asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the committee of investigation appointed to report on complaints regarding milk prices in Scotland last met; how many meetings have taken place; if he is aware of the dissatisfaction throughout Scotland concerning the prolonged delay which has taken place in connection with the issue of the committee of investigation's finding about the complaints; and will he consider the advisability of setting up new machinery to expedite the investigation and settle the grievances?

The committee last met on 18th June and have held altogether three meetings in connection with their investigations into this matter. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, I am informed that the committee are making every effort to reach a conclusion on the important issue before them, and I am not aware that there has been any unreasonable delay on their part. I may remind the hon. Member that legislation would be required -to alter the statutory procedure.

Is it not possible to accelerate the deliberations of this committee, which was appointed a considerable time ago, as the matter is very urgent?

I am well aware of the urgency of the matter, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the committee is approaching a new problem and is anxious to give full consideration to all the various interests concerned.

How many specific complaints have been investigated?

I shall require notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what system of inspection is directed towards fowls and rabbits exposed for sale as food, by auction or in shops; if he is satisfied that it is adequate; and whether he will take steps to substitute a close season to apply to the killing of rabbits?

Ample powers are conferred by Section 43 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, on local authorities for the purpose of securing the inspection of meat, including fowls and rabbits, exposed for sale for human consumption in shops, markets, and other premises. The work of inspection under the section is carried out by sanitary inspectors and veterinary officers employed by the local authorities and includes visits to the shops and markets where fowls and rabbits are sold or exposed for sale and the seizure and destruction of unsound or diseased animals or meat found there. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the inspection is adequate. As regards the last part of the question rabbits are a serious pest in agriculture and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to take any steps to reduce the existing rights and facilities for their destruction.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow the inspection is practically confined to public markets and that a large amount of food of this description is sent to shops direct from places where there is no inspection?

If the hon. Gentleman has any cases he would like to bring to my notice, I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

Will the Cooperative shops specially inspected?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether the whole area of 420 acres at Barns of Claverhouse has been irrevocably gifted to the nation for land settlement purposes; what area has been allocated for smallholdings and what area is reserved for plot-holders; what is the estimated cost to the nation for development of the smallholdings area and the plot-holders area, respectively; what is the total return payable by the respective classes of holders; if a return for land is included, what is the respective amount; and what security of tenure are the respective holders to have?

Subject to the completion of the necessary legal formalities the gift will be irrevocable by the donor. It is anticipated that the areas referred to in the second part of the question will be approximately 200 acres in each case. On this basis the cost of developing the property is provisionally estimated to be in the region of £13,000, of which £12,000 relates to the smallholdings. These numbers and costs are given with great reserve. As regards the remaining parts, details of the scheme are being worked out by the Department. The terms of tenancy will be the same as those in operation in other recent settlements of similar character, namely, for equipped holdings seven year leases under the Agricultural Holdings Acts and for plot-holders yearly agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if moneys voted under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill are available for women as well as for men?

The Department of Agriculture for Scotland will be prepared to consider, on their merits, applications for small holdings from women who have the necessary experience and capital.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to introduce the new Housing Bill for Scotland; whether he can give any particulars of the types of houses that are to be built; whether they will be let at rentals within the means of the people for whom they are being built; and what amount of State assistance will be provided per house?

My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce the Bill next Session. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, the object of the Bill will be to stimulate the erection of houses which can be let at rents within the means of people, living in overcrowded conditions, who cannot afford to pay ordinary rents. With regard to the last part, the hon. Member must await the publication of the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the strike which held up the completion of the corporation housing schemes in Glasgow has now been terminated; that the houses cannot now be completed within the period required to obtain the larger subsidy; and whether, in view of the loss of approximately £280,000 which this will place on the Glasgow Corporation, he will take the necessary steps to extend the time limit of the subsidy at the higher rate?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject given on the 31st May.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been an extension of the subsidy period in other parts of the country where it was found impossible for the local authority to build the houses within the stipulated period, and can he see his way to have a similar extension permitted in Glasgow?

I think I am right in saying that there has been no extension in either country beyond the extension stated by Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was left by the late Charles Kerr Marr for the endowment of education in Troon; who were the original trustees, the contractors for the erection of the college, the total amount expended on the building, and if the plans and estimates were submitted to the Department of Education for approval; and will he consider the advisability of holding a public inquiry into the administration of the affairs of the Marr Trust since its formation, in view of the Endowments Commission having reported that there were many public expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration of the trust?

