asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement to the House upon the operation of the 30-mile speed-limit in built-up areas in the light of experience gained, particularly with reference to the increased traffic congestion in the London area and consequent tendency to drive passenger traffic from road to rail; and the number of prosecutions pending under the new regulations?

I am glad to be able to inform the House from the information before me that the numbers of those killed and injured on the roads, which have shown a continuous decline in recent weeks, are likely to show a further fall for the first week in which the speed limit has been in operation. There has been no increase in traffic congestion reported in the London area or elsewhere; on the contrary, there is general agreement that traffic has proceeded more smoothly. The increase in the number of vehicles on the roads has, so far as I am aware, continued unabated. As the new speed limit does not affect motor coaches which were already subject to a 30 miles per hour limit, it was not to be anticipated that long-distance passenger traffic would be adversely affected. The number of prosecutions pending is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Will my hon. Friend consider raising the speed limit in built-up areas to 35 miles an hour, so as to give better facilities for overtaking heavy traffic?

This was a decision of Parliament, and some of my hon. Friends appear to forget that fact.

I am speaking in the light of experience.

In view of the fact that the motoring public have met these new regulations so well and are observing them, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to urge the local authorities to decontrol those roads which were obviously not meant to come under the 30-miles limit and which are causing a great deal of annoyance? Will he do his best in these cases, otherwise the 30-miles limit may be disregarded?

Yes, Sir. That is my view, and I am doing all I can to induce local authorities to de-restrict areas which I do not think should be restricted.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the altered conditions in regard to the speed limit now imposed in built-up areas, he can see his way to increase the speed limit for heavy motor vehicles from 20 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour?

Parliament in the same Act which imposed a speed limit in built-up areas, fixed the maximum speeds for all classes of road vehicles.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the need for concentration on the road ahead, he will consider the usefulness of having distinctive painted lines placed upon the roads to indicate to motorists that they are approaching, or about to leave, restricted speed areas?

The Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs recommended (paragraph 107 of their report) that, apart from white lines, no traffic signs should be marked on the carriageway with the exception of the following:

Will not my hon. Friend consider the usefulness of this suggestion? Is he aware that the committee itself did not consider the particular speed limit or this method of approach at the time of its deliberations?

Yes, Sir. The committee did consider a speed-limit sign, and it was composed of a widely representative body of opinion, including all the motoring interests, and it deprecated any marking of signs, with the exception of those I have mentioned, on the carriageway. I feel it is my duty to be guided by so strong and authoritative a counsel.

But will the hon. Gentleman take steps to procure public opinion on this matter; and is he aware that it would be of great advantage to motorists to have these signs on the roads?

The motorists did not think so. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks otherwise, perhaps he will stimulate the necessary public opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct the police that doctors on their way to attend urgent cases are not to be prosecuted for exceeding the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit; and whether the same exemption will be granted to veterinary surgeons?

The question whether there should be an exemption from the speed limit in the case of vehicles used by members of the medical profession when attending urgent cases was discussed when the Road Traffic Act, 1934, was passing through Parliament, but it was decided that it would not be practicable to allow this exemption. It would be equally impracticable to place on the police the responsibility for assessing the degree of urgency when considering the question of instituting proceedings, and in my view the only satisfactory solution is to leave the matter to the courts.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the intention of Parliament to give the 30- miles-per-hour speed limit a fair trial is being prejudiced by the present police methods; and whether he will withdraw the decoy police cars from the roads and issue instructions that plain-clothes officers are not to be used in the enforcement of this limit?

I cannot accept the suggestion that the police methods which are employed are unfair, and would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to questions on the same subject on the 18th instant, in which I dealt with a number of points which had been raised.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases these police cars proceed along the highway, well out in the road, at 20 to 25 miles an hour, and that when a motorist behind hoots in order to pass, the decoy car speeds up to 30 miles an hour, and therefore definitely incites the motorist to break the law; and does he not understand the bitter resentment that is being caused by these methods, and will he not even now alter the law?

asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to recruit a special force of police for the purpose of enforcing the new speed-limit regulations, or if the existing police are to be relieved of clerical routine by engagement of outside assistance?

