follow that pre-

  2075
  cedent. I do not think it contains anything which could cause discord either in the party opposite or among my hon. Friends. As the House will be aware, if a local authority or a statutory undertaker wants to construct new works it has normally to obtain authority by means of Private Bill legislation, and Parliament, in granting such authority as it sees fit, imposes a time limit. In peace-time an undertaker may find the programme is delayed, and there is risk that the works will not be finished by the prescribed date. It is right and proper in such a case that the undertaker should have to come back to Parliament with a further Private Bill and satisfy Parliament as to the reason for the delay before any extension of time is granted. Under war conditions the circumstances are obviously very different. It is very likely that, if there is delay, it is not due to any fault of the undertaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has good reasons for restricting borrowing, and there are the inevitable restrictions on materials like timber and steel, and, of course, there are conflicting demands for man-power. In such circumstances I think the House will agree that it would be unreasonable to impose upon undertakers the burden and expense of carrying through further Private Bill legislation in order to get their time limits extended.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Does this mean a temporary abrogation of the right of a Member of Parliament to block a Bill that may come forward?
  Mr. Bernays: No, Sir. This Bill enables a Minister of the Crown to consider the prayer of the undertakers for an extension of time. It is concerned with an extension of time for projects to which Parliament has already given its approval. The relative phrase is at the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 1, where it says that if the Minister is satisfied
  "that such modification is requisite or expedient by reason of any circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to war"
  then, after due notice to the parties concerned, and, if need be, after a local inquiry, he may publish in the "Gazette" an order extending the time limit.
  There are two differences between this Bill and the Act which was passed in 1915, and I think the House will agree
  2076
  that they are necessary differences. The Act of 1915 gave power to extend time-limits for one year only, without prejudice, of course, to a further extension. His Majesty's Government have publicly announced that they are preparing for a war lasting three years, and the present Bill therefore enables the Minister to give an extension of three years instead of merely one year. We have carefully considered the question, raised in another place, whether the three years' extension might tend in any way to reduce the volume of public work available to absorb labour in the demobilisation period. There are many problematical factors involved, and I can give the assurance that, if the House sees fit to pass the Bill into law, we will see that the Departments are specifically asked, when exercising power under this Bill, to give particular consideration to the possible effect of any proposed extension of time on the post-war labour situation. If, for instance, it seemed likely when an extension of time was asked for that the war were shortly coming to an end, then the appropriate Minister would take that into account and might grant an extension for only a short period.
  Another new feature of the Bill is found in Clause 1 (3, b), where we say that the duties and powers to which this Act applies include
  "any power to purchase, or power of re-entry exercisable in relation to, a public utility undertaking, or part of such an undertaking."
  That is rendered necessary by the Electric Lighting Act, 1888. That Act and subsequent Acts gave local authorities an option to purchase certain electricity undertakings at the end of 42 years, and if that right is not then exercised, it revives at intervals of 10 years. As it was clear that these options could not mature until 1930, and it was not thought, even in the gloomy days of 1915, that the war would last until 1930, it was not regarded as a sufficiently live issue to call for legislation at that time. To-day the position is different, because these options are now becoming exercisable, but war conditions will in general make it impossible for local authorities to avail themselves of the options. This is true also of certain other undertakings, such as gas and water. The Bill therefore provides that on the application of any interested party for

  2077
  an extension of the time at which the option shall become exercisable the application may be granted, with, of course, corresponding adjustments of the dates of subsequent options. I think the House will agree that that is reasonable. Difficult questions may be involved in proposals to exercise purchase rights, and it might be unfair to more than one party that they should have to be handled in the middle of a war, with the knowledge that if the power were not then exercised it would go into cold storage for another 10 years. There is one technical point that is new. The Application to Scotland Clause in the Bill is necessitated by the passage of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936. I hope after this explanation that the Bill will win the same general acceptance as did its predecessor in 1915.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I see that Clause 4 makes the Bill applicable to Scotland, and I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here. There is a passage in Clause 4 which is underlined. It is only underlined with a single line. If our Whips are underlined with three lines, we know it is something serious, but even with one line it is evident that they wish to draw attention to the fact that something is going on, and I should like the Undersecretary of State for Scotland to explain what this really means. It says:
  "(b) Sub-section (3) of Section two shall have effect as if Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, applied to Scotland with the substitution of references to an order for references to a summons, and the omission of the word 'summarily' in Subsection (4) and of the words from 'and every such order' in Sub-section (5) to the end of the Sub-section."
  To bring something like that before us in this haphazard fashion is to treat Scotland a little too cheaply. It might mean anything. It is all right for the lawyers over there to be smiling away, but this is how Scotland has been "diddled" time and time again, and we look to you, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard the rights and privileges of private Members. We have to keep a watch here because there is a war going on and the Government are making that the excuse for filching from us all the rights we have. That is why I asked whether the Bill meant filching away from us our right to stop any Private Bill that
  2078
  might be brought before the House. I should like to have an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland of what Clause 4 does.:
  7.15 p.m.
  Captain McEwen: May I be permitted to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)? His eagle eye has, with its usual perspicacity, taken in various facts, among others that there is an underlined paragraph in Clause 4. The underlining merely means that this particular paragraph was taken out of the Bill on the Third Reading in another place on the ground of Privilege, and the fact of its being underlined once rather than twice or thrice has no further significance. With regard to this particular Clause, as the hon. Gentleman will know, and indeed as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has already said, the promotion of Scottish private legislation is governed by the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, in the terms of which the promoters are required to proceed by presenting a petition to the Secretary of State praying him to issue a provisional order.
  I would say at this point that the fears expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs on the score of the rights of private Members are entirely unfounded. The first paragraph of the Scottish application Clause in the present Bill, which is the Clause of which we are now speaking, provides that where it is desired to extend the time limit in an order or Bill under the 1936 Act, the appropriate Minister shall be the Secretary of State, and Clause 4 (b) to which reference has been made makes the necessary Scottish adaptation in Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which are applied by this Clause. I hope that with these few words of explanation and with my assurance, the hon. Gentleman will believe that no filching of rights, Scottish or otherwise, is being attempted by this Bill and that he will be satisfied with that explanation.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: This is a necessary and useful Measure, and my hon. Friends and I are offering no opposition to it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has

  2079
  given us a reasonably clear explanation of the Measure, and we hope that it will be administered in the spirit of his speech, because undoubtedly it may be very necessary to grant some of these orders for less than the maximum period, having regard to the necessity there may be at some stage, let us hope in the not too distant future, to resume a good many of the activities which this Bill proposes to give us powers to postpone. Of course, one way of meeting the situation might be in certain cases not to grant the order for the full three years, because the Bill is quite clear on the point that postponement is to be for not more than three years, and therefore presumably an order made for less than three years would be valid; and if it is not already in the Bill, arrangements should be made for its extension if at the end of the period for which it was granted it appeared desirable to do so. Nothing should be done to make it difficult to start public works if they should be needed.
  More particularly do I desire to direct my remarks to the suggestions with regard to the exercise of purchase rights of local authorities over electricity undertakings. In this matter the Government are moving with what, judged by the standard they accept, we must regard as commendable speed, because it was on 15th November last year that I drew attention to the necessity for this matter. They have taken only just over four months, and at the rate at which they do most things they are probably exceeding the speed limit; and the hon. Gentleman may find himself in difficulty with his own Department about that matter. This is a vitally important matter, and I hope that the period that the Government and the local authorities and the electricity industry generally will gain through this Bill will not be lost, but that an effort will be made to see this problem in its modern aspects as distinct from the aspect that it bore in those far-off days of 1888 when electric lighting was coming into vogue in this country.
  It is curious that in those days, although we had a Conservative Government in office, no one doubted that in the long run the ownership of the electricity undertakings should properly be in the hands of the local authority. The order was granted to the local authority. They could lease it to a company, but at
  2080
  the end of 42 years that order was to revert to the local authority subject to their paying the persons to whom it had been leased a reasonable compensation at the end of the 42 years for the value of the undertaking as it then would exist. So that it was recognised even in that very Conservative House of Commons that the principle of public ownership of an electricity undertaking was the right and normal thing. Of course, a good many of the orders in the country have, in fact, been worked by the local authorities. I believe the majority of the electricity undertakers in the country are local authorities, at any rate as far as England and Wales are concerned. It is only with regard to those areas in which the companies have obtained a lease of an order that this matter arises.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are reaching the time now when a large number of these orders are falling in. Forty-two years ago from now takes us back to 1898, and it was during the nineties of the last century and the first decade of this century that a very large number of these orders were granted in areas which have since developed very considerably, and it would have been quite fatal to the original conception of Parliament if this period of 42 years had been allowed to run out during the period of the present war. It is clear that the Treasury will not sanction the raising by the local authorities of the necessary loans to acquire these undertakings during the war.
  I have here a list of the undertakings within the area of the London and the Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority over which purchase rights become exercisable within the next five years. It shows the importance of this particular matter at this particular date because if you take just one block of local authorities some of the most valuable undertakings in the outer London area will come under this purchase option during the next five years. In the area supplied by the North Metropolitan Electricity Company the purchase rights in respect of Enfield become exercisable on 22nd July, 1944; in Edmonton they become exercisable on 24th July, 1942; in Hertford and the neighbouring parishes under a special order they become exercisable on any 29th March at two years' notice; in Southgate they become exercisable on 2nd August, 1945; and in Tottenham

  2081
  they become exercisable on 31st December of this year. In St. Albans they become exercisable on 26th September, 1942, and in Slough there is a special right that is exercisable now by one year's notice. There are various other important parishes in the immediate vicinity of London where these purchase rights are almost immediately exercisable and will probably be affected by this Bill. Therefore, this is a Measure which is exceedingly desirable, and my hon. Friends and I welcome it as giving the local authorities a real chance of exercising their option in circumstances more favourable than those existing at the moment.
  There is one other matter to which I must allude before I leave this subject. The position that arose in the county of London after the last war gives us a very serious warning with regard to what may possibly happen in the areas that I have mentioned. The right under the 1888 Act is to purchase at the value of the undertakings at the date at which the purchase is exercisable, quite irrespective of what was the original cost of the assets taken over. The rights in London became exercisable just after the last war when values were very considerably inflated owing to the temporarily high cost of materials, and the replacement value of the copper alone at that date was so great that the responsible committee of the London County Council held that it was impossible to exercise those rights with any economic justification at that time. I do not want to go into the political controversy that arose on the London County Council with regard to this matter; the London County Council was then in different hands from those which now control it, and a very bitter controversy arose. I am giving the view that was advanced by the responsible committee in those days for not exercising the purchase rights and in agreeing to the postponement of their exercise until the year 1971. It seems only fair that if purchase rights in the neighbourhood of London and throughout the country are to be postponed in the way provided in this Bill, there should be some arrangement by which the public who may have to exercise these purchase rights should not find their position worse as a result of a purely artificial increase in the values created by the conditions that may arise out of this war. I hope the lesson that was brought home, I think, to all con-
  2082
  cerned by the history of the negotiations on the inner circle of London after the last war will not be lost when provision has to be made for this particular phase of the matter to be dealt with. It is proposed to put down an Amendment before the Committee stage that will raise this matter quite directly, and I trust as there will be some days in which the Amendment can be seen the hon. Gentleman and his Department will give some attention to the point I have just raised.
  There is one other matter I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give his attention to while he has the breathing space that this Bill will provide. In 1888 no one foresaw the immense development that electric lighting was going to achieve during the 42 years that these orders ran. Further, I venture to say no one in 1888 foresaw the Local Government Act of 1929 and the very complicated review of county districts which took place under it. The effect of these two things together has been to make such a mosaic of the electricity map when it is imposed on the local government map as to make it almost impossible in many cases to exercise these purchase rights because of complications that have arisen. Because a little bit of an undertaking has been transferred for local convenience from one local authority to another the consequence is that the purchase rights in respect of that small piece are exercised by a different local authority from the local authority that exercises rights in regard to the larger piece. The orders have virtually been amalgamated through companies like the North Metropolitan Company which have developed a system so intertwined that to abstract one piece may inflict serious technical injury on the whole. These great complications are making the original intentions of Parliament to secure ultimate public ownership of electricity supply exceedingly difficult of achievement. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that either by a Departmental Committee or in some other way he should use the time this Bill gives him to ensure when the normal functioning of the Electric Lighting Act is resumed it shall be resumed in an atmosphere of reality in which the original intentions of Parliament can have a reasonable chance of being achieved. As I have indicated, we welcome the Bill. It will do something to make these purchase

  2083
  rights really exercisable, but there are so many complications now that I trust the hon. Gentleman will use some of the time at his disposal to make the Act of 1888 a reality instead of a futility as it applies to these complicated cases.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: There are certain Clauses embodied in the Bill by which the privileges of local government authorities are affected more than we thought they would be. The first question I would ask the Minister is whether the local authorities have been consulted in regard to this Measure. If not, will they be consulted before the Committee stage? My next point is to ask for an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, although the question was raised in another place, but there are several lessons I have learned in this House. This is not a personal matter. One of the lessons I have learned is that you cannot place too much reliance on what is said in the House. It is what is contained in a Bill that matters, and I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to take this to himself personally. I have learned more and more by listening to Debates in the House, assurances given by Ministers, and through following court proceedings in the "Times" from day to day.
  Under Clause 1 the Minister has very wide powers, and I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether any assurance that he has given can be put in more concrete form during the Committee stage in order that many of my hon. Friends, some of whom have had to leave, can be reassured. In my own locality we suffer more from mining subsidence than any other area in the country. The miners'society has spent a tremendous amount of money dealing with it locally. They also got the House to pass a Bill, but although it was passed it was thrown out in another place. Does the Clause dealing with public works mean that if the Bill was passed after the war, they would have to wait three years to carry out public works of this kind? I remember that after the last war a large number of men were unemployed for a considerable time, and the county councils and the municipalities and other public bodies desired to carry out as much public work as possible. This will be the position in a more intensified way after this war.
  2084
  Therefore, between now and the Committee stage, will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his advisers and other people in order to see that this is put into more concrete form?
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Might I reinforce that appeal? I have listened to the arguments of the Under-Secretary and listened to his arguments in regard to the Extension of Time Act of 1915 as related to the present Bill. If the argument had been advanced towards the second portion of the Bill, the one dealing with undertakings about which my hon. Friend has spoken, I could have understood it, but I cannot understand the argument in relation to the first portion of the Bill. It seems that the Bill applies only to those powers obtained or now running or that will be sought during the progress of the war; that is, private Bills which have been obtained and under which work is either being carried out or is already put forward. Anyone who comes to the House in war time asking for powers to carry out work must have a very good case, or it must be an urgent necessity, otherwise the House will not grant the order and the Treasury will not grant the money. I cannot see the possibility of this being held up by war circumstances, because it would probably be those circumstances that had led to powers being granted.