The net amount of the late Charles Marr's estate available for educational purposes in Troon was about £331,000. The original trustees were Mr. Thomas Frank Neighbour, solicitor, London, and the person who at the date of Mr. Marr's death was Provost of Troon, namely, Mr. Alexander Muir. The present trustee, Sir Alexander Walker, K.B.E., was appointed on 4th June, 1928. With regard to the con-tractors, I have a long list of these, which I propose with the hon. Member's consent to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total amount spent on the site, building, equipment, laying out of grounds, etc., up to date is about £204,000, but this amount is not final as certain items are still in dispute. The plans were forwarded for the Department's consideration and were approved as being satisfactory for secondary school purposes. No estimates accompanied them and, as the cost of the building was to be met from private funds, estimates were not called for by the Department. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is advised that he has no power to order such an inquiry as is suggested. I may add that I am informed that, even after allowing for the above-mentioned expenditure and the considerable expenditure on bursaries, the endowment fund now stands at about £400,000.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long reply. Is he aware that to-night there is to be a mass meeting of the inhabitants of Troon to protest against the present position, and that they are sending a petition to the Secretary of State demanding that an inquiry be held with regard to the whole financial position of the Marr Trust? Id the event of the right hon. Gentleman getting that petition, what action will be take?

My right hon. Friend will have to wait the arrival of the petition, but the law is that no such inquiry as is suggested in the question is open to my right hon. Friend.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the expressions of dissatisfaction to which reference is made were due to the delay in the opening of the college?

The hon. Gentleman who put the first supplementary question asked about the future, and I prefer not to discuss that yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any statement to make on the negotiations for financing the sale of cured herrings to Russia?

I am informed that the British Herring Trade Association have approached the Co-operative Wholesale Society for an advance, and are now awaiting a decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that chief constables in Scotland have recently instituted certain charges for the services of police officers who are asked to give evidence as witness to parties interested in civil disputes; upon what authority these charges are made; and upon what basis their level is fixed?

I am aware that fees are charged in respect of police officers who are cited as witnesses in civil courts in Scotland. The fees payable to witnesses in civil cases are prescribed by Acts of Sederunt made by the Court of Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for improvement in the system of training and registration of nurses in Scotland, he proposes to institute an inquiry into the subject?

Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has appointed a Departmental Committee on this subject. With my hon. Friend's permission I will print the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The members of the committee are as follow:

• Sheriff A. Campbell Black, O.B.E., K.C. (Chairman).
• William Leslie Burgess, Esq., M.D., D.Ph., R.S.P.S.E. and G. (Medical Officer of Health, Dundee).
• Lady Susan Gilmour (Queen's Institute of District Nursing).
• Miss Mary Reid Knight, M.A., M.B., Ch.B. (Medical Superintendent, Paisley District Asylum).
• Thomas Bell Maxwell Lamb, Esq., M.A. (Scottish Education Department).
• Sir Henry Mechan, D.L., LL.D. (Western Infirmary, Glasgow).
• John Reid, Esq., M.D., D.Ph., F.R.F.P.S. (Medical Superintendent, County Hospital, Motherwell).
• Miss Elizabeth Dunlop Smail, R.R.C. (Matron, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary).
• Miss Christina Whyte (Matron, Rob-royston Hospital, Glasgow).
• John Young, Esq., M.B., C. M. (Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary).

Mr. W. T. Mercer of the Department of Health for Scotland has been appointed Secretary to the Committee.

While appreciating the fact that this is a large committee, will the hon. Gentleman not consider putting on it some of the ordinary everyday working nurses rather than those who are heads of institutions?

I think their case is rather a matter for evidence.

Would not the same consideration apply to the large number of matrons of hospitals?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in Fife with the milk marketing scheme; and, in view of the recent meeting of the Fife Milk Producers' Association held at Kirkcaldy, when a resolution was passed that unless level producers in the scheme received a premium of not less than 2d. per gallon on their immediate supplies they have decided to take steps to break away from the scheme by ignoring it altogether, he will look further into the matter?

I have seen a report of the meeting referred to. The complaints by the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation as to the operation of the scheme, which have been referred to the Committee of Investigation for Scotland for consideration and report in accordance with the Act of 1931, include representations regarding the position of level producers under the scheme. On receiving the Committee's report, I will consider what action should be taken with regard to these complaints.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious urgency of this matter; and is he further aware that various milk producers in Fife who were doing quite well before the scheme was introduced are now on the eve of bankruptcy?

