asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the foreign policies of Powers with which we are or may be closely allied shall be co-ordinated with our own; whether His Majesty's Government are considering or will consider a more permanent, systematic means of securing this; and whether, with a view to advancing the principles of international law as a final authority, he is taking any steps to demonstrate that the alliances can and should be neither exclusive nor purely military?

I would refer the hon. Member to my speech on 19th May. I think he will find that it gave a clear picture of the aims which His Majesty's Government are pursuing in the sphere of foreign policy and of the methods by which they hope to achieve them.

May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he wishes to make it clear to the world that the balance of power is not to be the criterion of British foreign policy in future?

I would refer the hon. Member to my speech.

Are we to adopt the custom in this House of referring to speeches made outside this House for the purpose of enlightenment?

The hon. Member is mistaken. That speech that I made was made inside the House.

Is not each part of this question amply provided for already by the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Are we to understand from the remarks of the Foreign Secretary in his important speech that the Government intend in spirit to return to the League of Nations?

There is another question on the Order Paper.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a further statement about the progress of negotiations for the strategic co-operation of France, Russia, and Great Britain in resistance to aggression?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say whether a tripartite agreement between England, France, and Russia has yet been settled and whether the agreement is similar to the agreement between France and Russia?

Perhaps the hon. Members will be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of questions.

Will the Prime Minister explain why the word "England" has been used? I thought that word had been dropped and the words "Great Britain" substituted?

Later —

The House is aware that my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was able to have conversations with the French Ministers in Paris on his way to Geneva. He was also able to continue in Geneva the conversations which had been conducted with the Soviet Ambassador in London. As a result of these conversations all relevant points of view have now been made clear, and I have every reason to hope that as a result of proposals which His Majesty's Government are now in a position to make on the main questions arising, it will be found possible to reach full agreement at an early date. There still remain some further points to be cleared up, but I do not anticipate that these are likely to give rise to any serious difficulty.

Will it be possible to make a more definite and fuller statement before the House rises for Whitsun?

If it is possible, of course, such a statement will be made, but, as I mentioned, there are some points which have still to be cleared up. I think probably it will be necessary to wait until after we come back, when I hope it will be possible to give a complete account of the agreement which, I trust, will by then have been reached.

Is it not most urgent, in view of the continuing dangers of the international situation, to make an end of these delays?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this step towards this massive deterrent against aggression will give throughout the country the most widespread relief, satisfaction and hope?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give particulars of all reports made by the High Commissioner in Danzig to the Council of the League of Nations to the effect that difficulties are being placed in his way in carrying out his duties?

The High Commissioner has reported regularly to the Committee of Three appointed by the Council to follow the situation in Danzig and the Committee has authorised the issue of communiques at the conclusion of its meetings held at Geneva during the sessions of the Council. I am not, of course, in a position to add to these communiques, but I cannot agree that the general purport of the High Commissioner's reports is as described by the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the High Commissioner has reported any interference with postal or telephone facilities?

No, Sir, I cannot.

Is it not a fact that the British Consul has been on leave for some time?

asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he proposes to make for the representation of British interests in Bohemia and Moravia, following the withdrawal of diplomatic status from His Majesty's Legation in Prague?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a British Consul in Prague; and whether he is in a position definitely to state that His Majesty's Government will take no action which will involve de facto or de jure recognition of German sovereignty in Bohemia and Moravia?

On the departure of His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires from Prague on 25th May British interests will be temporarily in charge of the British Vice-Consul. The question of the future representation of His Majesty's Government in Prague and its bearing on the question of recognition is being considered, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of Question No. 21, and assure the House that whatever decision may be taken about the appointment of a consul, no action will be taken which might in any degree involve recognition of the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia?

Before the Prime Minister replies to that supplementary question, will he make it quite clear that while the British Consul remains in Prague to carry on certain work on behalf of British interests, we shall not ask the German Government to accord him consular status, thereby implying recognition of the German annexation?

I have said that the matter is being considered, and I hope to make a statement very shortly. I do not think that I can anticipate that statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present position in Danzig?