  In these circumstances and in these conditions, why extend the period of time beyond 12 months? The numbers will surely be few in which extensions will be sought or in which powers will be sought under present circumstances. Therefore, it seems to me the Minister will have ample time to devote to considering these questions if 12 months were the limit instead of three years. I can see many conditions happening in three years and work that ought to be carried out being shelved and the terms granted under the Bill being used for the purpose of shelving the work. The Minister has power under this Bill to grant an extension for periods of less than three years, but I am afraid the order as set out in the Bill will become the accepted thing, and if it is 12 months instead of three years, he can make any power he requires, particularly in regard to Sub-section (3, a). In regard to (3, b), I can see the strength of the argument in regard to three years. Even if the war finishes. I would not plead for

  2085
  an alteration in that regard. In regard to the first, I think he would not only have the confidence of the local authorities in the matter, but it would be to his advantage and that of the House generally and would strengthen rather than weaken the Bill if this were done.
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Ammon: I wish to raise a more detailed point. Though I agree that one would welcome the Bill, we do want some assurance in regard to it under Clause 1, Subsection (3), where there are these words:
  "any duty or power imposed or conferred by a local or private Act…or an order."
  That raises the question in the minds of local authorities whether the orders will be under the Local Education Act, the Public Health Act, or the Public Works Facilities Act. It is quite certain that some orders may be covered by the Bill, particularly in respect of housing. But these orders should be defined as local Acts or Acts of a private nature. A doubt as to whether the Bill applies to these orders arose by reason of the fact that the orders themselves do not contain any time limit. If they are incorporated under the Section of the Land Consolidation Act, a time limit of three years is fixed. There is considerable doubt as to whether or not the Clause does cover that. If the Minister can give an assurance, a great deal of anxiety will be set at rest among all those responsible for its administration.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Bernays: I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which this Bill has been received. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said we have taken four months to do it, but with his expert knowledge of the subject he will understand that a Bill of this kind has required a great deal of negotiation. One main question has been put to me, and I understand there is some anxiety in the House on the subject. I am asked to extend the period to one year instead of three years. Three years is a period that has advantages from the point of view of administration. I have given firm assurances, and it will be possible for the Department concerned, in granting a further period, to take into careful consideration the possible effect on post-war labour questions of any proposed extension of time. On the point made by
  2086
  the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), who says that what matters is what is in the Bill, not what is said in the House, I agree, but I cannot make my assurances more concrete than I have made them. If, however, the hon. Members will put down an Amendment on the Committee stage, I will give it very careful consideration and take the sentiments of the Committee on that Amendment. The hon. Member for Stoke also asked me whether local authorities had been consulted. The local authorities' associations have been most carefully consulted. The hon. Member for South Shields raised an interesting point as to what might happen in London where, after the war, local authorities might be in the position of having to pay very inflated values. He informed the House that he intends to put down an Amendment. I do not know whether his ingenuity will enable him to get such an Amendment on the Paper. I am not sure that it comes within the scope of the Bill. Of course, I will give careful consideration to what he has said, and I will consult my advisers between now and the Committee stage./
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

  SOLICITORS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.46 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  As the House knows, the solicitors' profession and its organisation is regulated largely by Statute. This Bill is designed to enable modifications of the statute machinery to be made in circumstances arising out of war conditions, and, in particular, for the benefit of those who are training as solicitors who may be serving in the forces or otherwise engaged on war work. It does for the Law Society and the solicitors' profession very much the same kind of thing that was done for the universities of Oxford and Cambridge under an Act passed some little time ago and for other universities

  2087
  and chartered bodies under a somewhat later Act. If hon. Members look through the Bill they will see the sort of matters with which it deals. I hope it will be regarded as a useful and non-controversial Measure.
  Clause 1 gives the Council of the Law Society power to grant exemption from passing the intermediate examination on account of circumstances connected with or arising out of the present emergency. In the ordinary course, a solicitor's articled clerk has to pass a preliminary, an intermediate and a final examination. There may well be cases in which an articled clerk is away for a year or more—we cannot say how many years—and it would be quite reasonable to let him off the intermediate examination. He will, of course, have to pass the final examination. Clause 2 gives power to allow earlier presentation for the final examination. Under the principal Act an articled clerk can only present himself for final examination at the end of his articles or thereafter. This Clause will enable someone who is, perhaps, within six months or a year or even 18 months of the end of his articles, and feels that he can get through the final examination, to take it now, perhaps before he is called up for service. Clause 3 enables the Council to reckon national service as service under articles in certain cases, particularly of course in war circumstances.
  As the House knows, the full period of articles is five years. In certain cases where a man has a law degree from a university that period may be reduced to three years, and in other cases where he has taken a law course but not a full degree it can be reduced to four years. This Clause enables the Council to reckon national service, no matter into which of these categories an articled clerk falls, as part of the qualifying period with the proviso that he must have had at least two years' actual employment as an articled clerk. Clause 4 deals with a subsidiary matter. It provides for cases in which, under present regulations, if a course of legal instruction of a certain kind has been taken it counts for, I think, a year's articles. Where a man is not able to complete the course and therefore is not entitled under existing regulations to that concession, the Council is entitled
  2088
  to permit a reduction in the term of service.
  Clause 5 deals with prizes, scholarships and so on. It is, of course, the inevitable result of war not only that those serving as articled clerks may be taken away but that others will not enter into their articles. There may well be prizes and scholarships for which there is no real application at the present time, and it is much better in the interest of everybody that there should be power to suspend their award and that the money accumulated should be made available to help those who continue or start as articled clerks after the war. Clause 6 provides that powers exercisable by the Master of the Rolls may be exercised under his direction by a judge of the High Court. That enables possible emergencies, such as, for instance, disorganisation by air raids, to be dealt with, and the Clause is on the same lines as provisions in other Bills which the House has passed. Clause 7 enables the Law Society to reduce, if they think fit, the statutory number of examinations, which at present is three in every year. Then follows an interpretation Clause, and after that there is a Clause dealing with Scotland. The House will see that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the Bill only deals with the question of periods of national service being taken into account as part of the qualifying period. The reason for that is that the other matters dealt with in this Bill are not in Scotland at present regulated by Statute, and difficulties which arise therefore can be dealt with under the present organisation of the profession in Scotland.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs): I should like to ask a question on Clause 9. That Clause says that the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland may, at their discretion, permit the whole or any part of the period of service to be reckoned as actual service under indentures for the purposes of this Act. There is nothing extraordinary in that, because in May of last year I got the managing director of John Brown and Company to give a lead to the shipbuilding industry in this country so that apprentices would have their time counted while they were in the Army. I know, however, of a very hard case in my constituency and I would like to know whether it is possible to give any help in that case under this Bill. It is the case of a young solicitor who is now

  2089
  in the Army—he was a Territorial—and whose father, now over 70 years of age, has built up a good business. I want to know whether there is any possibility under this Bill, of getting that young man out of the Army in order that he may assist in carrying on his father's business which has been built up as a result of a life's work? Unless he can be got out of the Army, that business will be ruined, and I would like to know whether the Attorney-General can assist, under this Bill, in a case of that kind?
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. Smith: There are some questions which I would like to ask about this Bill. As far as I am concerned, I object to a Bill of this kind. The Attorney-General told us that the legal profession is regulated by Statute. That is perfectly true, but there are thousands and even millions of people in this country who will be affected by this war and I should like to ask why preferential treatment should be given to members of the legal profession. I want to know, in the first place, whether I am right in saying that Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are not limited to the duration of the war?
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to interrupt in order to give him an explanation I think it may save time. The original Bill introduced in another place did contain Clauses which did not relate to war conditions, but they are not in the Bill presented to this House.
  Mr. Smith: The next point I want to put has reference to the statement of the Attorney-General that before articled clerks are called up for service, Clause 2 will apply to them and they will be allowed earlier presentation for the final examination. There are thousands of young men thinking of their position in this matter, and I do not think it would be right for us to sit here and see this Bill go through without making some observations on this point. Thousands of young men are being called up. I think that the calling up is being done more fairly than was the case during the last war, but the whole future of these young men is at stake. If one small section of the community is to have the future safeguarded for them by a Bill of this character, it seems to me that there is something wrong. It means that there will be preferential treatment.
  2090
  Take the case of apprentices for example. Parents of working-class boys have to make great sacrifices in order that their sons may get the technical and theoretical equipment to enable them to become skilled craftsmen. They are taken away at the age of 20. Their parents are not saying much about it because they realise the position in which the country is, but it is a little annoying to feel that, while one section of the community is safeguarded, our lads are being called up at the age of 20. I would like to refer also to the case of superannuated people and pensioners. They cannot have their future safeguarded. We know what happened to the policemen after the last war. While we have agreed not to oppose this Bill, we do think that the Government ought to introduce a Measure to safeguard these other people as far as possible. If that cannot be done, they should not have introduced a Measure of this kind to deal with a few well-placed people.
  7.59 p.m.
  Major Milner: I feel that my hon. Friend's speech is based on a misapprehension. No special preference is given to articled clerks. This Bill has no reference to calling up. As far as I know, articled clerks will be subject to calling up just as are apprentices in any other class. As far as I am concerned, and I think I might speak in this matter for the legal profession, they do not want any preferential treatment of that kind. The sole purpose of this Bill is to grant certain exemptions from examinations and so on to articled clerks—that is to say, young men who are apprenticed, to use a more familiar expression—and to enable them to count the period during which they serve in His Majesty's Forces as part of the period for which they would normally be articled and have to serve with a solicitor. To that extent it is true that the object of the Bill is to ensure that articled clerks, who are mostly between 17 and 22, should suffer as little as possible by the war. I do not think any special preference is being granted to members of the legal profession. They are subject to being called up, like the rest of the community, and I am not aware that they are asking for any special privileges. I believe that similar provisions were passed during the last war, and I hope they will be passed on this occasion. I should, however, welcome any more general provisions

  2091
  which will put other sections of the community on the same basis if—which I do not think is the case—any special favour is being conferred by the Bill.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Tomlinson: The only special favour which it can be suggested is conferred by the Bill is that the practice of the law is determined by enactments and, when changes are taking place, there must be changes in the law in order that solicitors may practise according to that law. To that extent, they are, I will not say a privileged but a favoured class. The conditions under which they carry out their work are laid down by Act of Parliament. It is very necessary that it should be so when we remember the kind of work that they are doing, because it is for their interpretation of Acts of Parliament that those who are not in that privileged class may be called upon to pay, and perhaps pay "through the nose." I am concerned that these people should understand their business, as long as they are necessary. I should like to ask whether the safeguards which are being provided, in regard to those who will be excused from certain portions of the normal procedure, are sufficient to guarantee that they will be fully qualified to carry out their work as solicitors when the time comes for them to do so. I believe it is necessary that some leniency should be shown, and an individual allowed to sit for his final examination without having passed his intermediate examination. That seems to me a wise procedure, unless there is something in the intermediate examination which is not contained in the final and is essential to the carrying out of the person's work as a solicitor when he is qualified. If that is the case, then to the extent that the intermediate examination is being passed over, we may get less-qualified solicitors at the end of this period.
  Clause 5 deals with the power to suspend the award of prizes if necessary. I understand that these prizes are at present granted under Act of Parliament, and I should imagine, from the phrasing of the Clause, that they must be awarded from year to year. In war circumstances the examinations at which the prizes are granted may not be carried on as they have been, and certain amounts of money will accumulate. This Clause, if
  2092
  I read it aright, gives the Law Society power to spend that money as and when they think fit. It seems to me that, if we are safeguarding the interests of those who are being called up, there should be something in the power that is granted to ensure that the generation which is suffering as a consequence of the war, should have the benefit of those awards which are not now being given because the war is in operation. I think if some words could be inserted by which the House would give a lead to the Society in exercise of that power, it would be a step in the right direction. It appears, to me that power is being given to the Law Society to amend the principal Act, under which it is compulsory that so many preliminary, intermediate and final examinations should be held in a year. Are we giving them power to abandon examinations altogether if they so desire—to determine that no examination shall be held in that year? If it is so, it seems to me that it is too great a power. I have had a lot of trouble during the last few months with parents who spent a good deal of time and money in bringing children up to the age of 18, and qualifying them, as they thought, to sit for Civil Service examinations. It has been decided that on account of the war, Civil Service examinations shall be abandoned for the year, and it seems to the parents that their time has been wasted. I do not want to give the Law Society power to abandon these examinations. Does the Clause mean that they have power to vary them or to abandon them altogether?
  8.7 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) put a specific case, if I understood him aright, not of a person who was indentured but of an admitted solicitor who desired to get back to look after his father's business. The hon. Member will have to approach the War Office on that matter, if he has not already done so, because it is quite outside the Bill. I should like to disabuse the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) in the attitude which he took up towards the Bill. I think I can do so by referring him to what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said. He pointed out that he persuaded Messrs. John Brown to do this very matter in respect of engineering

  2093
  apprentices. No one had to come to Parliament in order to enable Messrs. John Brown to do that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Following that, it was agreed between the Employers' Federation and the trade unions that it should apply all over Great Britain.
  The Attorney-General: The point that I wanted to make is that here the Law Society want to make the same concession that the engineering trade has done, because they think it right, but they cannot do it unless Parliament gives them leave, and it is not therefore giving anyone a special privilege. It is enabling a body which Parliament has restricted in its action to do acts which other people can do without coming to Parliament. If the hon. Member realises that, he will realise that this is not quite the sort of Bill that he thought. I would also point out that bodies which carry on a somewhat similar educational function, universities and so on, some of which are also tied by Statute, have received from the House the same power of elasticity in modifying their regulations as we are conferring on the Law Society. Speaking generally, any body which is tied down in that way and wants to do what the House considers reasonable will have the sympathy of the House in enabling it to act in this way.
  The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) raised two points, one on Clause 5 with regard to prizes, scholarships and awards. It is always difficult not to tie people up too tightly in putting in words what they are to do in circumstances at present unforeseeable in detail. One can have little doubt that the Law Society will do its best to ensure that people are not hampered in their career through serving their country. I will look into it and see whether it is possible to put anything into the Bill, but I cannot say at present. I read Clause 7 as meaning that at least one examination will be held every year. That is the inten-
  2094
  tion of the Law Society, and, in my view, that is what they are legally bound to do under the Clause.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday, 2nd April.—[Mr. Boulton.]