I am aware of the feeling which exists, that the Committee of Investigation should hasten their procedure, and I am convinced myself that the Committee are well aware of the urgency of the matter and are dealing with it with despatch.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the functions of the Canadian Tariff Board as modified by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Canada?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, as I am still awaiting a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to the Canadian Tariff Board. It is, however, I understand, expected shortly and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it has been considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to get the information by telegram, seeing that this is so important a matter?

It is a very important answer which I shall have to give, and I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that it is desirable for me to get the fullest information.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will draw the attention of the Australian Government to the fact that the British Government is compelled to subsidise the production of milk products in this country while direct bounty-fed milk products are imported from Australia?

His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia have already been fully informed of the proposals now embodied in the Milk Bill.

May I ask what action is to be taken to prevent the British taxpayer having to subsidise milk products in this country in competition with subsidised milk products from Australia? Is any action to be taken?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of agricultural machinery, other than tractors, have increased from 183 tons in May, 1932, to 609 tons in 1933, and to 836 tons in 1934; and if he is now in a position to announce any policy to deal with the growing threat to the British agricultural machinery industry?

I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. As regards the second part of the question, I fear there is nothing I can add to the reply which was given to him on the 8th May.

In view of the increasing number of implements which are coming into this country, will not the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Tariff Advisory Committee to do something?

This is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and approach can be made to them.

Are not some farmers finding this imported machinery of help in producing food more cheaply?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of flour have increased from 916,000 cwt. in the first five months of 1932 to 1,349,000 cwt. in the first five-months of 1934, while the average c.i.f. value has fallen by 44 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation?

If, as I assume, my hon. Friend has in mind imports of wheat meal and flour from foreign countries, I would refer him to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 27th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Is it not a fact that the greater proportion of imports of flour into this country are bounty fed and are adding materially to the difficulty of the Wheat Commission?

If that be so, no doubt it is a question which will be considered by the commission.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered proposals from sections of the shipbuilding or shipping trades for the purpose of scrapping obsolete shipping and building new ships with the assistance of Government loans at a low rate of interest; whether he is aware that the advocates claim that if their method were-adopted 100 ships of 7,000 tons deadweight capacity each could be built; and whether, in view of the distressed condition of shipbuilding areas, he will give the proposal his serious consideration?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether general agreement has now been reached among British shipowners in relation to the future of this industry, and if he is pre- pared to implement the promises made by the Government to introduce remedial measures when this state of affairs has been reached; if he is aware that the percentage of world shipping tonnage owned by Great Britain has fallen from 41.6 in 1914 to 27.9 in 1933; if he is aware that subsidies to shipping are in operation in most foreign countries; and if he is now in a position to declare the policy of the Government in order to save British shipping from ultimate ruin?

I hope within the next few days to make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to British shipping, and I prefer not to anticipate that statement.

May I ask whether it is a fact that the shipping industry has not suggested that the Government should adopt the replacement scheme, but that on the contrary, it is the expressed view of the industry that such a scheme should not be adopted?

I am afraid that I can say nothing until I make my statement in the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also make a statement about the coasting trade?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to make a complete statement of the Government's policy regarding this particular scheme?

No, Sir, I cannot make what might be called a complete statement. The subject of British shipping is so very large that I could not do that within the limits of question and answer. Regarding the coasting trade, if the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) will wait for the statement, he will know what it contains.

I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give us now a forecast of the point of view held by the Cabinet on this important matter?

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the increased and in- creasing importance of distribution as a factor of prosperity, he is prepared to give careful consideration to the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission to examine and report upon existing methods of distribution;

(2) whether he is aware that no machinery exists for co-ordinating the activities of those engaged in the productive side of industry with the activities of those engaged in the distributive side; and, in view of the great benefit which would accrue to producers, distributors, and the community if such machinery did exist and of the fact that the difficulties in the way of establishing such machinery without an initiative from the Government are almost insuperable, whether he is prepared to give careful consideration to proposals which have for their object the establishment of such coordinating machinery?