No special force is being recruited for this purpose. The men, if not already on traffic duty, will be drawn from other duties in the way each chief officer of police may find most convenient.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the introduction of regulations to make it an offence for a pedestrian about to cross a road to do so other than at a recognised pedestrian crossing-place, except where such crossing-places are more than 50 yards distant from the point where the pedestrian desires to cross over?

Further experience may necessitate some revision of the pedestrian crossing places regulations, but I am not prepared at present to give any pledge to my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend contemplate making it an offence to walk to the danger of the public?

Has the hon. Gentleman now abandoned all hope of making the motorists regard these pedestrian crossings at all?

No, Sir. I should like to place on record my recognition of the increasingly courteous manner in which the motorists are observing these crossings.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the overtures made by the Gas Light and Coke Company to certain local authorities for permission to experiment in the illumination of a certain number of beacons; and whether his Department gives approval to this suggestion?

I understand that the Gas Light and Coke Company offered to illuminate certain beacons in West Ham and that the Corporation decided not to accept the offer. In the circumstances I do not think it would be proper for me to intervene.

Might I ask the Minister whether, if an application is sent along again, he will be good enough to give it consideration, and that he will raise no objection?

It was not sent to me; it was sent to the West Ham Corporation.

Yes, but I understand that they have reversed their decision. If they apply again, will the Minister not give permission?

The council have not reversed their decision. I asked the Minister whether he would approve and not whether he knew that West Ham would approve. We now ask the right hon. Gentleman his views; we know ours.

I can only express my view on any proposal put to me in accordance with the terms of the proposal. This proposal has not been made to me.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take the necessary action to make the use of a speedometer obligatory on all vehicles subject to the speed limit?

I am referring this matter to the Transport Advisory Council for an early report, and I am informing the manufacturers accordingly.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will set up an advisory committee on street lighting to confer with local authorities in order to reduce accidents by increased efficiency in lighting?

Such a Departmental Committee has in fact been set up and is engaged in conferring with local and other bodies concerned in the matter.

Is that body likely to make a report, an official report?

Yes, Sir, a report.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration any scheme for consolidating road licences and third-party insurance; and, if not, will he examine this with a view to further protection of the general public?

The whole question of third-party insurance was examined before the introduction of the amending legislation which was passed eight months ago.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the dangers that arise on the arterial road Wanstead to Southend and of the advantage of that portion which has double section; and when the work will be commenced on the other sections of the road, thus making the whole road double-sectioned?

I understand that the Essex County Council have before them proposals for the construction of an additional length of second carriageway upon the London-Southend Road, but they have not yet submitted them to me.

Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration for about five years and that this is a very essential route?

I shall not delay five years when I receive a request.

Another five years?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of arms, ammunition, and imple- ments of war, including aeroplanes and parts thereof, exported under licence from the United Kingdom to Paraguay and Bolivia in each year from 1932 to 1934, inclusive?

In the course of a few days I will send the hon. Member particulars of the goods concerned which were exported to these countries in the years named.

Can the information for which the hon. Member asks be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I will consider that suggestion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that prices are being quoted for Indian kerb at 2s. 2d. per running foot as against the home price of 3s. 6d. per running foot; and whether, in view of the fact that the earnings of Indian quarry-workers amount to from 2s. to 3s. 6d. per day, he will consider measures for the restriction of Indian kerb?

Under the Ottawa Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India, these imports are admitted to the United Kingdom free of duty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Indian kerb is displacing our home-made kerb in the contracts of a number of local authorities, and will he take the matter into consideration to see if this agreement can be reviewed?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases and what new industrial research work has been undertaken as a result of duties imposed on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and in what industries increased attention is being devoted to research consequent upon the same cause?