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the urban district of Malvern, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the county borough of Reading, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Hemel Hempstead, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved."
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]
  Adjourned accordingly at a quarter after Eight o'Clock.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PUBLICITY).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PUBLICITY).
AGRICULTURE.
  PARKLAND, LINCOLNSHIRE.
  PARKLAND, LINCOLNSHIRE.
  BUTTER AND CHEESE.
  BUTTER AND CHEESE.
  BACON.
  BACON.
  WAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, LINDSEY.
  WAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, LINDSEY.
  PRODUCER-GAS TRACTORS.
  PRODUCER-GAS TRACTORS.
  TRAINING SCHEMES.
  TRAINING SCHEMES.
  SCOTLAND (SCHOOLCHILDREN, EVACUATION).
  SCOTLAND (SCHOOLCHILDREN, EVACUATION).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FORD-FERGUSON TRACTORS (IMPORTS).
  FORD-FERGUSON TRACTORS (IMPORTS).
  EXPORT COUNCIL.
  EXPORT COUNCIL.
  EXPORTS (RAW MATERIALS).
  EXPORTS (RAW MATERIALS).
  GERMAN-OWNED SECURITIES.
  GERMAN-OWNED SECURITIES.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  POLICE WAR RESERVE (SUSSEX).
  POLICE WAR RESERVE (SUSSEX).
  CAMPS.
  CAMPS.
  WAR LOAN (PRESS ADVERTISEMENTS).
  WAR LOAN (PRESS ADVERTISEMENTS).
  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
  FOREIGN INCOME (TAXATION)
  FOREIGN INCOME (TAXATION)
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
  TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
  GREETINGS TELEGRAM FORMS.
  GREETINGS TELEGRAM FORMS.
  PARCELS, EGYPT (DUTY).
  PARCELS, EGYPT (DUTY).
  CIVIL AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  CIVIL AVIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  DECORATIONS (AWARDS).
  DECORATIONS (AWARDS).
  STATION (SITE).
  STATION (SITE).
  WESTERN ENGINEERING, LIMITED (SUB-CONTRACT).
  WESTERN ENGINEERING, LIMITED (SUB-CONTRACT).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  GARAGES AND REPAIR SHOPS.
  GARAGES AND REPAIR SHOPS.
  PRODUCTION (DURHAM COUNTY).
  PRODUCTION (DURHAM COUNTY).
  ENEMY PROPAGANDA.
  ENEMY PROPAGANDA.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  IMPORTED MEAT.
  IMPORTED MEAT.
  RATIONING (SEASIDE TOWNS).
  RATIONING (SEASIDE TOWNS).
  BACON AND BUTTER.
  BACON AND BUTTER.
  EGGS.
  EGGS.
  SCHOOL MEALS.
  SCHOOL MEALS.
  SUGAR.
  SUGAR.
  FEEDING-STUFFS (DISTRIBUTION).
  FEEDING-STUFFS (DISTRIBUTION).
  HOME-KILLED MEAT (SUPPLIES, HEREFORDSHIRE).
  HOME-KILLED MEAT (SUPPLIES, HEREFORDSHIRE).
  BOTTLE PARTIES.
  BOTTLE PARTIES.
MILITARY SERVICE.
  DISTRIBUTIVE AND CLERICAL WORKERS.
  DISTRIBUTIVE AND CLERICAL WORKERS.
  UNEMPLOYED MEN.
  UNEMPLOYED MEN.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD WORKS (MATERIALS).
  ROAD WORKS (MATERIALS).
  ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
  ALTERNATIVE FUELS.
  ARMED FORCES (PETROL RATION).
  ARMED FORCES (PETROL RATION).
  COAL SUPPLIES (LONDON).
  COAL SUPPLIES (LONDON).
  PUBLIC HEALTH.
  PUBLIC HEALTH.
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTION ACTS.
  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTION ACTS.
  BRITISH SOCIAL HYGIENE COUNCIL.
  BRITISH SOCIAL HYGIENE COUNCIL.
ECONOMIC WARFARE.
  GERMAN EXPORTS (JAPAN).
  GERMAN EXPORTS (JAPAN).
  BRAZILIAN COTTON (EXPORTS TO ITALY).
  BRAZILIAN COTTON (EXPORTS TO ITALY).
  DUTCH EAST INDIES (RUBBER EXPORT).
  DUTCH EAST INDIES (RUBBER EXPORT).
BRITISH ARMY.
  CASUALTY LISTS.
  CASUALTY LISTS.
  DISCHARGE PURCHASE MONEY (REFUND).
  DISCHARGE PURCHASE MONEY (REFUND).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).
  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).
  MILITARY INFORMATION (FOREIGN TELEGRAMS).
  MILITARY INFORMATION (FOREIGN TELEGRAMS).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  RELEASES (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
  RELEASES (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS).
  LEAVE (RATION MONEY).
  LEAVE (RATION MONEY).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

R.A.F. ATTACKS ON SYLT.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a private notice question of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence—namely, whether he has any statement to make about the attacks last night by the Royal Air Force on the island of Sylt.
THE MINISTER FOR THE COORDINATION OF DEFENCE (LORD CHATFIELD): My Lords, I am in a position to make the following statement: Squadrons of the Royal Air Force last night delivered a continuous series of attacks for a period of six hours on the base at Hoernum in the island of Sylt from which German seaplanes have been engaged in mine-laying and in attacks on our shipping. These operations were carried out in answer to the raid by German aircraft on land bases in the Orkney Islands last Saturday. A strong force, involving more than double the number of German aircraft engaged on Saturday, took part in the operation. The weather conditions over the target were clear moonlight during the early part of the raid, gradually clouding over towards morning. The aircraft encountered intense anti-aircraft fire from gun positions on Sylt and on adjacent islands, but this did not prevent them reaching and dropping a large number of bombs on their target. Such fighter aircraft as were encountered sheered off when fired upon. With one exception all the aircraft taking part in the attack returned safely to their bases.
Both high and low altitude attacks were carried out, and many tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs were dropped. The reports already received from the pilots show how extensive is the damage that has been done. Direct hits were obtained on the hangars which were set on fire. The oil storage tanks were also seen to be on fire, and many hits were obtained on the jetty, light railway and other parts of the base. A further reconnaissance of the island of Sylt was

969
carried out this morning. Although the aircraft were heavily engaged they were able to make observations of the island which confirm the success of the operation. All these latter aircraft have returned to their bases. Your Lordships will appreciate how gratified and encouraged the Royal Air Force have been to have had this opportunity. This action has once more demonstrated the fighting spirit and the skill of our captains and crews and their willingness and readiness to meet the call.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble and gallant Lord for his reply, and on behalf of my noble friends and I believe on behalf of all your Lordships and indeed of the whole of the lieges, to re-echo the last words of the noble Lord's statement? We would like from these Benches particularly to express our admiration of the efficiency, gallantly and determination of this brilliant operation. During these months of the war in which we have seen our shipping attacked and merchant seamen and fishermen done to death in the most brutal manner by German aircraft as well as by German submarines, the country has longed for our forces to have an opportunity of retaliating with their weapons against legitimate targets. We quite realise the reasons why this has not been done before. The public feel, I am sure, what everyone feels in circumstances like these, that there is nothing so trying as to be attacked or to see your fellow-countrymen attacked and not have the opportunity of striking back. I understand that the island of Sylt was evacuated of its civil population some time ago and it was, therefore, a perfect target. Every building or structure in the island was of military value. I have made a rough calculation since this news was given to us, and my reckoning is that in this great raid of which the noble and gallant Lord has just given us information, more bombs were dropped on Sylt than in all the raids on London during the whole of the Great War. I am very glad on behalf of my noble friends to congratulate the Royal Air Force on the success of the exploit.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that
970
the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; and read 1a.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
BOROUGH OF HEMEL HEMPSTEAD ORDER.
BOROUGH OF ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF READING ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF MALVERN ORDER.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Monday last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the recently issued Statement of Policy on Colonial Development and Welfare [Cmd. 6175] and to the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission [Cmd. 6174]; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have seldom had greater pleasure in initiating a discussion in your Lordships' House than on this occasion when I ask your attention to the two documents which are mentioned in the Motion which stands in my name. I am gratified because once in a way I do not have to criticise the Government. The documents concerned seem to me to stand out like a good day in a naughty world and I am not proposing this afternoon to embarrass the Government by any specific criticism. My desire in putting down this Motion was that Parliament might have the very earliest opportunity of assuring the Colonial Empire that it is behind this statement on Colonial policy and that it intends, with satisfaction and with all con-

971
venient speed, to apply the principles that are therein laid down.
The Colonial Empire will not underestimate the significance of the fact that, amid the great burdens and constant anxieties of the war, the British nation is inaugurating a scheme for Colonial development which millions of people in the Empire had hoped for but which they had feared never to see. My first duty, therefore, is to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the timely introduction of this new Colonial development policy which will, I believe, give immense satisfaction throughout the Empire. It represents in an extended, amplified form the principles of trusteeship; it attempts to put those principles into practice. My first and very urgent plea on this matter is that your Lordships should remember that there are two documents under consideration, and I hope that attention will be given to both of them. There is the Statement of Policy on Colonial Development and Welfare, and the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission. I feel that there may be some danger of the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission taking our attention and obscuring considerations of the wider problem of the Colonial Empire as a whole. In that regard I venture to remind your Lordships that, acute as are the West Indian problems, they deal with only some 2,500,000 people whereas the Colonial Empire has within it some 60,000,000 people. It would cause, I believe, intense disappointment throughout the Colonial Empire if, on this occasion the problem was not considered in its wider aspects affecting the whole of the Colonial Empire but was confined to one particular section.
The West Indian people are relatively advanced. They are certainly more articulate than many of the other peoples of the Colonial Empire and are better prepared for self-government. Therefore, in the very short time that I shall address your Lordships, I propose first of all to say something about the policy of Colonial development and welfare, and then to deal with the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission. The Statement of Policy is short but of quite profound significance. The Government have
972
given us very little, almost no, interpretation of what is involved and it is important that an attempt should be made to interpret what the document means when it comes to be applied under all sorts of conditions. I think it implies, although it does not state, that trusteeship henceforth is to mean much more than merely the non-alienation of land and a share in such material progress as may come. I think it implies that the native peoples will be considered in a moral and cultural as well as in a material way. Under the principle of trusteeship I believe that we have a responsibility to provide for them, not according to what they are now, but according to what in generations to come they may themselves become. That involves, as I think, consideration of the kind of education that must be given. It must enable them to appreciate the social life and needs of the community in which they live. As I have understood our Colonial policy, its aim has been throughout not to make the native peoples in Africa into artificial or imitation Europeans but to make them good Africans. If I am right in that, then this document stands for the development of the necessary qualities for communal life.
My second comment about the Statement is that it contains one new feature of great and most welcome significance. It implies the complete abandonment of the doctrine of laisser faire, and this in itself, I submit, is a very great step forward, and may alter the entire approach to Colonial administration and development. In paragraph 3 of the Statement of Policy we are told that
"His Majesty's Government are trustees for the well-being of the peoples of the Colonial Empire…The primary aim of Colonial policy is to protect and advance the interests of the inhabitants of the Colonies.…"
There we have the principle of trusteeship reaffirmed, and the question arises how that principle shall be dealt with and reduced to common practice. Hitherto we have had, as your Lordships are aware, the Colonial Development Fund, which was started in 1929 and was empowered to spend up to £1,000,000 per year. If your Lordships will be good enough to turn to paragraph 6 on page 5, you will find this:
"The existence of the Fund has not involved any departure from the old principle that a Colony should have only those services