I share my hon. Friend's view as to the increasing importance of distribution and as to the desirability of close co-operation between producers and distributors; and I shall be glad to consider any specific proposals to that end. As at present advised, however, I think the question can best be considered in relation to particular trades, and by those engaged in those trades rather than by an inquiry relating to trade as a whole.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would receive support from all parts of the House for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the question? Does this mean that the hon. Member who puts the question favours the planning of industry?

Is not this a matter entirely for the industries themselves?

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of eggs from foreign countries increased from 1,090,000 great hundreds in May, 1932, to 1,200,000 great hundreds in May, 1933, and to 1,403,000 great hundreds in May, 1934; and when he hopes to be able to announce his policy to protect the British poultry industry?

I was aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. The Government's emergency action to protect the poultry industry was announced on 15th March, when it was stated that, in order to hold the situation for the time being, the Governments of countries exporting eggs to the United Kingdom were being asked to ensure that their exports to this market during the six months 15th March to 14th September, do not exceed the figures for the corresponding period of 1933, when, for the year as a whole, imports of eggs in shell from foreign countries were the lowest for 10 years. As I have indicated, the standstill arrangement covers a period of six months. Imports vary from month to month, and no special significance should, therefore, be attached to the figures for any particular month. It is satisfactory to note, however, that in the 13 weeks from 17th March to 16th June, imports of eggs from foreign countries were actually lower by 247,000 great hundreds, or about 8 per cent., compared with the corresponding period of last year.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that if all the eggs imported in a week were put end to end they would stretch from here to New York?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what prices were paid for ewes and lambs, eild ewes, ewe hoggs, and stock rams by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to the outgoing tenant of Spittalhill, Fintry; what prices were paid to the Commissioners by the incoming tenant for the same sheep stock; and what ratio did the total amount paid to the outgoing tenant for the sheep stock bear to the total amount paid to the landlord for the land?

As the answer contans a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be in a position to make a statement on the Ottawa agreements relating to beef, mutton and lamb?

As I have already informed the House, the meat situation is receiving the Government's active attention. I cannot at this stage indicate when I shall be in a position to make a statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of when he may be able to reply to a question?

I am afraid I cannot.

Does he not agree that as certain agreements terminate at the end of June some statement is urgently necessary?

I think the hon. Member may have seen a statement by the Leader of the House in which he said that some statement would certainly be made before the House rose.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of barley in the first five months of 1934 were 40 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1933 and 111 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1932, while the average c.i.f. values in 1934 were 30 per cent. less than in 1932; and what steps he proposes to take to give effective protection to our farmers?

I am aware of the facts to which my Noble Friend refers. The increase in pig production in this country has made it necessary during recent months to import a larger quantity than usual of feeding barley. The home crop last year was below average in quantity, but was of very good quality and a larger proportion than usual has been sold for malting. For these two reasons, a larger proportion of imported supplies has probably been of feeding quality and it is not, therefore, a matter for surprise that the average price of imports has been on a lower level. In this connection, it should, however, be remembered that the price of home-grown barley in England and Wales during the first five months of this year was 31 per cent. higher than in the same period of last year. In these circumstances, I see no grounds for taking action as suggested in the last part of the question.

Does that not show that imports are on the whole good, and that they benefit some people or some animals?

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of foreign oats in bond throughout the country on 1st February, 1st April and 1st June, respectively?

The quantities of oats in grain in bonded warehouse on the dates specified were as follow:

1934.			Cwts.
1st February	…	…	17,529
1st April	…	…	157,796
1st June	…	…	93,662

asked the Financial Secertary to the Treasury whether he will state the present duties per pound on canned apricots, peaches, pears and fruit salads, and the comparative rate in the event of the additional duty under application by the Association of Fruit and Vegetable Canners being imposed; the annual consumption of those goods in this country; the proportion of the total quantity which is grown in Empire and foreign countries; and the total amount payable on the proposed scale of duties if the present consumption of canned fruits is maintained?

Canned fruits preserved in syrup, to which it is presumed the question refers, are at present subject to customs duty at the rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, in addition to any sugar duty chargeable on their sugar content. The information asked for in the third and fourth parts of the question is not readily available, but I will send the hon. Member such figures as I can supply. The second and last parts of the question are hypothetical and relate to a matter which is now under the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I do not think it desirable that I should give detailed information in such a case.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what approximately will be the duty per lb. when the additional duties have been imposed?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me what would be the duty per lb. if certain applications were conceded. I am sure that he will appreciate that the applications may not be conceded in the form in which they are submitted, and that therefore to work out those hypothetical figures would be an additional task upon the Department which the hon. Gentleman would not I am sure wish to impose upon them.

Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this will be a very heavy additional charge on the poor people who are the consumers of what is to them the only available kind of fruit?

The hon. Gentleman is putting a question to me upon certain assumptions which may or may not be fulfilled. If they are fulfilled, perhaps he will put the question down again.

With pleasure.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any appeal is possible from the sentence of 20 months' imprisonment imposed upon the Jew, Achi Meir, for belonging to an illegal association; and whether this sentence is in addition to the year he has already spent in prison on a charge of murder for which he has been acquitted?

Achi Meir was convicted on the 19th June by a district court on charges of conspiring to effect acts in furtherance of a seditious intention, being a member of an unlawful and seditious association and being in possession of seditious literature. In sentencing him to 21 months' imprisonment, the president of the court said that he gave full weight in determining the appropriate sentence to the fact that Achi Meir had been in custody for a very long time on another charge, but that he could not regard the offence as other than most serious and that 21 months was the least that he could impose. An appeal lies from the district court to the court of appeal within 10 days of conviction. No appeal has yet been lodged.

If this sentence be justified, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is justified in letting Jemal Husseini off with one month's imprisonment when he not merely made these speeches, but when they were followed by violence, and—

That is another question.

May I observe, in putting this question, that I certainly think these are matters which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has to consider?

I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Member should say that. I have been asked the question which I now propose to answer. His Majesty's Government have been advised that a British subject who acquires Palestinian citizenship by naturalisation does not cease to be a British subject. A certificate of naturalisation as a Palestinian citizen may be acquired by any person who has resided in Palestine for a period of not less than two years out of the three years immediately preceding the date of his application, provided that he is of good character, has an adequate knoweldge of either English, Arabic or Hebrew, and intends to reside in Palestine. The fee for naturalisation is 10s.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "if," to insert:

"at any time prior to the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."

This Amendment seeks to limit the duration of the Bill to a period of one year. Some of my colleagues were disposed to oppose the Bill yesterday, but out of respect to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by my right hon. Friend, that it is necessary that something should be done at this stage to mark the crisis in regard to debts owing by Germany we abstained from taking any action and not from any love for the Bill. There was not a single speech yesterday, with the exception of that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which expressed support of the Bill. He himself hoped that the Bill would not become operative. It might reasonably be asked why should a body like this support a Bill for which no one has any love and many regard as not calculated to advance the object which the Bill is supposed to have in view, namely, to increase our trade and to be assured of the probability of the interest on the debt being paid. Therefore, it seems right to many of us that we should try and limit the mischief by asking the Committee to support-an Amendment limiting the operation of the Measure to the period of one year.

It may be of interest to the Committee, as showing that it should not have been possible for this Bill to be brought in with the object of ensuring the possibility of Germany resuming the payment of debt, to know that the Dawes Loan, for example, may be refunded next year. Assuming that a satisfactory solution is arrived at in these negotiations, as we hope will be the case, I look to a considerable rise in the price of that loan and an improvement in the credit of Germany. Instead of a Bill of this character being brought in at this stage something might have been done to help to bring nearer increased trade relations with Germany which we all desire and also to help to ensure that there will be no question in the future of the service of the loan being short. It is most important that this Committee should give an indication of that desire by limiting the period to 12 months as a gesture to Germany that this country does not wish to engage in reprisals and to use weapons to retard trade, but rather to do everything possible to get rid of restrictions on all sides, quotas and so forth, in order to facilitate and increase our trade with Germany.

With reference to the question of the conversion of the debt, Germany is naturally very anxious to reduce, if she can, the interest on that debt, and negotiations will take time. Therefore, it is essential to facilitate that matter by creating a state of affairs which will enable her possibly to bring about a conversion scheme. I believe many investors who hold the bonds would much rather have a certain 5 per cent. than an un- certain 7 per cent., and when Germany sees other countries converting their debt she feels very much aggrieved at the very heavy burden of the 7 per cent. loan. It may possibly be argued that she attempted in the most stupid way to improve her credit by threatening default and proceeding by this clumsy method to precipitate a crisis by default. I recently visited Germany and I had an opportunity of meeting authorities there. I met Dr. Schacht and I discussed the problem with him, and it may interest the Committee to know that the two things he desired were, increased trade with this country, and a conversion scheme for the debt. I suggested to him—I was not there in an official capacity but as an ordinary Member of Parliament—that the method Germany had adopted of seeking to bring about the conversion of debt was the least calculated to effect that purpose.