It is obviously impossible to make a detailed statement of the particular kind asked for by the hon. Member, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt that the assistance given to United Kingdom industries by protective duties has both encouraged and enabled manufacturers to engage in research on a substantially increased scale,

But are there no means of obtaining for the House more precise information?

Obviously, it would be almost impossible.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take with regard to the complaints which have been made to him by the River Tweed Commissioners as to the pollution of the river by domestic sewage?

The Department of Health for Scotland have written to the local authorities concerned urging them to give effect so far as this has not yet been done to the recommendations of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention on the pollution of the River Tweed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman further considered the special case put before him in the last week or two by various towns on the Tweed-side and the upper reaches of the Tweed, especially having regard to the fact that a plan for impounding a considerable portion of the headwaters of the Tweed for a reservoir for Edinburgh will make this question far more acute than it has been in recent years?

The matter is still under consideration, and I am unable to carry it any further at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department's Scientific Advisory Committee, instructed in 1932 to inquire into the circumstances attending births in Scotland, has completed its report; and, if so, when will it be published?

The detailed examination of the data collected in connection with the inquiry into the circumstances attending births in Scotland has now been completed by the medical officers charged with this duty and they are on the point of submitting their report to the Scientific Advisory Committee. I hope that it will be possible to publish the report in about two months' time after the Committee have had an opportunity of considering it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inquiry sat for six months in 1932, and is he not of opinion that the time that has elapsed since then is ample for this report to have been completed; and cannot he expedite the report and not delay it for a further two months as the matter is of interest and importance?

The report will be published immediately after the committee has had a little further time for consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make the period shorter than two months?

I will make inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums he has made application for to the Treasury under sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934; and what sums have been issued by the Treasury in response to applications made by him under the said sub-section?

The total amount of the expenses of the Special Commissioner for Scotland for the period ending the 31st March, 1935, is £2,760, and this amount has been issued by the Treasury from the Special Areas Fund.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the Scottish herring industry at the personnel of the Herring Board; and whether, in view of the importance of Scottish interests involved, he is prepared to recommend the board to exercise its powers to vary its composition so as to give adequate recognition to the Scottish section of the industry?

I have received representations from the Scottish Herring Producers' Association to the effect that they are dissatisfied with the Herring Industry Board as at present constituted. The machinery provided by the Act for variation of the composition of the board is an Order made by the Ministers on the representation of the board. I understand that the Association have requested the board to make such a representation and that the matter will shortly be considered by the board.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use any influence he may have to get the representation altered, in view of the fact that Scottish drifters number over 600 and English drifters 300, and that Scottish motor boats number over 700 and the English boats only 171?

It is laid down in the Act that the Ministers can act only after they have received representations from the board. I can assure my hon. Friend that directly such representations are received we shall give the matter immediate consideration.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls, respectively, under the age of 18 registered as unemployed in Dundee at the latest available date; and if he is satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation at the juvenile instructional centres for both the girls and the boys?

At 25th February, 1935, there were 538 unemployed boys and 506 unemployed girls, under 18 years of age, on the registers of the Dundee Employment Exchange. While the number who could be required to attend a junior instruction centre is considerably less than this total the existing accommodation is admittedly inadequate and the Education Authority have arrangements in hand for increasing it, in the case of both boys and girls.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that the accommodation for the girls is increased first, as at present there is fairly good accommodation for the boys and very inadequate accommodation for the girls?

I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of those registered as unemployed between the ages of 18 and 65 who have been unemployed over one year at any recent convenient date; and whether he can arrange in future, when issuing the figures of unemployed, to state the length of time they have been so unemployed?

The latest available figures, relating to 25th February, 1935, are shown on page 112 of the March issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has decided to relax the requirement for blind flying experience for pilots with B licences not normally engaged in public transport services?