973
which it can afford to maintain out of its own resources. This principle now calls for revision, and the Government propose that in appropriate cases money from the new sources which they have it in mind to provide should be made available for the maintenance of important works or services over a substantial period of years."
That, I submit, in the dry-as-sawdust language which is apparently appropriate to an official document, constitutes the too-long delayed funeral oration of the discreditable doctrine called laisser faire.
Now we are to spend up to £5,000,000 a year for a period of ten years; also £500,000 a year are to be devoted to the work of research under a Research Advisory Committee. I am not quite happy about that provision, because it may not mean that a sum of £5,000,000 will be spent, but only that a Committee may spend up to £5,000,000 per year; and we notice that from the Colonial Development Fund they have only spent £8,000,000 of the £10,000,000 that they were empowered to spend. I am not suggesting for a moment that money should be spent recklessly just to spend it, but I think it would be some assurance to Parliament, and the Empire if it were felt that this grant sum would in fact be each year available and that, if it were not spent in one year, the balance would be carried over to subsequent years.
In paragraph 7 we have this statement:
"This assistance will be available not only for schemes involving capital expenditure necessary for Colonial development in the widest sense but also for helping to meet current expenditure in the Colonies on certain services such as agriculture, education, health and housing."
I have previously mentioned the importance of education in this matter, and I should like to inquire from the noble Marquess if he is able to give me an answer as to the kind of education that is in mind. I hope that it will be much more than the form of education which will help a native to become a more intelligent productive unit: that it will encourage him to desire and to live upon a higher standard; that it will be an education which will prepare him for the purposes of community life and needs. The words that I have just quoted, especially the words "Colonial development in the widest sense," may imply that kind of educational development.
Paragraph 15 is, however, in my judgment the most important paragraph of the
974
document, for there we are led to encourage the Colonial Governments "to prepare development programmes for a period of years ahead," so that they may plan and work out economically and with great efficiency the development that seems most urgent. I should like to ask the noble Marquess if he could give us in his reply some information about the character of the Advisory Committees: will they be the existing Committees, or will they be new and reorganised Committees? Will they be merely Departmental or Parliamentary, or will they be general, on which people with knowledge outside are co-opted to serve? I should also like to ask how Parliament shall keep its control over this expenditure. I ask the noble Marquess to remember that I do not forget the opportunity of the Colonial Estimates once a year, but to my own knowledge that provides very inadequate opportunity to criticise and analyse the whole of the difficulties of the Colonial Empire.
I have left almost no time in which to deal with the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission, but I do not apologise for that, because we have the advantage of having with us the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, himself Chairman of that Commission, and from him I do not doubt that we shall have information on that matter. Before I comment on it personally I should like, on behalf of my noble friends, to thank the members of the Royal Commission for their sympathetic remarks concerning the late Mr. Morgan Jones. He was one of the ablest and most devoted of our colleagues. His fine character commanded our respect and his personal qualities our affection. Those of us who knew his work on the Indian Joint Select Committee, for example, or as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, had the highest regard for his qualities. His death was a great loss both to his Party and to the State, both of which he served with entire devotion.
The details of the Report of the West Indian Royal Commission are not available. It is a disadvantage, therefore, to have to debate this question without the information which was the basis of the Commission's judgment. And yet it is not entirely essential that we should have those details, because the facts of the situation are fairly well known. Some

975
of us have had the advantage of seeing conditions there with our own eyes, and most of us have read Major St. John Orde Brown's report on Labour Conditions in the West Indies, and the Report on the disturbances in Trinidad of more recent times. What the Commission's Report seems really to show is that additional revenues are required for the West Indian Services. Only British Guiana and Trinidad have mineral resources to form a basis for their financial needs, and we have to remember that in 1936, for instance, the expenditure on administration in the West Indian group was 40 per cent. of the whole expenditure, and in some of the smaller Colonies it was even higher.
There appear to be two ways in which these problems can be dealt with. The first is a rise in prices of commodities. Sugar is the hard factor of the situation in the West Indies. The Olivier Commission in 1929 recommended that the sugar preference should be raised to 4s. 8d. It is notable—I am not complaining about it; I merely note it in passing—that the Government have not committed themselves on that aspect of the Moyne Report. The other way is the introduction of new capital from this country. That seems to me to be a good thing, but the expenditure involved will require very careful consideration. Unless the Advisory Committees that have to deal with these matters represent all views, we may possibly find that what is to be done will act as a mere endowment of inefficiency in the West Indies, or funds may be diverted to enterprises which would benefit sections only instead of the whole of the Colonial community.
There is so much that is good in these two Reports that it seems almost ungenerous to criticise; yet it would not be true to my habitual form if I sat down without one word of criticism on this matter. The Moyne Report—as I will call it, if the noble Lord will permit me to do so—appears, so far as I can read it, to underestimate the importance of the political factors in the West Indies. For example, the strain between politically-minded people in the West Indies and the Administrations grows, and there have been occasions when the old haughty authoritarianism rather than a spirit of co-operation has been used. I think that there is an increasing urgency for the
976
absorption of native talent into the Administration of these Colonial areas, as far as that is possible. I have dealt too quickly and therefore very superficially with this vast problem, but I again welcome in the most cordial manner these two documents, and I hope that the House will agree that the questions that are raised in them are of urgent importance. I venture to ask your Lordships to give to them your most sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
4.35 p.m.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has drawn attention this afternoon to a matter which is of quite first-class importance, implying as it does a new departure in and development of our Colonial policy. I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments if I give what I believe to be Liberal opinion on this matter. In the first place, I should like sincerely to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, and the members of the West India Commission on the admirable work of that Commission and on the excellent result which they have achieved. Royal Commissions do not invariably lead to concrete results, and indeed they are perhaps sometimes appointed not with a view to obtaining them. Sometimes their Reports come home to roost in the pigeon-holes of Downing Street and remain there for a very long time. That is certainly not the case with this Report. Further, I think that we can all congratulate the Colonial Minister and His Majesty's Government on the promptitude with which they have dealt with it. The Statement of Policy which they have issued goes far beyond the West Indies and deals with Colonial development as a whole, and the White Paper makes it clear that it is a great advance on the principle of the Colonial Development Fund of 1929. That, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, dealt with material developments in the Colonies, but now such matters are included as health, education, as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has just told us, housing, and, above all, scientific research, the results of which will be shown over a long period with benefit, I trust, to the countries concerned and to the Empire as a whole.
I think that the Government were right not to wait until the end of the war on the plea that no new expenditure should be undertaken now; at the same time, it

977
is to be hoped that these grants need not be made in perpetuity, but that the Colonies with greater prosperity may become self-supporting. Moreover, I think it is right that Palestine and other mandated territories should share in the benefits of these proposals, for that will mean a full recognition of the principle of trusteeship. The new money, as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, mentioned, is to amount to some £4,500,000, in addition to the £1,000,000 which is already granted under the Colonial Development Fund. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Snell, in hoping that this money will be very carefully administered. A great responsibility in this matter lies upon the Colonial Secretary; and indeed in other ways also he bears a very great responsibility indeed from the vastness of the Empire for the control of which he is responsible. That is, of course, well known in this House, but outside the vastness of the Empire is not always realised, comprising as it does a population of some 60,000,000 people, administered by, I think, 40 different Governments in different parts of the world, and ranging from States like Nigeria, with a population of 20,000,000, to small islands all over the world.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has recently found time to go over to Paris and there to meet his opposite number in the French Government. After all, the boundaries of the two Empires in different parts of the world are contiguous, and it is very important, I think, that the administrators of these different Colonies in different parts of the world should co-operate, and that their relations should be just as cordial as the relations of the two home Governments are to-day.
There are just one or two matters in the Report of Lord Moyne to which I would like to draw attention. I think it is clear that he and his Commission recommend in some sense decentralisation of the Colonial Office, that is to say, they recommend that there should be appointed a Comptroller of the West Indian Welfare Fund, who will be an intermediate authority between Whitehall and the several West Indian Colonies. That seems to me a very sound suggestion, and possibly a similar arrangement might with advantage be adopted in other parts of the Empire. There is one other point in Lord Moyne's Report to which I would refer. A suggestion was made that there
978
should be established a Standing Parliamentary Committee to deal with Colonial matters. It was not clear from the wording of the Report, but I think that if such a Committee were appointed, members of your Lordships' House should be included, because there are many members of this House with great experience in Colonial matters. There are several ex-Secretaries of State for the Colonies, and there are men with great experience, like Lord Hailey, who have done great work in Africa. Therefore I think it is clear that if such a Standing Committee were set up, members of this House should be included in it.
Two or three days ago I read in a newspaper of a broadcast play given from a German wireless station, and the mise en scène of this play was said to be a British Colony. Natives were being punished and tortured and put to death by British officials because they refused to enlist in British forces to serve against Germany on the West Wall. Well, I can conceive of no better answer to such poisonous propaganda than the publication of this Report and the action which His Majesty's Government have taken on it.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, like both the noble Lords who have spoken, I rejoice that in these difficult financial days, when every pound of expenditure must be scrutinised in order to see that we get value for our money, the Government have not hesitated to commit themselves to expenditure, and large expenditure, in the execution of their Colonial trust. I am glad that they have made a long plan, that this is no question of spending a million or two in one year, and perhaps starving the Administration in another. My noble friend and his chief in another place will not have to go year by year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, uncertain whether money will be forthcoming. It is only if you know that you can take a long view, and that you can build firm, that you can really spend money wisely in Colonial administration. And though I am not enamoured necessarily of plans which are counted in terms of years, I am glad that in this case there is the certainty of a ten-year plan. I think it was singularly fortunate also that when this plan of expenditure was under contemplation the Government should have been fortified by the Report of Lord Moyne's Commission, covering the West Indies

979
alone it is true, but covering that area very thoroughly.
Both the White Paper and Lord Moyne's Report wisely, I think, link economic and social expenditure together, link economic development with Social Services. Because in the long run the standard of living of all these Colonies, the expenditure on the Social Services which we are able to maintain, must depend to a large degree upon the economic prosperity of the Colonies themselves. It should be our aim, not only in matters political but in matters economic, to strive always for the time when every Colony can stand on its own feet. Much might be said about detailed administration, particular plans of development in this Colony or that. I do not propose to fall into that temptation in this debate. I would rather concentrate on just a few principles, practical suggestions which are based on my own four years' tenure as Secretary of State for the Colonies, during which time we established the Economic Department of the Colonial Office, which had never existed at all before, and initiated the Colonial Survey, which I think taught not only the world outside but many of us in the Colonial Office a great deal about Colonial possibilities, and Colonial products, and Colonial difficulties that we did not know before.
And that leads me to say this. In these times there is no limit, or practically no limit, to what agriculture can produce, but there is a very definite limit to what can be sold for export, even if we export to the best possible advantage. And therefore my first word of warning—and I am sure it is unnecessary to the Colonial Office, experienced as they have now become—is this. It is of course absolutely right and necessary to apply science to the development of agriculture in all these Colonies, to make sure that your agriculture is as efficient as it can be, that you are using the best strains and the best types in what you grow, that your veterinary services and so on are developed as highly as possible, that applied science in the use of your products is developed to the full, that your marketing is as competently organised as it can be: all that is necessary, and all that is being done. In that way you will not only produce the best quality possible, but you will export as much as you can. But when all that
980
is done there is still a limit to export, and therefore I am sure these Colonies, with their growing populations, must depend more and more on the development of local consumption. That is plain in Lord Moyne's Report.
Visiting these teeming islands in the West Indies, his Report emphasizes, both explicitly and implicitly, how impossible it is to solve the economic problem of the West Indies merely by looking to increased exports. You have to raise the standard of living in the Colony, you have to supply for that increased standard as much as you can from what the Colony produces itself. It is increasingly important that your Colonial cultivator should learn to live on his holding rather than to live off his holding. What he can export, by all means let him export. That will pay for the extras which he gets; but more and more he must live on his holding—at any rate, both he and his family—and also the local population in the country. There, it seems to me, is a great field for local education, teaching not only agricultural production to the producer, but teaching a better standard of life, and the way to a better standard of life, to be obtained in their own land and from their own land, to the whole of the people of these Colonies.
That leads me to say this about education. I hope we shall not be afraid to give our education in the Colonies a vocational bias. My noble friend said that the object of our trust was not to make a lot of bad imitations of European countries or European democracies—it was to make good Africans. I most profoundly agree, and I do not say that with any sense of limitation of what natives are increasingly capable of. I have seen, myself, on my Colonial tours how carefully trained natives are capable of filling posts which a few years ago people thought it was impossible for them to fill. I do not mean black-coated posts only, or chiefly, but engineering posts and so on—all that kind of development. Let us create every opportunity we can for the natives, but let us educate them so that they can take advantage of these increasing opportunities. I am quite sure we shall not be thanked by the natives if we give them a kind of education of which, when they leave their place of education, there is no possibility of their taking advantage.