There were three things she ought to do to facilitate a better atmosphere. There ought to be a cessation of her anti-Jewish campaign. No country anxious to convert her debt could afford to go out of her way to antagonise that very important financial power, and I was assured by authorities there that the campaign would cease. I hear some hon. Members scoff at that, but the impression conveyed to me—and I tried to appeal to their sense of right—was that it was essential to try and conciliate that Jewish power and cease their foolish policy, come in with us on disarmament, and return to the League of Nations. All these things are possible if we can limit the duration of the operation of this Bill for 12 months. I believe that there is a disposition of the best opinion in Germany to come to an amicable settlement. It was pointed out to me that any proposal should come from the creditor. If some proposal had been made to reduce the rate of interest possibly a settlement might have been arrived at and default avoided, and the Bill would not have become necessary. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to consider the idea of the limitation of time. It is not a great concession. If it should become necessary to extend the time it would be a simple matter to bring in the Measure again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the opinion that it might not be necessary even for the Bill to operate, and if the British Government at this stage could make a gesture that we did not propose to proceed with the operation of the Measure beyond the year, I believe that it would help very considerably to bring about an honourable and an amicable settlement.

I urge the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground that the clearing office arrangements are obviously intended for a specific purpose. I would not lend support to an Amendment of this character limiting the duration of the operation of the Bill were it proposed to set up a whole system of clearing houses in order to facilitate trade under the exchange conditions of the present moment. Some of us have felt for a considerable time that some sort of system of this kind would have to be implemented if international trade were to be carried on at all. You have a whole tangle of debts, and, apart from cutting away completely from that tangle and starting afresh, it is clear that some sort of system will have to be devised. That is not the object of this Bill. It has a restricted object; it is meant to deal with the Anglo-German situation. I am certain that some hon. Members would not have given it their support yesterday if it had been aimed at Russia. We ought not to legislate according to our prejudices.

In view of the possible repercussions Parliament ought to retain control. One can envisage all sorts of entanglements and dangerous reactions. If Germany, for example, at the conference refuses to operate a bilateral clearing house system great harm may be done to traders in this country; they may have their property in Germany impounded. This is an experiment, and I have no objection to it on that ground, but I feel that there is a real danger in the Government, on the plea of an emergency, taking powers which they can exercise long after the emergency has passed. Let us make no mistake. With the exchange situation as it is, with tariffs and quotas, and all sorts of restrictions being placed on international trade, we are in this Bill asking for a new weapon in economic armaments. We were told yesterday that 29 countries have imposed exchange restrictions and 23 countries have imposed discriminatory duties, and, therefore, with the world situation what it is, I can understand a weapon of this kind becoming a real menace.

We are not asking too much by the Amendment. We do not want to hamper the Government. This country has been generous to other countries almost to the point of being quixotic. Germany is not the only country that has defaulted, but she has done so in a way with which it is easier to effect reprisals. British bondholders were rather shabbily treated by France when she wiped off four-fifths of her indebtedness. It is clear that the Government must take strong action. I hold no brief for the German Government, I am not asking for easy terms. Britain must put up a stand for her rights. But I do want Parliament to assert its claim to review these terms in the light of our experience of the operation of the Bill.

I desire to support the Amendment, but first of all I must ask the Financial Secretary a question as regards our procedure. I want to ask whether, in view of the fact that the Report stage and Third Reading are to be taken this evening, it is possible for the Government to accept any Amendments to the Bill? Are we not merely exercising the futile function of discussing the Bill when the Government cannot accept any Amendments whether they are desirable or not. It would assist the Committee if we could have an answer to that point. As regards the Amendment, it is an attempt to limit the period of operation of the machinery of the Bill. It appears to me that where you are setting up machinery avowedly to deal with an emergency it should be limited to the emergency with which it is required to deal. You have no right to force arbitrarily through this House a Bill of a general character in order to deal with a specific event. It is a precedent of considerable danger, if merely because some particular action is required as a result of a particular event, the Government adopt special means of getting a Bill through the House covering a wide area quite unconnected with the particular emergency.

The hon. and learned Member is elaborating his point at some length, the answer to it will presumably be equally long. I think there- fore it would be better for him to move to report Propress if he requires an answer to it.