The possibility of some such arrangement as my hon. Friend suggests is still under examination.

Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to make an announcement at an early date, because the livelihood of these pilots is at stake while this sword of Damocles is still over their heads?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the present policy of his Department to confine the issue of tender forms containing structural steel requirements to a small selected number of contractors, he will undertake to examine the list of contractors with a view to the inclusion of all firms with a proved competence to perform structural steel engineering?

It is not the policy of the Air Ministry to restrict tendering for structural steel requirements to a small selected number of firms. Where in individual cases the field of tendering for aerodrome construction work in which steel work is included has been restricted, it will be found that the list of approved sub-contractors for the steel work is ex- tensive and contains a clear intimation that other firms will be considered if submitted by the contractor for approval.

Is it not the case that Scottish firms of 50 years' experience have been excluded from the list of tenderers while other firms have successfully tendered for a number of years, showing that they must have received tender forms?

I am not aware of that fact.

I was referring to firms who are on the list and who have received tender forms.

If there is any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind, and if he will send me the list, I will look into it.

I beg to move, in page 60, line 18, to leave out from the first "the" to the end of the Clause, and to add:

"generality of the powers conferred by the preceding Sub-section, no Federal law shall, on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation, be deemed to be invalid in so far as it applies—

(a) to British subjects and servants of the Crown in any part of India; or

(b) to British subjects who are domiciled in any part of India wherever they may be; or

(c) to, or to persons on, ships or aircraft registered in British India or any Federated State wherever they may be; or

(d) in the case of a law with respect to a matter accepted in the Instrument of Accession of a Federated State as a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for that State, to subjects of that State wherever they may be; or

(e) in the case of a law for the regulation or dicipline of any naval, military, or air force raised in British India, to members of, and persons attached to, employed with or following, that force, wherever they may be."

Sub-section (2) of Clause 99 deals with the question of the operation of Federal laws, and the Clause as it is at present drafted provides for this by saying that a Federal law shall extend to certain named matters. It has been thought that the law would be clearer if it were put in the opposite way, making the Clause provide, as the Amendment on the Paper suggests, that no Federal law shall, on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation, be deemed to be invalid so far as it applies to certain named matters. The alteration, therefore, which the Amendment involves is purely drafting, subject to two matters. The Committee will observe that, in the Bill as it stands, the expression is used in Sub-section (2, b):

"Indian subjects of His Majesty."

That is an inconvenient expression for more than one reason, but chiefly because it is not at all clear or definite as to the persons who come within the description. It is therefore proposed in the Amendment to use the expression:

"British subjects who are domiciled in any part of India."

This will result in a slight extension of the expression, because British subjects domiciled in India may include persons of pure European blood, whereas the other expression would possibly include only persons who were not of pure European descent.

The other matter of substance is that the Sub-section, in the new form in which it stands on the Order Paper, will deal with persons on ships or aircraft registered in British India or any Federated State. It has been pointed out that it is necessary to allow a Federal law to deal with these matters in order that the international obligations in respect of ships and aircraft may be applied, and I think the Committee will probably agree that that is a proper addition to make to the Sub-section. Subject to these two points, the new form on the Paper is a drafting proposal, and I ask the Committee to accept it.

It is a little difficult to realise what this Amendment means as regard the Princes—

I can assure my hon. Friend that this Amendment has nothing at all to do with the Princes, and does not in any way affect any questions that may have arisen with regard to the States.

With regard to this Clause the Committee of States' Ministers have raised very strong objections. We find, on page 9 of the White Paper issued by the Secretary of State, that they say:

"In regard to this Clause, the Committee feel that it is essential to secure that a State will not be bound to enforce Federal laws on matters outside the Instrument of Accession."