981
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Snell has visited Uganda, but there, where devolution in the sense of indirect rule has gone, I suppose, further than it has anywhere else, where a very large part of the Administration is in the hands of the natives themselves—extremely competently conducted—I remember discussing with the native Chancellor of the Exchequer the law of diminishing returns of taxation in a way which, in his case, would not have disgraced a permanent official at the Treasury. There, where devolution, as I say, has gone so far, I noticed that they were most careful in their education not to train too many black-coated people, but to give black-coated education only to people for whom there were opportunities, and to concentrate on education for the land—scientific training. It became good form for the sons of the Chiefs to go to agricultural colleges, and that was done in one of the most progressive Colonies I have ever visited, where devolution was practised to the highest possible extent. I am sure it has not suffered at all under the present Governor who is a gallant and able administrator. Therefore, do not let us hesitate to give a vocational basis to our education. Indeed, let us insist on it.
I have only two other points to raise. One is this. Both the White Paper and the Moyne Report stress the importance of scientific research, and not only scientific research in primary products in the matter of the soil, but applied research into the use of the product. I am sure it is necessary to associate industry here with that development and that research. It is probably always wise to have the purely agricultural research done on the spot in the Colony, but in most cases it is probably equally wise to have the research into the use of the product done in this country or in some other part of the Empire possibly—but in this country particularly—where the users are, and where you can get the users interested in the use of Colonial products. I found repeatedly that we could make no progress unless we interested industries here and made them partners in the development. I could give many examples, but I shall give only two. One was the development of sisal and fibres. All the field work, very properly, took place in Kenya and Tanganyika, but when it came to the use of the fibre it became necessary to interest the textile industries, the spinners,
982
here and in Ulster. Actually the fibre research was conducted in Ulster, and has gone on very satisfactorily to this day. The use of sisal in competition with manilla has been due to the co-operation of the user as much as to the way we developed it in the Colonial Office. That partnership between the user, the producer, and the Colonial Office as the trustee was very fruitful.
I take another example. When I went to the Colonial Office I found that in many Colonies there were forest officers who were excellent forest officers in the sense that they were very good conservators of timber, but not one of them knew anything about the timber market and hardly any of them had visited a timber firm. They did not know what this country wanted in the way of timber, and therefore they had not the least idea of how to sell their products. I got the timber industry together, and said to them: "If you take one or two of these forest officers at a time for a six months' course, will you give them the run of your business and so on? They can tell you the kind of timber they produce out there." They jumped at the idea. They never charged a penny for it. They were only too glad to help. The result was that when these officers came over they got thoroughly interested in the market side, the timber merchants got knowledge they never possessed before of Colonial supplies of timber, and the forest officers went back knowing what this market wanted. The result was that, within a year or two, the exports of timber went up enormously from a great many of these Colonies, showing that it is very wise and very necessary to give to the industries, of this country an opportunity they are only too anxious to take, and a share in the discharge of that trusteeship which is the common heritage of us all.
One last word. In the discharge of our trust, in making as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said, good Africans and not artificial Europeans, it is tremendously important to use and build on local tradition, local custom, local organisation, local loyalties. That, indeed, is what is meant by indirect rule, and in applying it successfully, as we have been able to apply it, through the Colonial Empire, we are, after all, only applying the lesson we in this country learned a good many hundred

983
years ago. When William the Conqueror conquered England, and the fighting was over, he had the wisdom to send for his generals and say that the time for generals was finished and the time for statesmen had begun; that it was their business to find out what was Anglo-Saxon custom and to marry Anglo-Saxon custom to Norman law. Our Constitution to-day, with its growth and its common sense and its general pliability to circumstances, had its birth in that happy union of law and custom, and so in the same way, in applying indirect rule, let us take the local custom, the local law, the local tradition and merge them in our experience and in the larger loyalty. The secret of success in indirect rule, I am sure, is that it is not, and cannot ever be, just one sealed pattern. I am sure my noble friend and the Secretary of State very fully realise this. I would only say in conclusion, as an old Secretary of State, how grateful I am to the Government that this wise advance is being made and this generous expenditure undertaken in the discharge of a great trust, which is, I believe, very safe in the hands of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Undersecretary whom we have in this House.
5.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, there is certainly no announcement that has yet been made by His Majesty's present Government which has brought more emphatic rejoicing to my own heart than the announcement of this large augmentation of the Colonial Development Fund for the benefit of our great Colonial Empire, and more particularly, if I may say so, for the benefit of the peoples of Africa. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Moyne not only upon his quite admirable Report but also upon the great promptitude with which it has been acted upon by His Majesty's Government, even in these very anxious times when money is far to seek. I was not quite so fortunate as my noble friend in so far as my investigation of another part of the Colonial Empire was concerned not two years ago, for he was able to obtain the emphatic and unanimous support of all his colleagues as far as I can learn, in every particular, whereas those who served upon the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Royal Commission under my Chairmanship found
984
that in some particulars—I am inclined to consider in most cases somewhat subsidiary particulars—we were not wholly at one. I am perfectly certain that every member of my Royal Commission would most cordially endorse everything that has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, whom I should like to thank for introducing this subject in the House to-day, and would agree also with everything that has fallen from my noble friend Lord Swinton. May I say in passing that I would like to dot the i's and cross the t's of everything that has fallen from the noble Viscount?
I notice with some interest the order in which the various services are placed in regard to assistance from this new grant of £5,000,000 and the lesser grant of £500,000 in respect of research—agriculture, education, health and housing. My natural inclination would be to say that agriculture has quite properly been placed in the forefront, but after careful, I think I may say somewhat meticulous, investigation of the very sad condition of the native peoples in South Central Africa, I am inclined to put health first, even before education. Indeed, I think I should put agriculture also before education. Where you have many millions of native people who through malnutrition or otherwise are in such a physical condition that they are really not educable, then surely your first attention so far as the application of this major grant is concerned, and even so far as the grant towards research is concerned, should be given to making them at least physically fit first of all to learn what they ought to learn and to work out so far as is possible their own economic salvation. On referring, as I did casually last night, to those statements made in my Royal Commission's Report upon which we were all agreed, I found in the first place that there is no difference of opinion that the natives to whom I am referring were in a physically sub-normal condition, to the extent of at least three-quarters of the population. That being so, surely health is the first essential, coupled of course with attention to medical service and sanitation based on really sound and efficient research.
Then I would place, second in order of importance, instruction in the treatment of the land and the maintenance of health in the native villages and kraals. The con-

985
dition of a very large number of these native villages in South Central Africa is truly appalling. In many, many cases there is deficient water supply, and in almost every case in countries like Northern Rhodesia either erosion is taking place, or perhaps more frequently the land is being so starved that the people cannot exist in any large numbers on any particular spot for any length of time. The consequence is that they keep on moving some ten or twenty miles away, and in the result, because they have no real knowledge of how to treat their land and how to maintain its fertility by, for instance, rotation of crops and by maintaining a sufficient amount of humus in the soil, they are really occupying for their maintenance a much larger area of land than is requisite either for that purpose or for their industrial welfare. It was very noticeable in all three Territories that we visited, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, that the outcry of the natives was for more land, although in fact the land upon which they were attempting to live was, like themselves, thoroughly starved.
Talking about the condition of health of the natives, I cannot imagine any more useful purpose to which a part of this Fund can be applied than to teach the native how he can obtain a due and proper amount of nutrition to keep him in a decent condition of health. It is not that the native is being quantitatively starved; it is not that the native has inadequate food. At least three-quarters of the natives with whom we came in contact were trying to live on a thoroughly ill-balanced ration, a ration composed almost wholly of starchy material, maybe maize or millet or cassava, without any due proportion of protein food, either animal or vegetable protein, in order to maintain physical efficiency by means of a proper nutritional balance. There is very little knowledge amongst the natives, even with all the assistance the Colonial Office have given from Whitehall, upon the subject of a proper balance of food in order to maintain themselves in a satisfactory physical condition.
As I say, I was rather interested to refer to those points on which we are quite agreed. One was that land and labour are at present being wasted and that with proper utilisation there should be no deficiency of either. I am entirely in accord
986
with my noble friend when he says that the native population should learn to live on their land and not live off it. You see going on in South Africa and in South Central Africa an unfortunate drift towards the mines—towards the Rand with large-scale gold mines, towards the smaller gold mines of Southern Rhodesia, towards the copper belt of Northern Rhodesia, and towards the lead and zinc mines in Northern Rhodesia. You see that drift from the villages, particularly in Nyasaland, where you have a relatively higher standard of education, than in almost any other part of Africa, with a consequent disruption of tribal and communal life and its wholesome traditions, which it is the main interest of the paramount Chief, or the Chief, to maintain. This leads me to ask that at least some proportion of this new Fund shall be devoted to the proper training of the Chiefs, concurrent as far as possible with the maintenance of the influence of the Chiefs. I think the most illuminating and encouraging experience we had in the course of our long tour in South Central Africa, was a visit to a certain Jeanes centre, which is largely financed by American money. There a large number—I think some forty or fifty—paramount Chiefs and Chiefs and sons of both were being instructed in hygiene, in the maintenance of health, and more particularly in various handicrafts and the science of agriculture and agricultural industry. These men are being properly trained, but where they are not properly trained their attitude really is very disheartening.
Perhaps I may be allowed to tell your Lordships of a little experience of mine which is really almost laughable. In the Chibi, rather to the north of the Limpopo, a very outlandish area, I visited the local tribe, and after trying to encourage the Chief to seek education for the children, I went on to call attention to what I imagined would appeal to him; that was, the presence in the area of a native demonstrator. That demonstrator was making it clear that by rotation of crops, for instance, by growing ground nuts in rotation with maize, the crops of maize were far heavier, and the land therefore produced per unit of space a very much larger amount of food. I said to the paramount Chief—of course my words had to be interpreted: "Here you have a magnificient example and you are in a position to direct your tribesmen

987
along the path of progress and set an example to other tribes in the matter of how to cultivate your land. Then I asked the interpreter to inquire what the Chief had to say in reply. His reply, putting it in popular language, was, "It is all tommyrot, I do not believe a word of it."
With the full approval of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and of the Governor—and I would suggest that it might be considered whether the same course might not be taken in other parts of Africa—I thereupon initiated a little fund to provide a silver medal for competition, because these natives love an attractive bauble to hang round their necks. This medal was to be awarded to the Chief who gave the most direct and strongest influence in the improvement of agricultural conditions in his area. I learned when I was in New Zealand, where there is a much higher type of native than in any part of Africa, that even amongst the Maoris nothing was more attractive to them than some bauble to hang round their necks. Before I left, the very enlightened Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia said he really believed that I was getting at the right way of influencing the Chiefs to give a lead to their tribes by providing this bauble.
There is one other thing that I want to say. All over these Territories I found very defective knowledge on the part, not of the natives, but of the white settlers as to the best use to make of their land, as to what kind of crops they could grow, bearing in mind the local conditions, with some reasonable chance of success. I refer particularly to exportable cash crops. I found that the heads of the Agricultural Departments in all three Territories agreed with my suggestion that the best plan was to make a schedule which should be put into the hands of all intending settlers advising them on four main points: firstly, the altitude at which a particular crop could best be grown; secondly, what degree of humidity that crop required; thirdly, what was the texture of the soil that a particular crop mostly favoured; and lastly, what scientists call the Ph values—namely, whether a crop required an alkaline or an acid soil. I inquired of members of the Royal Society when I returned to England whether any attempt had been made by research workers, here or overseas, to draw up such a
988
schedule for the guidance of those settling in tropical or sub-tropical countries so that they should not lose their capital by attempting to grow crops for which conditions were not favourable. They had to confess that, as far as they knew, no such research work had ever been done in a systematic way, but they said that in their opinion there was great scope for that particular line of research.
I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time except to express the hope that with the help of this grant steps will be taken to see that technical education is given, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the value of vocational education should not be overlooked. There is nothing more disastrous, when a mycologist or a chemist, or a physicist or a veterinary expert has been doing valuable work, than to have a sudden discontinuance of grant, with the result that the whole of that valuable scientific advice has suddenly failed to be forthcoming to those who were seeking it. I most heartily welcome this valuable outcome of my friend Lord Moyne's Report, and if I can be of any assistance whatever in days to come in helping to develop the practical side of this work with the help of these grants, there is nothing that I should like more.
5.21 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, it is very unfortunate that, owing to circumstances beyond our control, this debate has to take place before the full Report of the West India Royal Commission can be published. This volume would supply answers to very many of the points which have been raised this afternoon. But when the Government decided that the Report contained certain matters which ought not to fall into enemy hands, it was obviously undesirable merely to suppress certain passages, because there would have been the danger of the quite unfounded suggestion that the Commission had cut out parts that might have embarrassed the Government. So we felt that it was much better to postpone the argument of the Report and to publish the conclusions with no omissions whatever, merely making such explanations as were necessary to make the recommendations intelligible. Although our reference charged us to inquire into social and economic matters, we necessarily heard a great amount of evidence on the political

989
situation in the West Indies. But it was evident to all of us that the discontents into which we were inquiring were primarily due to poverty, and that poverty was caused by deep-seated economic reasons. There was no reason to think that a different system of government could in any way have altered the economic situation in the West Indies, and therefore, though we have made certain political recommendations, they are of relatively minor importance.
Another subject which came very much into our inquiry was the conditions of labour. Again we found that the root of the discontent was very largely economic. Industrial trouble has been greatly due to a low standard of life and the insufficient wages which are all that the impoverished industries of the West Indies can under present conditions provide. But, given this unfavourable background, industrial peace has often been prejudiced by the lack of proper facilities for settling wages and conditions of employment. The absence of responsible trade unions has led to irresponsible demands and lack of leadership, and this has undoubtedly added to the industrial friction which was to be expected in such very impoverished conditions. The Government control over labour matters varies considerably from one Colony to another, but, generally speaking, industrial legislation falls far short of the British safeguards which have been enacted for the interests of wage-earners. Labour officers are, I think, now appointed in all the Colonies and Presidencies, but no time should be lost in extending to the West Indies the franchises which the trade unions have long enjoyed in this country, or in instituting such measures as wages boards and factory legislation as far as possible on the British example. In these labour inquiries, which took up very much of our time, we benefited very greatly by the presence of Sir Walter Citrine and the expert knowledge which he was able to contribute to our discussions.
In the short summary of our Report which has been published, and also owing to the decision of the Government to accept in principle the recommendations we have put forward with regard to welfare services, this side of the question has naturally found excessive prominence. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said, we cannot possibly separate social
990
conditions and welfare needs from the economic problems of these Colonies, and undoubtedly economic improvement must be the key to the whole of these social problems. Social unrest has been rooted in economic difficulty. The communal services which can be provided out of local resources and a satisfactory standard of individual life must eventually depend, and only depend, on what wealth can be produced within the community. Much of our economic inquiries were necessarily devoted to the agricultural side, and we were very lucky in having with us Professor Engledow, the head of the Agricultural School at Cambridge, and Mr. Henderson, who has now been taken from his economic researches at Oxford to join Lord Stamp's economic triumvirate. Their special qualifications worked very well with one another, and they greatly strengthened the confidence with which we made a report on these subjects.
The Government have announced that they are going to take active steps to improve the economic side, and they have laid the foundation by deciding to provide £500,000 a year for research on these matters. Reforms must be based on various expert examinations, and we have summarised a good many of them in paragraph 21. I should like to say at once that, if effective account is to be taken of these researches, it will be necessary to spend a great deal of additional money in getting things started, as antierosion measures and the reform of productive methods will certainly in the initial stages cost a very considerable amount. The West Indies have, of course, always depended mainly upon the sugar industry, and I think that probably they have always depended upon it far too much. They have necessarily suffered very much from the fluctuations, which have taken place in the export value of the sugar and other crops which have been sold in the world market. These fluctuations have led to there being a very slippery foundation for any adequate standard of individual life, and have made Government revenue very unstable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, mentioned the great importance of home production, and I think that he really picked out what is the main lesson which was impressed upon us during our jour-