I desire the Bill to be limited by the insertion of the Amendment. Wide powers are being given to the Government under Clause 1—

I understood that the hon. and learned Member was dealing with the point which he has raised, as to the further stages of the Bill; if he is not going to say any more on that, I do not propose to intervene.

I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I had departed from that Parliamentary point. As regards the other and more important question, I was dealing with the necessity for limiting the operation of this Clause to the immediate period of time in which the emergency is likely to arise, and the danger of passing a general resolution on the excuse that an emergency of a particular character has arisen, may be taken as a precedent for future Parliamentary action. A future Government, whatever it may be, will be able to say: "Here is an emergency of a particular kind, and we propose to legislate perfectly generally, not merely to cover the emergency but to cover all other matters which may conceivably be useful "—Clause 2 of the Bill admittedly has no connection with the emergency at all; it gives general powers—and, having said that, to force a Bill through the House of Commons without proper or full opportunity for the House to consider it or for people outside to allow their views to be reflected within the House. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider that aspect of the case, and, as a matter of precedent, not to allow a general Bill of this kind to go on the Statute Book in order to deal with a specific emergency.

While I do not agree with hon. Members who have supported the Amendment, I do think it is a very grave disadvantage to embark on a parliamentary discussion on a Bill of this kind, which has some provisions which can be regarded as emergency provisions and others which are of a less emergency character, if we are met by the situation that it is impossible for mechanical reasons or under the Rules of Procedure, to move Amendments. As an old Member of the House, I fear the effect of certain things which have grown up in recent years. Could the Financial Secretary give us an assurance that, if there be any Amendment which the Government are prepared to accept, the Report stage and Third Reading will be taken to-morrow?

I want to say a word in support of this Amendment from the point of view of one who thinks that this Bill is absolutely necessary, and that the Government were right to introduce it., I hope to be permitted to elaborate the reasons why I think it is necessary to bring in this Bill on the Question "That the Clause stand part," but it does seem to me that as we are dealing now with a specific and definite case without which the Bill would never have been introduced, the effect would be much more dramatic on this occasion and on other occasions if a special Bill had to be brought in for the purpose. Cases of this sort are not often likely to arise in the history of this country, but when they do I should have thought that we could have obtained our object better by introducing a Bill for that definite purpose, with all the publicity and debate which would take place. The effect on Germany, I should have thought, would be far more likely to be affected by introducing the Bill in a dramatic way, rather than relying on a Clause in an old Act. It is because I want to see the weapon of economic sanction used in specific cases that I think it would strengthen the object we have at heart if this Amendment were accepted.

The hon. and learned Member has spoken of an emergency, but I think that we must distinguish between what we commonly call an emergency and the special circumstances, as I should prefer to call them, which have induced us to introduce this Bill. Emergency in the ordinary acceptation of the term, or, at any rate, in its ordinary use, is something which has occurred, but is not expected to occur again. But can we assure ourselves that, in the absence of any powers such as we propose to take in this Bill, similar circumstances may not arise in the future which would require similar treatment? I confess that I feel no such confidence either in respect of the powers required in Clause 1 or those required in Clause 2, and although the hon. Member who has just spoken has suggested that it is much more effective and dramatic to introduce ad hoc legislation as occasion arises, I think he would agree that it is very much better that the occasion should not arise, and the reason for taking these powers is that I believe by being armed with such powers we are giving notice to all the world that we are armed with these powers, and we shall in that way make it less likely that the circumstances will arise which will require the use of these powers.

I understand this Bill is to be got through in two days of Parliamentary time, and the emergency surely is that it has to be got through very quickly. But if the right hon. Gentleman now tells us that it is only for the purpose of being armed with these powers, there can be no reason why the House of Commons should not have the full right of amendment.

The hon. Member is attempting to twist my words into a meaning which they will not bear. I do not deny that in the present case the matter is urgent. That, of course, is agreed on all hands. The only question that I understood was raised by the hon. and learned Member was whether the powers which are undoubtedly required now were likely to be required hereafter, and whether it was not very much better to limit the powers to the case now before us, and, if necessary, take further powers on some future occasion when similar circumstances arose.

If this Bill were passing through ordinary stages in ordinary time, there would be no argument on the point, but if this is only to deal with an urgent matter, and therefore has to be passed urgently, I was suggesting that the provisions should be limited to that urgent matter, and that they can be passed through in an urgent manner.