These are important words. It is rather difficult for a layman to follow the complex legal matters involved, but it is clear that the Princes are extremely jealous of the power of the Federal Legislature to legislate for their States, and they lay down definitely that the Federal Legislature shall have no such power of legislation outside the subjects contained in the Instrument of Accession; and, at the end of the paragraph in the White Paper regarding Clause 99, the Committee say:

"Clause 99 (2), as at present drafted, in so far as it is not superfluous, is unacceptable."

Later, on page 18, they say:

"The Indian States will retain intact their power of concurrent legislation even on matters accepted by Rulers to be federal."

That opens up the possibility of a very confusing situation. The Federal Legislature may pass a law on a subject within the Instrument of Accession, but the States will retain their power of concurrent legislation; that is to say, the Rulers of the States may pass laws that may not carry out the intention of the Federal Legislature. I understand that each Prince may have a separate instrument of accession in which will be laid down the subjects for which the Central Legislature can make laws. That opens up a very peculiar prospect. You may have an enormous number of instruments of accession each containing a separate list of subjects which the Ruler of a State will accept, and so we may have a most complicated arrangement of legislation. One can see the possibility in future of very great difficulty arising. The Federal Legislature will have power to legislate for one set of subjects in one State and another set of subjects in another State, and the result will be almost chaos. The Attorney-General assured me that the Amendment which was put down is not in any way in consequence of the discussions which, I understand, are going on between the draftsmen and the advisers of the Princes. That means, as far as one can judge, that the way the Princes may be interfered with is not met by the Amendment, and one would have thought that it would have been simpler to deal with this vital subject at once. If an agreement is to be arrived at on the fundamental objection of the Princes to interference with their sovereignty or powers of legislating for their own States outside their instruments of accession, I should have thought that here was the point at which the matter could be made perfectly clear.

I will try in a sentence or two to answer my hon. Friend. I think that he has rather misunderstood the scope of this Clause. The criticism of the Princes was not a general criticism such as he has just mentioned, but a criticism based rather upon the position of British subjects in an Indian State—a much smaller issue—and we are at present considering that point. As to the very wide question about the Instruments of Accession, I thought that I had explained clearly what would be the position under the Instruments of Accession in one of our earlier Debates. I made it clear that there would be a certain amount of variety as between one instrument of accession and another, but that we wished to get the greatest possible uniformity, and we assumed that there would be a general measure, of uniformity such as I described the other day.

My hon. Friend raised a further question about the concurrent field, and there again I think that he has somewhat misunderstood the scope of this Clause. It has always been assumed that the units, namely, the Indian States and also the Provinces of British India, would have the power of legislation in the concurrent field. Indeed, there would not be a concurrent field if it were not so. The Princes are not in this respect being treated differently from the British Indian Provinces. Obviously, the Federal units and the Federal Centre both have a locus standi in the concurrent field, and it is always contemplated that, that being so, the Princes will have the power of legislation in this field.

Does that mean that in the concurrent field the Princes would have power in their own States to deal with concurrent subjects outside the Instrument of Accession?

Certainly, the concurrent field means that both the unit and the Centre have powers of legislation, subject to the conditions set out in the various provisions of the Bill under which, in the case of the British Indian Provinces, the Federal Act has the greater authority unless the Governor-General sanctions Provincial amending legislation.

May I point out that in the White Paper the Princes laid down very strongly their objections to this Clause, and is it not a pity that the Committee cannot meet those points as far as they can be met as we go along; otherwise, we may have to have the Clause recommitted. I will read the words of the second part of their criticism, in which they say:

"If, for instance, it is intended that a Federal law applicable to British subjects should be enforced by State courts where under the Rules of Private International. Law it should not be enforced, the committee must strongly object. Clause 99 (2), as at present drafted, in so far as it is not superfluous, is unacceptable."

In view of that strong criticism, would it not be advisable for the Secretary of State to meet the points as we go along; otherwise, we may have to do the work over again?

I think that we shall be able to meet a good many of these points as we go along, I do not think the question arises on this particular point, but, speaking generally, we shall meet the points as we go along.