991
ney. It inevitably leads to a very bad bargain when you sell export crops in a world market already glutted by overproduction from other parts of the world—over-production of crops such as cocoa, which was originally the monopoly of the West Indies, but where owing to African competition we now have at our disposal three times as much as the Empire can possibly consume—and spend the result of these unfavourable bargains on expensive imports of tinned food and other products for which excellent substitutes could be grown at home. That process is economically bad. I agree with the noble Viscount's experience in Africa; I think that if these people would grow crops for themselves they would have a much better balanced diet than by buying tinned meat and powdered milk from abroad, which they could so easily do without if they would only go in for keeping livestock.
In 1897 the last Royal Commission which visited the West Indies recommended that these same problems should be dealt with by land settlement and by a greater variety in the type of crops grown for export. No doubt efforts have been consistently made to carry out these recommendations, and research has been applied to plantation agriculture, but there has been very little research as to what is needed for supplying the home market. I expect the noble Viscount has found the same thing in Africa. Research is mainly directed for the benefit of the export industries and little is being done to teach the native how to make the best of his land. Consequently, in the West Indies shifting cultivation, a very wasteful system, is still the rule, and rotation of crops and mixed farming are almost unknown. The other recommendation of that Royal Commission, variation in export crops, led to the development of the cocoa industry, coconuts, citrus fruits, limes, bananas, coffee, rice and nutmegs as alternatives to sugar, but the benefit was destroyed by over-production elsewhere, and these new crops were much more liable to hurricane damage and have caused an ever-growing problem in the matter of plant diseases.
These economic improvements will undoubtedly take time to be fulfilled, and meanwhile there is a crying need for social expenditure beyond the resources of these impoverished communities. The assist-
992
ance of Great Britain has been mainly limited to economic developments by means of preference and by means of the Colonial Development Fund, but I think that it is now time to remember the precedent of what we are doing for the distressed areas here at home, helping them far beyond the possibilities of their local resources. It is time for us to recognise the case for generous treatment of the distressed communities of our Colonies. Admittedly it is a very great departure from tradition, although I should be the last to deny that we have adopted a generous policy in many matters in connection with economic development. It is a very big step, however, for us to take over some share of the responsibility for helping social and community services. £1,000,000 is, of course, not a very large sum judged by the cost of Social Services in this country, although it is a very generous contribution under present war conditions of finance, but the House should recognise that a great deal can be done with such a sum in the West Indies, where the total local revenues are something under £7,000,000. I do not suggest that it is a desirable condition or one which should remain permanent that these Social Services should be paid for in any degree by Great Britian, but I look upon it as a case of artificial respiration which is justified until the Colonies can build up their own strength.
The White Paper deals with the social and development policy for the whole of the Empire, but it is clear that the West Indies are going to get a good start. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, rather feared that it was due to the fact that the West Indies were more articulate that such prominence had been given to their claims, although he did not in any way criticise it. I think that the West Indian problem is distinct from that which exists elsewhere. It so happens that in 1932 I was sent by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to inquire into native conditions in East Africa, and often when in the West Indies I compared what I there found with East African conditions. In East Africa it is still possible for the native to live under tribal conditions, though modified to some extent by our civilisation, but still conditions offering quite distinct and alternative standards of life. In the West Indies that choice does not exist; the West Indian is driven to live according to the standards

993
of European or American civilisation. The tribal native in Africa can build accommodation on traditional lines without paying for land or materials. But in the West Indies a growing proportion of the people live in towns, and their wage resources are miserably unequal to the cost of adequate housing or civilised conditions of life. There is a terrible tendency in the West Indies for population to multiply right up to the limit of subsistence, and nowhere have I seen such disastrous effects from over-population. Since I have been home I have had sent me a quotation showing that this evil is of very long standing. About 3,000 years ago in a book in the Old Testament it is said that "when goods increase they are increased that eat them." The West Indies have gone one better: they have increased far quicker than the goods which they need for their sustenance. The population has increased by a half in forty years, and it is still growing by 1½ per cent. every year. As there has been no proportionate increase in consumable wealth, poverty inevitably and steadily gains ground and lowers the standards of life.
Although the Colonial Governments have been unable to improve individual standards, they have done their utmost to build up communal services. Although they spend a very high proportion of their small revenues on education and on health, although the officials are paid at a far lower standard than obtains generally throughout the Empire, educational facilities and public assistance are miserably inadequate. During our educational inquiry we had the advantage of Mr. Morgan Jones's assistance. He originally was a school teacher, before he went into the House of Commons, and I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Snell, for his reference to the loss which we have all sustained and which, as his colleagues on the Royal Commission, we were in a position to appreciate perhaps better than almost anyone. He certainly shortened his life by his unflagging industry in a very trying climate. He did not survive to sign our Report, but he travelled to all the Colonies with us, and although he deplored the insufficient resources whish were available for education, he was throughout impressed by the wonderful efforts which had been made to make the best of inadequate opportunities.
994
On the medical side the services have been mainly concentrated on the treatment of the sick. There has been neither time nor adequate sanitary personnel to build up measures for preventing disease. Better education is absolutely essential if there is to be a fair opening for the individual, a fair chance for people to work up to an adequate standard of life. Of course in the West Indies, an agricultural community, the technical side must be very much concentrated on agriculture, and the people must be taught that agriculture is the most honourable profession there—because unfortunately there is a terrible prejudice against it among many classes, which causes them to flock into the towns. There is a widespread need for better housing, and the substitution of sanitary dwellings for the existing slums will no doubt be one of the main preoccupations of the Comptroller of the Welfare Fund. The methods to be adopted for the welfare services in the Wrest Indies do not of course at this stage call for detailed decisions by the Government. They are taking the first step by appointing a Comptroller with an expert staff and finding the necessary finance. But on the economic side we have made many recommendations, which the Secretary of State has described as very numerous and far-reaching, and they will necessarily involve detailed consideration and discussion with the Colonial Governments.
I would like to refer only to one further point, and that is in regard to the sugar industry. There was a very large re-establishment of this industry, a great increase in production owing to disappointment with other export crops up to the time in 1937 when the Sugar Agreement came into force. From the employment standpoint this was a very valuable alleviation of economic difficulties. We found very great disappointment expressed in all the sugar-producing Colonies at the operation of the quota restrictions under the International Sugar Agreement, and we concluded that it would be reasonable to increase the basic export quota by 120,000 tons for the West Indian Colonies. All Colonies would not need to share pro rata in this extension. Jamaica, because her up-to-date factories are not working at full pressure, has a far greater claim than Trinidad, where the factories are working

995
to capacity. Since we came home in the month of July the Colonial Office has given instructions to the Colonies in the West Indies to increase their output by 20 per cent. This decision, which has been perhaps a little bit confused with our recommendations in the West Indies, was entirely independent of anything that we were deciding. I believe it was due to the fact that all Colonies do not get a good crop in the same season, and that whilst some are hampered in its disposal when they have a bumper crop, shortfalls occur elsewhere when it is too late to transfer them where they are needed.
During our inquiry the world price of sugar was £6 10s. The Preference and the Colonial Export Certificates added another £4 15s., making a c.i.f. price of £11 5s. We found, after very careful examination of accounts in all the sugar islands, that it is impossible at this level of price to achieve either an economic return on capital, or adequate wages, or a remunerative price to the sugar farmer. We therefore worked out a scheme for readjusting Supplementary Colonial Preference Certificates on a sliding scale which would take away the big fluctuations which occur under the present system.
I do not want to weary the House with the details of this rather complicated machinery, but at the present time the price oscillates round about £11 5s. If it goes up, half the benefit is lost to the producer. Our object would be to get greater stability, and to let the price remain much closer to £12 5s. Since we completed our inquiry, under war conditions the West Indian crop has been bought in bulk at £7 10s., a rise of £1 over the previous average price. If the old system of writing down the value of Supplementary Colonial Certificates one quarter for every sixpence in the rise of the hundredweight price is to be applied to the bulk purchase, producers will lose about half the benefit of the improved price. I hope the Government will see their way to improve the producers' position and to let them have this extra return.
To show that the suggestion which we have made is not unreasonable, and would not, as Lord Snell rightly pointed out, pursue the dangerous course of encouraging inefficient factories, I would
996
point out that whereas our factories have been carrying on at £11 5s. up to the war, the French factories in Martinique and Guadeloupe have been getting £18 a ton—half as much again—and the American factories in the Virgin Islands in the Philippines and so forth have been getting £16 a ton. Therefore the House will judge that it is only a modest increase to bring up our return to the sugar producer to £12 5s. from the previous lower price. I hope it will be possible to give an early decision on this matter because, although we recognise that it is a very complicated problem and cannot be decided hastily, there is undoubtedly a great deal of unhappiness in the West Indies with present prices, and the sooner this can be brought to an end the better for the economic position of the West Indies.
I should like, in conclusion, to express my gratitude, not unmixed with surprise, at the promptness with which the Government have announced a very generous measure of acceptance of our recommendations, especially on the subject of welfare services and the provision of scientific research. The decision of the Government is a very effective answer to the taunts which were made at the time of our appointment, that they were only appointing a Commission so that these problems might be shelved. I am to some extent comforted for the enforced delay in publishing the full Report by the thought that we might not have had such a quick or such a satisfactory response if it had been possible for the normal procedure to be pursued.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Government most heartily on the Statement of Policy on Colonial Development and Welfare. I have not the wealth of knowledge of the last three noble Lords who have spoken on this subject, nor can I hope to put my views so clearly and interestingly as they have done, but this Statement of Policy from my point of view is one of the most important I have seen in the long time I have been connected with the Colonies. I look back to the time, thirty-seven years ago, when I saw what almost might be called the start of the development in the biggest of these Colonies—one that has over 20,000,000 inhabitants and, out of a total of 60,000,000, is one of the key-points of our Colonial Empire. I remember so well

997
seeing that country in those days, part of it absolutely uncleared and virgin bush. I wish Lord Lugard could have been here to describe what he saw and knew; but even in those days it was my good fortune to serve under a great Governor in Sir Walter Egerton. The schemes he started in those days—harbours, communications, roads, railways—have only in recent years been completed; and that was thirty-seven years ago. There were villages that had never seen a white man, and never known what the word "sanitation" meant in any way—some of them are not much changed. It is my good fortune to be still connected with that country, in which I am so interested and where I spent seven years. I belong to a company that bas had a long connection with Nigeria—I refer to the old Niger Company, started by that very great man, often called the "Rhodes of West Africa," Sir George Goldie. Since I have been connected with this company in the last five years—and this has special reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, said—I have found the heads of all businesses connected with these Colonies keen and anxious to co-operate with the Government in their development.
To return to the White Paper, £5,000,000 is allotted, of which £1,000,000 has been already earmarked. That leaves £4,000,000. We more than welcome that. We advocated it. I have been very keen on this matter, and have advocated it as much as I could. It is for ten years. That is a long time, as I am glad to see. It gives a chance for true development, and I hope that word mentioned in the title of the Statement of Policy, the word "development", will not be forgotten. It is the key to the situation. The standard of living cannot be improved if you cannot get the wherewithal to keep it going, and that can only be done by development. I feel it is most important that all these schemes for social welfare, which are so valuable, should not be introduced until we are perfectly certain that development is going parallel with them, so that when, at the end of ten years, these countries have had their standard of living and their system of education improved, they shall not, owing to lack of means, owing to change in world conditions, suffer collapse which would breed discontentment. It is essential that the country should be developed
998
to the full if we are really going to bring about an improvement in the standard of living.
I would like, if I may, to say one word of caution to the Government on the question of education. I am fully aware of the importance of education, and no one is more keen about it than I am. It has been referred to so much in this debate that I will not apologise for referring to it again. I hope the education will be of the right kind, and will not aim only at turning out Government clerks. I hope it will be education in agriculture and in knowledge which will be of use in the different trades, such as carpentry and mechanics. I was appalled at the want of education in these matters when I went back five years ago, after thirty-seven years, and paid two long visits. Some five years ago I made two long visits to Nigeria, and I was impressed with the wonderful keenness of a large number of the members of the Agricultural Department there. They were second to none in their keenness to develop agriculture and the industries connected with palm oil kernels, which are the backbone of that country. But I found that there was still complete ignorance among the inhabitants of the country with regard to the advantages of up-to-date plantation and milling.
I found that it was with the utmost difficulty that the Department of Agriculture could persuade the people of Nigeria to cultivate their palms or improve their palmeries. I found that, thirty-seven years after I was first out there, some of the inhabitants were still suspicious of up-to-date methods which would help them to increase their prosperity and to meet their efficient competitors in Sumatra and Malaya, where in twenty-one years an industry has been developed whose output of palm oil surpasses not only that of Nigeria but of the whole of West Africa. This is because they have adopted up-to-date methods and have paid attention to education. I want to say that the condition of which I am complaining is not the fault of the Department of Agriculture. I should very much like, if I may, to make a suggestion to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply on this debate, and it is this. In this country of 20,000,000 people the Director of Agriculture should have a seat on the Legislative Council,