On the question of procedure, about which my Noble Friend put a question, I think the situation is this: We desire that this Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, and, of course, if Amendments are accepted that means having a Report stage, and we cannot get the Third Reading of the Bill to-night. I do not say that it is impossible to have the Third Reading to-morrow and a Report stage, but I say that it would be better to have the Bill to-night, unless there are Amendments of such substance and importance as to outweigh the disadvantages of that further delay. As far as I have had an opportunity of studying the Amendments—and I confess that I have not had much opportunity—I have not seen any Amendments which appear to me of such weight and importance as to justify the delay; but I am quite willing to hear anything said on any particular Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman's arguments, of course, apply only to Clause 1 and the other Clauses ancillary to it which he must have now; but he pointed out that he did not require Clause 2 now specially, and, therefore, I take it that he will be quite prepared, in these circumstances, to drop Clause 2, and to give the Committee full right of discussion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now exposed to the Committee that he stands on the horns of a dilemma. Yesterday, in introducing this Bill, he gave an account of the Notes addressed to the German Government by the British Government, and used these words:

"That very brief account of the circumstances—I refer hon. Members to the British Note for further detail—is the justificatoin for the Bill that I am now presenting."

and ho proceeded to say that he hoped that the negotiations now to be undertaken

"will ensure fair treatment for British bondholders and British traders before 1st July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; col. 807 Vol. 291.]

If it be the case that the justification for the Bill is the situation which has arisen with Germany, and only that, and if it be the case that the object of the Bill is to give powers to the Government to ensure fair treatment for British bondholders before 1st July, then there is great force in the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must have his Bill, and have it now. But, also, there is support for the argument that it must be limited to the necessities of the situa- tion which he himself has expressly stated to the House as being the justification, and, as far as his speech went, the only justification for the Bill which we are now considering. I earnestly hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accede to the view either that the Bill should be limited to the particular instance of Germany—

It is obvious that if we are to have this discussion on something which has really nothing to do with the Amendment, it must be based on a Motion to report Progress.

I beg to move,

"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I was endeavouring to follow the remarks which have been made by the speakers who preceded me, but to put myself in order I move to report Progress. I believe that I shall be in order if I now continue the speech I was making. I have pointed out one horn of the dilemma on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself, namely, immediate emergency, and, therefore, immediate and urgent legislation requires that it should be limited for the purpose for which it is needed. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few moments ago that other occasions may arise, and that he requires to have powers extending over a far wider field than anything he now specifically contemplates. If this House is to be asked to give wide powers to the Government— and wide powers are asked by the Government in both parts of this Bill—surely the House should have an ample opportunity of considering such grave matters in detail—matters so grave that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought the Bill before the House after very short notice. If I understood him correctly—he will correct me if I am wrong—it was at such short notice that he himself has not even been able to read the Amendments set down to the Bill.

I did not say that. I said that I have not had time to study them.

I should be the last person in the world to do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the injustice of mis representing him. He has not had much time to study the Amendments, nor, it may be assumed, have other hon. Members who received them this morning. Yet the Amendments touch vital questions of principle. Opinions may differ as to the relative importance of this Amendment or that Amendment, but he would be a rash Member of this House who would say that there is upon the Order Paper no Amendment which is worthy of serious consideration and incorporation in this Bill. I will give only one instance. There is an Amendment on the Paper for incorporating in the terms of the Bill a declaration made by the Financial Secretary yesterday. If it were sufficiently important for my hon. Friend to make to the world a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to how the Bill was to be operated, it cannot be said to be unimportant that hon. Members should seek to have that undertaking incorporated in the Bill itself. I only give that as one instance.

I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only in the interests of Parliamentary procedure and orderly conduct of Bills through the House of Commons, but in the interest also of the good standing of this country in the eyes of the world in its international industrial relations, that it should maintain the dignity required in dealing with matters of this kind, and give that consideration and deliberation which are essential before a decision can be reached with full knowledge of all the facts and with appreciation of all the circumstances. The Bill, I think, has been hurriedly drawn. It has certainly not been as fully considered either in its terms or its implications as it might have been. If the right hon. Gentleman will limit it to Germany and to the particular emergency in which he finds himself, I think he will probably find the Committee very willing to let the Bill go with far less discussion than if he insists upon pressing the Bill forward, extending over a far wider field of activity than anything which is justified by anything the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague said yesterday in this House.