999
because agriculture is the backbone of the whole country. I hope the Under-Secretary will not take my suggestion amiss.
There are two other points upon which I would like to touch before I conclude. I was glad to see that an amount of £500,000 a year is to be devoted to experimental purposes. With regard to land this is more than ever necessary. I know from my own knowledge what great companies expend for experimental purposes. The total sums involved would amaze your Lordships. I am glad to say that those companies work in close co-operation with the Government. At the same time I would point out that £500,000 is a very small sum for the development of agriculture. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, refer to the setting up of machinery to make the experiment. I do not want to be ungrateful and say the grant that has been made is no good. The grant of £500,000 is a most useful one; but what I do say is that it will cost all that and a great deal more to carry out the necessary experiments in regard to soil erosion and other matters in countries like Nigeria.
Lastly, in the White Paper there is a reference to the setting up of a Welfare Advisory Committee. This was referred to by my noble friend who was the second speaker in this debate and who is not now present. He suggested that members of your Lordships' House with knowledge should be appointed upon that Committee. I would like to say this with regard to that. I hope people will be put upon that Committee who have knowledge of the Tropics, because it is essential that those who are going to help in this work should know the Tropics. I see that the White Paper, in paragraph 15, says that the Government propose to invite Colonial Governments to prepare and develop programmes in certain of the Colonies, and that long-term programmes have already been drawn up, and are in fact in operation. These programmes, it is said, will later on be considered by the Colonial Office and the Advisory Committee. I would ask the noble Marquess who is to reply to consider the suggestion that before any schemes are drawn up and settled in detail they should be submitted to the Advisory Committee so that as far as possible the Advisory Committee may have something to say upon them. The
1000
Advisory Committee should have an opportunity of making suggestions as to how the schemes should in some cases be drawn up.
The noble Marquess will realise, as I do after my long experience of Government service, that once a scheme is drawn up in a Government office it is very hard indeed, with the best will in the world, afterwards to get that scheme changed. I would, therefore, impress upon the noble Marquess the advantage of asking for the advice of this Advisory Committee before the schemes are brought into operation. In conclusion I would like to say that I am glad to see the Government doing their share in this work of development, and I heartily congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the decision which has been made.
6.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord opposite is to be congratulated, if he will allow me to say so, not merely from our own point of view in having given a proper send-off to the admirable work of Lord Moyne and the Government's appreciation of it, but because it will be a great encouragement in the Colonies to know that interest is really being shown in their affairs. In that respect I rather think that the noble Lord's suggestion that the White Paper involves putting a new principle of trusteeship into practice requires qualifying, because the principle of trusteeship has existed ever since the days of Lord Cromer and the days of Lord Lugard and others, who set the whole tone of our Colonial administration. We are now providing the money to give effect to the trusteeship of which we never could divest ourselves. Apart from what is said and involved in the White Paper, I am particularly interested in what I venture to think is implied, because it seems to me that it destroys for ever the nightmare that one fine day we shall find that the Government are going to hand over our Colonies to some form of international administration under the name of the extension of the Mandate.
We can no more divest ourselves of responsibility for the communities who inhabit those lands we have conquered than a man can divest himself of responsibility for bringing up and looking after his own children. To start with,

1001
from the point of view of the honour of the nation which is involved, it seems to me impossible to hand over to any international organisation the control of our Colonies. We must first of all have pointed out to as one single example where international administration has been a success. In the second place, there is another very good reason—and it is one which I think will be welcomed as much in the Colonies as it is at home—why that cannot be done now, because it is an elementary rule that the man who pays the piper shall call the tune. The idea of £5,000,000 of money devoted year by year by the taxpayers of Great Britain being administered by a heterogeneous collection of people in whose selection they would have no hand whatever for the so-called benefit of the Colonies is, I think, destroyed and, I hope, destroyed for good.
The noble Lord opposite and my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe referred to the importance of education. My noble friend Viscount Bledisloe deplored the condition of the natives in some parts of the country that he visited. What he saw is what my noble friend Viscount Trenchard and I saw thirty years ago when it was our business to live in those countries. The reason why there is improvement in the state of natives over a great part of the world is that we have exercised our trusteeship to the best of our ability during all those years. That, I think, ought to be said, because I am sure the last thing the noble Lord, Lord Snell, would desire would be to depreciate in any way the splendid work that has been done by a succession of Governors throughout the Colonies. They have been carrying out that trusteeship magnificently, but they have been handicapped hitherto by the lack of money which this new decision will provide.
I happen to be connected with a company called Tanganyika Concessions. Our interests in Tanganyika are very small and very recent, because the company was set up long before Tanganyika Territory existed and when it was known as German East Africa. Our interests in Tanganyika Territory are so small that really if they vanished to-morrow we should not be hurt very much. Our chief interests are in the Belgian Congo because of the political uncertainty as to the future of Tanganyika. It is useless to expect
1002
people to apply their time or money or knowledge or experience to the development of a country if there is uncertainty as to its political future. I feel sure that the Government will find that the development which will result will be worth far more than the five million pounds that they are going to spend because the sense of security will induce people to undertake enterprises of which they have been afraid because of the political insecurity of the future.
My noble friend Viscount Bledisloe spoke of the drift towards the mines and he and my noble friends Viscount Swinton and Viscount Trenchard referred to the importance of the home work of the natives. Anybody who had seen the change in the natives who have worked in the mines for two or three years will realise that the best way of raising the standard of life is to provide, under proper protection and good regulations, facilities for the natives to earn their living in helping to develop their country. The whole of the copper belt has prospered, and the standard of living of the natives has improved, in a manner that is extremely satisfactory. At the start it was necessary to employ recruiters with the help of the Government to obtain labour, but when a mine has been working satisfactorily for some time, it is found that there is no need for recruiters because the miners after going home to their villages for a time return to the mine and bring their friends of their own free will. That tends to raise the standard of living. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and other noble Lords have said, work which enables the natives to develop their own resources is an intensely important part of raising the standard of living.
I notice that in paragraph 4 of the White Paper it is stated, with great truth that:
"Few of the Colonies have the good fortune to possess substantial mineral wealth, and in comparatively few are there manufacturing industries of any magnitude."
But it has to be remembered that where mineral wealth exists it can only be discovered by the expenditure of large sums of money. There is an immense amount of work still to be done in that line, and I venture to suggest that we need support and encouragement from the Government because in that development we are helping the native by increasing the markets open to him to supply with food.

1003
I venture to congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have announced their decision, notwithstanding the war, to recognise that development of the Colonies is a family business and is a part of our duty, whether in war or in peace, which we cannot escape. I believe their decision will be appreciated in the Colonies more than anything else they could have done.
6.17 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on the Report of his Commission and on the success which he seems to have achieved in getting this celerity of action. I should also like to congratulate him on the debate that we have had to-day. It is seldom that the Chairman of a Royal Commission can have had the experience of having a former Secretary of State, three Governors-General and others with a great wealth of knowledge commenting on the Report of his Commission. This Report can be commented on from many angles, but I want to follow some other speakers and go a little outside it. The point I want to deal with is only partly connected with the Report, and I want to put it to the noble Marquess because I think it is one which should not be overlooked. The Report refers to land settlement, but makes very little reference to redistribution of population in a particular area or transmigration of population within the Empire. The point I raise is in connection with this possibility of redistribution of population.
As a member of the Overseas Settlement Board, whose work has been suspended for the duration of the war, I cannot help feeling in connection with these problems affecting the Empire that it is a pity that more action was not taken in the past in the redistribution of population. I make this appeal to the noble Marquess, that this subject, which at the present moment has a common interest for the Colonies and the Dominions, should not be put aside entirely for the duration of the war. I suggest that the redistribution not only of British population, but also of native population and possibly also of population of European origin other than British, should be taken into consideration. The funds available at the present moment, or those which have been available in the past under
1004
the various headings which the State provided, are temporarily suspended. I am not familiar at the present moment with what is being done by organisations like the Salvation Army or the supplementary ones that assist, but they have all contributed to achieving this end in the past. I hope it will be borne in mind that this will be an essential problem after the war, and I hope the noble Marquess will confer with the Dominions Office and see if some policy cannot be worked out during the present unfortunate conditions so that redistribution may be carried on after the war in the way in which it was before the war.
6.23 p.m.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, I will intervene for a moment only. There will be some difficulty in redistributing population in the West Indies, for those islands are now already overcrowded. My noble friend Lord Moyne indeed deserves the congratulations of the House for his Report. One respect in which he draws the attention of the Government to the possibility of development I hope the noble Marquess will not overlook, and that is the possibility of the development of an air service. An air service to the West Indies would at once tap those magnificent countries Colombia and Venezuela. They are rich indeed, and at present they are being entirely developed by American and Dutch air lines. The British have all the air fields, because, of course, air fields in the West Indies are provided for us by nature. The amphibian is in use there and lands at any of the islands with the greatest of ease. The development of an air service by the British would not in the least interfere with war effort, because the type of aeroplane that is in use in the West Indies is not suited for combat purposes here at all. In fact, the noble Lord will tell you that the combat aeroplane that is in use in this country cannot be procured in America in any case. The American planes that come here are suitable for operational purposes, but they are not equipped for combat purposes at all.
Here I want to make one more plea for the West Indies. The best possible equipment that can be provided in this country for the West Indies is a market here for the produce of those islands. If a market is provided in Britain, then

1005
those islands will prosper and many of their social problems will be resolved at once. The noble Lord said that sugar from the West Indies was being paid for at £12, from the American Colonies at £16, and from the French Colonies at £18. It has always been the habit to refuse the British West Indies any special opportunity in the British market in the past, but to give them the same chance and the same market as is given to Americans and other Colonial producers. At the same time the American market has been closed all these years to British West Indian producers. Give the British West Indian producers the same opportunity in the British market as the American producers and the American Colonies have in the American market, and you resolve all those complicated social problems which you have been discussing here to-day. Again I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, on his Report, and I hope very much indeed that the Colonial Office will now see that the recommendations of the noble Lord and his Committee are really carried into effect.
6.26 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord opposite for initiating this debate. I can assure your Lordships that it is of real value to us in the Colonial Office to have debates of this kind. I sometimes think that perhaps we do not have enough of them, and certain it is that unless there is an informed criticism in Parliament of any office, it tends to get less effective than it should be. Therefore, as far as the Colonial Office is concerned, we welcome all criticism and all critical debates. I must confess, however, that it will be really difficult for me to reply very effectively to this debate, because there have been so many bouquets and so few brickbats that it really gives me very little to do except to reiterate what is the policy of the Colonial Office and of my noble friend; and with this your Lordships have already expressed yourselves so heartily as in agreement. I can assure your Lordships that all the suggestions which have been made in the course of the debate will be carefully borne in mind, and although I cannot help feeling that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook slightly over-simplified the issue of the
1006
future of the West Indies in his account of how their economic position might be remedied, nevertheless his suggestions, too, will be borne in mind.
I referred to your Lordships' interest in the Colonial Empire. It is no less necessary to have these debates in order to stimulate interest throughout the country as a whole. It is quite impossible to be continuously effective in Colonial administration if the people of the country do not take an interest in their great heritage. I hope for good results from certain plans we have in mind for educating the people of this country to the value of their Empire; and we may perhaps persuade my noble friend at the Board of Education that, as the boundaries of Europe are changing and the boundaries of the Empire are immovable, future generations might well now turn their attention to what is permanent rather than waste their time on what, alas! I fear can only be regarded as impermanent. Therefore we feel greatly encouraged when a debate of this character in your Lordships' House shows so clearly that we are working in accordance with the sentiments of all those in this House who are best qualified to give an opinion on the value of the policy we are pursuing.
I would remind your Lordships once again that, although this policy is to some extent a development of what has gone before, yet in effect, as many noble Lords have said, it is a very considerable change. Your Lordships will remember that the Colonial Development Act, 1929, which was brought in by the Labour Government of the time, had not really for its main purpose the development of the Colonies as such. It was brought in partly as a contribution to Colonial welfare, but also and very definitely to help to solve the problem of British unemployment. Accordingly it was clearly expressed in Section I of the Act that the Treasury might make advances to the Government of any Colony or territory "for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry in the Colony or territory, and thereby promoting commerce with or industry in the United Kingdom." You will see, therefore, that from the very first this two-fold objective has hindered and hampered the true working of the Colonial Development Act, and, although various modifications have been

1007
made in practice, it has caused the mind of the Committee which was applying it to be mainly directed towards works of capital value and not to the provision of funds which would enable those works to be supported until such time as they could support themselves.
Therefore that Act, valuable as it was, did suffer from the grave disadvantage that many Colonies were not in a position to ask for assistance for capital schemes which they knew perfectly well they would not have the recurring expenditure to be able to afford. Equally and for the same reason the old Act suffered, because it could give no recurring expenditure, or very little, from the great disadvantage that it could not give to the Colonies that secure basis for development which is absolutely essential, as I think my noble friend Viscount Swinton said, if you are going to plan and develop effectively. That is all the more applicable, of course, to our Colonial development, because as this depends on primary products the revenues must necessarily fluctuate widely from year to year, and all plans for the Colonies are affected by the fear that in a year or two years of bad revenue everything might have to come to an end, retrenchment would be necessary, and no help would be forthcoming from the Colonial Development Fund.
It is for that reason that we shall seek, when we present the Bill to Parliament, to remedy those defects which time has shown to exist in Colonial development. I am happy to say that that intention has received a wide welcome throughout the Colonial Empire, not merely from those Colonies which can expect to benefit most from it but also from the greater and richer Colonies, such as Malaya, who say quite frankly—I was reading the Press extracts only this morning—that under existing circumstances they will probably get comparatively little out of the new money; nevertheless they welcome the scheme as an earnest of the Government's intentions towards the Colonial Empire generally, and also they realise that the prosperity of one is the prosperity of all.
I do not think that I need recapitulate the new policy, which has already been set out in the White Paper and which has been referred to in the various speeches that have been made. I would only point out that this £5,500,000 is entirely new
1008
money. It has nothing to do with the grants in aid which have hitherto been made by the Treasury, and they still remain entirely separate from this Fund. Although it is our firm intention by the wise use of this development money to enable the grants in aid to be abolished as soon as possible, at the moment the status quo remains. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go into great detail about the actual proposals in the White Paper that is before your Lordships. You will realise that until legislation is passed no grants can actually be made, and all that I have been saying is necessarily tentative and must not in any sense be regarded as prejudging the issue in another place. The Act must first of all come into existence. As a matter of fact, however, we have already asked the Colonies to prepare their schemes in the hope that Parliament will approve the Act and they are already setting up the necessary machinery to devise proper schemes to be set before the new Committee when it comes into existence. That is all going on now.
In the meantime, the Colonial Office itself is taking certain other steps to equip itself and the Colonies for the new developments. In the first place, we are considering how the personnel of some of the smaller Colonies can best be strengthened for the preparation and carrying out of programmes. From past experience we consider that to be most important, particularly in the case of those smaller and poorer Colonies where one cannot expect to find men who are able at a moment's notice, so to speak, to produce vast plans of development fit for consideration in London. Certainly the points that my noble friend Viscount Trenchard made in that connection will be borne in mind when we are carrying out our policy. Secondly, we are also considering at the present moment the composition of the Advisory Committees. My noble friend Lord Snell asked whether they were new Committees. The answer is Yes. There are going to be two separate Committees, different from the present Colonial Development Advisory Committee, whose work will be finished when this new Act comes into operation. I should like, if I may, to pay a tribute to the valuable and untiring work of Sir Alan Rae Smith, who has been Chairman of that Committee and who has really taken immense trouble,

1009
and to whom the Colonies owe a great debt for all that he has done under, as I have said, the considerably hampering conditions under which his Committee worked.
These two new Committees will be composed of course in quite different manners. On the Colonial Development and Welfare Committee we hope to have business men of experience, and if possible business men of experience of social work. It is nowadays by no means such an impossible combination as I believe it used to be some years ago. But in any case that Committee will consist of business men, where possible qualified also by knowledge of social conditions, and also there will be a leavening of people with knowledge less of business and more of social welfare. Then, equally, about half that Committee will be official, in order that the closest liaison may be kept with the Colonial Office. The Research Committee, on the other hand, will consist in the main of the very highest qualified men we can get in the various subjects with which they will be called upon to deal, and it is partly in the hope of getting only the very best men to serve on that Committee that we have completely separated it from the Colonial Development Committee. At the same time, I do not think I am giving away any secret when I say that it is, I think, my right honourable friend's intention to appoint as Chairman of that Committee a layman, experience having shown him, as it has certainly shown me, that a layman as Chairman softens the acerbities of scientific debate, and enables things to be done a great deal more effectively and without disharmony. The existing Advisory Committees that is to say the Agricultural, Education, the Medical and the Penal Advisory Committees, of all of which I am Chairman, will still continue to function in exactly the same way as in the past, but on many occasions we anticipate that they will be called upon to pre-digest these various schemes for the consumption of the actual Development Committee. I believe that in that way a great deal of time will be saved, and that in all probability is how the actual organisation within the office will work out.
Then as far as the Office itself is concerned, I might say a word as to our fitness for the task with which Parlia-
1010
ment, I hope, will entrust us. As your Lordships are aware, there have been considerable changes in the Colonial Office in the past few years. There is, first of all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has reminded us, the setting up of the Economic Department. Of that I can only say that to me to imagine the Colonial Office without the Economic Department, particularly in time of war, is like imagining life without the telephone. It seems to me inconceivable how the Office ever functioned at all without that Department.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It did not, at least not economically.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: Then we have got our various advisers—labour, veterinary, agricultural, medical and the like—who are not merely sitting in the Office reading papers and advising us, but are actively going about the Colonies and consulting them on their difficulties, and keeping their own knowledge up to date as to what is happening. I might say in passing that, although in time of war it is obviously more difficult to get about, it is my right honourable friend's firm intention to increase, wherever possible, travelling facilities for members of the Colonial Office. He regards it as quite essential that they should get first-hand knowledge, where ever possible, of the territories which they are called upon to administer.
Now if I might turn to the actual subject of the debate, I would refer first of all to the West Indies Report. I think it is a great honour that I am able from the Front Bench to congratulate my noble friend Lord Moyne not merely on undertaking so arduous a Commission, not merely on securing a unanimous Report with an extremely able but, I should have thought, rather individualistic team to handle, but also on the fact that his conclusions and those of his fellow-members were so irresistible that the Government were able to take action on the major parts of them almost immediately. And though, as he no doubt regrets, and I regret, the fact that in a sense his larger volume was stillborn, at any rate I think he will agree with me that in the noble words of Tennyson,
"The village never saw a lovelier funeral."
As he himself has said, we have accepted the major recommendations that he has made. We are now busily engaged in try-

1011
ing to find a suitable man for the very responsible post of Comptroller, and when he is found in consultation with him we shall proceed to select his expert staff. We have also agreed, as your Lordships know, that the financial sum which that Report recommended shall be provided out of the new Fund.
As to the remaining recommendations, I can only say that Governors were asked in January to furnish their views upon them by the end of April, and that therefore we are expecting to have them very shortly. When we asked for the expression of their views we asked them to give them in two separate categories. First we asked them for their views on the policies which they thought would be carried out immediately, or at any rate within a very short space of time, and, secondly, we asked them to give us their views on the fundamental recommendations of the Report which are going to change and re-orientate the whole social structure of the islands, notably the one to which my noble friend referred, and which has been referred to with regard to Africa by noble Lords also—the question of changing over from this dangerous trade of being a one-crop exporting community to mixed farming, which gives far greater security. I do not think I need say more, therefore, than that with all their recommendations the Government were in general in hearty agreement. They mostly are developments of existing policy in a sense, and not the least valuable part of the Commission's Report has been their suggestions as to the actual administration of the machinery necessary to carry them out.
So much then for what is being done as far as the West Indies Report is concerned. May I now say a word about the wider matter? We are in this, too, at the present moment consulting Governors as to what plans for development they have in mind to set before the Committee, but I would say one word of warning to your Lordships, and that is that I do not think that you must be too disappointed if the first year's expenditure seems rather niggardly. It is quite obvious, in the first place, that it is going to take time to get these various schemes into operation. Secondly, your Lordships must remember that in war-time we are bound to be faced—we knew this when we undertook this policy—both
1012
with a shortage of material and, what is worse in some ways, with some shortage of personnel. For instance, I can quite easily foresee a considerable shortage of personnel on the medical side of this development. But we are aware of these dangers, and I can assure your Lordships that we have every intention of pushing ahead as fast as we possibly can, without, of course, losing our heads and just spending for the sake of spending. We have no intention of using this money merely to pauperise the Colonies.
We shall not get any further by merely pouring money into the Colonies. The whole effort must be a joint one with the Colonies themselves, and it may well be that a system of proportionate grants such as works extremely well between the Government and the local authorities here will be a convenient way of bringing home to the Colonies their own responsibilities in regard to their own people. I think, personally, from their reactions, they are well aware of these responsibilities. Actually, within the last seven months or so—that is, since the war began—we have found that Income Tax has been imposed for the first time in four Colonies and that greatly increased rates of Income Tax have been imposed in fifteen more. I do not think it can be denied that, in the past, richer members of the community have not borne their full share of the burden. It is, therefore, very gratifying to see that they are now realising their responsiblities, and it will be remembered that one of the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Moyne was that the rates of Income Tax should be increased. We are at the present time taking up with the Governors of the West Indies the question of whether rates of Income Tax could not be brought into line with pre-war rates in this country. So much for the share of the Colonies and their responsibility.
I would assure your Lordships, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard urged me to do, and my noble friend Lord Swinton as well, that this is primarily a development policy. It is intended as such. We are perfectly well aware that the fault of our Colonial administration in the past has not been over-development, grinding the faces of the poor, or anything of that kind. It has been under-development, the lack of any real attempt either to encourage private capital or to work the natural resources of the Colonies to

1013
their best advantage by Government. It is really essential that these Social Services should pay for themselves in the long run. Eventually each community must, pay its own way, and for that purpose we intend to develop the Colonies, in order to give them a helping hand which will enable them to tide over what is, at present, a difficult time for them. We shall not get, in many cases, a very direct return for the money that we spend. We shall not be able to see immediate cash results for what we spend in preventing soil erosion, keeping down the disease rinderpest, or on market organisation in this country. Nevertheless I do insist that our policy is one of development, and I have no doubt at all that in the years to come it will bear valuable fruit.
In developing the material resources of the Colonies, we have also got to develop the human material. It is no good developing the one unless we also develop the other. By giving better medical services, better education, better health services, and working all these Social Services very closely together, interlocking them, we increase the real wealth of the community. My noble friend Lord Snell asked what sort of education we are going to give to the Colonies. My answer is that we are going to give all sorts, according to their various needs. In the West Indies, for instance, we intend at the moment that there should be no diminution, no lessening, of cultural education, but at the same time that there should be a very great increase in vocational education. I do hope in using that word "vocational" that I shall not be misunderstood. My experience, when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my noble friend Lord Halifax at the Board of Education, taught me that "vocational education" had wrong connotations in the minds of certain people. I hope the term will not prejudice this new policy in the mind of any informed person in this House. The idea of vocational education is simply to train a man to do the job he is able to do, and at which he will be able to make his living.
Other needs in Africa are for the training of people to carry on the Social Services of the country. We have got to train more people. Until we have more trained Africans in that direction, until we have more trained African assistant
1014
surgeons, until we have more trained Africans able to take their places in the various Public Works Departments and the like, we shall always be hindered in the development of Africa by the fact that we have to employ white men who have to come from their homes, and therefore have to be paid very much larger salaries than those which would have to be paid to people living in their own homes and among their own surroundings. I earnestly hope that a great proportion of this money on education will be given over to the education of women. I am almost certain in my own mind that it was a great mistake, when we started to educate Africa, that we did not start with the women and end up with the men. If you educate a woman, you educate a whole family, you teach a whole family hygiene, inculcate ideas into ten or even twenty people at once. In a place like Africa, where the women play such an enormous part in the social life of the community, it is absolutely essential that their education should be taken in hand, and taken in hand in no lackadaisical spirit.
Finally, my noble friend asked me how Parliament was going to keep this money under its control, and he appeared to consider that the device of the Estimates was not sufficient. I am not sure what other device could well be arrived at. I certainly think it essential that the new Committee should make some report, although its exact form we cannot at the present moment say, which will set out very clearly exactly what is done and how it has spent its money. In addition to that your Lordships will be in a position at any moment to ask me and my successors how matters are standing. I think, therefore, as far as Parliamentary control is concerned, the matter is well safeguarded.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Before the noble Marquess concludes I hope he will allow me to interrupt him for one moment to ask him a question in order to clarify a phrase which fell from him in the earlier part of his speech. He said this £5,000,000 was all to be new money, and that the present grants that are made from the Exchequer would continue unaffected by it, but the White Paper, in paragraph 7, says that the Government
"propose to introduce legislation to replace the Colonial Development Fund, which is limited to a maximum of £1,000,000 a year,

1015
by new arrangements providing in a new Vote in the Estimates for assistance to Colonial Governments up to a maximum of £5,000,000 a year for ten years."
There seems to be some contradiction there. Perhaps for the enlightenment of those who have been studying this matter outside the noble Marquess can make it plain. Might I at the same time, as I am on my feet, ask him whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the matter referred to by the Moyne Commission—namely, the establishment of a Standing Parliamentary Committee to consider Colonial affairs?
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I do not quite follow that there is any contradiction, as the noble Viscount seemed to suggest. Paragraph 7 surely deals with something quite different. I said this was new money and had no connection with the grants in aid which the Colonies got from the Treasury. Paragraph 7 is not dealing with those grants at all. It is merely dealing with the old Colonial Development Fund, the £1,000,000. Over and above the £1,000,000 there are the grants in aid which the Treasury make to certain Colonies that are unable to balance their Budgets.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then this is not all new money. £4,000,000 out of the £5,000,000 is new money, and not all the £5,000,000.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; in a sense I made a slip of the tongue. What I was trying to emphasize was that it would not affect the existing grants in aid. That is the point I was making. I was not thinking of the old £1,000,000 which I agree will in a sense be incorporated into the £5,000,000. My noble friend asked me also about the Standing Consultative Committee. I think the best thing I can do is to say that the matter is under consideration. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, before the war, said he would give it his consideration and later he said that consideration of it would have to be postponed. There the matter rests at present. Perhaps I am unwise to give any opinion as to whether I think it would be a good plan or a bad one, but if by any chance such a Committee ever was set up I agree with my noble friend Lord Denman that this
1016
House should have a large representation upon it, because after all this House contributes, perhaps even more than another place, knowledge and experience of the Colonies.
I think that I have really covered all that I need say. Your Lordships have referred to the recent visit of my right honourable friend to Paris and the conversations there with M. Mandel. I can only say I earnestly hope those conversations will be carried out to their fullest extent. We agree that co-operation between the great Colonial Powers in these matters is a vital necessity. As a matter of fact before the war we were aware that our knowledge of the systems of government of the Colonial Empires, not only of the French but also of the Belgians and the Dutch, was limited, and we were considering at that time whether it would not be wise to take steps to set up an organisation by means of which experiences could be compared. Naturally that will now have to be postponed, but as far as our French conversations are concerned I know your Lordships will agree with me that they are a great step forward, and not only so far as the prosecution of the war is concerned, because they largely deal with matters that are not affected by the war at all but which we shall be able to solve when peace comes.
I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long. I would like to repeat that I am most grateful to have had the opportunity of explaining as best I could this policy to your Lordships, and of giving you the latest news that I can as to how we are proposing to deal with it. I hope that all your Lordships will take the determination of His Majesty's Government to go ahead with this policy at such a difficult moment, not only as an earnest of our determination to maintain our obligations to our Colonial people, but also as a sign of our profound faith in our own future and that of our Empire.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the reply that he has made. I think it was our duty to have this debate, which has been of extraordinary interest, and I thank the Government for the reply that they have given to the questions. I think also that it may be a duty of Parliament not only to keep the Government up-to-date in this matter but to keep itself up-to-date and to keep itself keen and informed

1017
about this very great responsibility. I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to:
1018

Borough of Harwich.

Urban District of Llandrindod Wells.

Urban District of Tavistock.

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.