According to reports received by my Noble Friend, demonstrations were made on 21st May against a Polish Customs House at Kalthof within Danzig territory on the East Prussian border. There is a conflict of evidence as to the nature and the results of these demonstrations. The Polish Commissioner General in Danzig sent representatives to investigate the affair, and in circumstances, of which the accounts also differ very widely, a Danzig citizen was killed. Formal protests have been made on both sides, but I trust that these incidents will not be permitted to lead to graver complications.

asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of the agreement made on nth November, 1927, between France and Jugoslavia were com- municated to the League of Nations; and whether the agreement provides for French intervention in the event of any threat to the independence of Jugoslavia?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty provide respectively, and within the framework of the League of Nations, for the examination in common by the two countries of questions threatening their external security, and for the two countries to concert together on their respective action in the case of unprovoked attack.

asked the Prime Minister which States have still not acceded to the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, as signed in Paris on 27th August, 1928; and will he give particulars of the number of States who signed this Treaty that have failed to carry out their obligations?

The situation has not changed since the reply given to the hon. Member by the then Foreign Secretary on 21st April, 1937.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Great Britain considers herself bound by this Treaty?

An affirmative answer to that question was given by my right hon. Friend on the date to which I have referred.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any further assurances that the Spanish Government propose to guard the economic independence and the territorial integrity of Spain?

The House is familiar with the assurances on this point given by General Franco before the recognition of the Spanish Government. Since that date no further assurances have been asked for or received. In the course of General Franco's speech on the Madrid parade, he is, however, reported to have stated that it must be understood once and for all, and accepted in all countries, that there can be no question in any way of infringing our sovereignty and our political and economic liberty.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that Italian armaments will be now withdrawn from Spain?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the "Popolo d'Italia" recently stated that the Italian Government were not going to withdraw their armaments from Spain, and as this would be a violation of the Anglo-Italian Treaty will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into it?

I have not seen the statement referred to.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the "Times" yesterday stated that the armaments were being left behind? Does he not realise the great difficulty of this House, when we have to accept statements—it is no fault of the right hon. Gentleman—from him which subsequently turn out to be entirely misleading?

I give the House the best information in my possession. I cannot do more than that.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to how many British, American and Japanese ships, respectively, carried cargoes from Tsingtao to Canada and the United States of America, during the month of March?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the only vessels shipping cargo from Tsingtao to Europe during the month of March were three Japanese and one German; and what was the percentage of Tsingtao shipments to Europe formerly carried in British ships?

My Noble Friend has seen unofficial reports stating that a number of Japanese steamers and one German vessel cleared from Tsingtao with direct cargo for Europe and North America during the month of March, and they make no mention of any such clearances by British or United States vessels. He has, however, no official confirmation of these reports. As regards the proportion of Tsingtao shipments to Europe formerly carried in British ships, the figures for 1935 and 1936 were approximately 36 per cent. and 62 per cent. The actual tonnage carried in 1936, however, showed some decrease on that of the previous year.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a case at Manchester Assizes on 19th May, when a man named Joseph Kelly was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude for stealing plans of the Government factory at Euxton, Lancashire; that during the trial it was established that Kelly had been in contact with, and assisted by, the German consul in Liverpool; and does he propose to take any action against the consul in the courts or demand his return to Germany?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make regarding the continued presence in this country of the German consul at Liverpool who has been proved to have been acting as an intermediary of the German secret service?

It is still not entirely clear to what extent the German Consul in Liverpool was himself involved in this affair; but the matter is under active consideration.

Is it not a fact that at the Assize Court proceedings it was stated in evidence, and not refuted on behalf of the German Consul, that he had actually put this man in touch with the secret service agents in Germany and had visa'd his passport so that he might make a journey there and get into touch with the German agents?

There is a doubt as to whether it was someone in the consulate or whether it was the consul himself.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the prosecuting counsel himself said that it was the German Consul who had put the man charged in touch with the German secret service, and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the safety of this country comes before the susceptibilities of the German Government?

No question of the susceptibilities of the German Government is involved at present. The hon. Member may be right in what he said was said by the prosecuting counsel, but there is still, as I have said, some doubt as to whether the consul himself is involved or not, and we must clear up that matter.

May I ask the Prime Minister to pursue his investigations into this matter on account of the very definite menace to this country if this consul is doing this kind of work and is allowed to pursue it in Liverpool?

As I have said, the matter is still under actual consideration.

Since it appears to be plain that the German consulate was used for this purpose, will the Prime Minister take up the matter with the German Government and ask for the removal of the consul who was responsible?

I cannot say what action the Government will take. We must first find out what actually happened.

asked the Prime Minister whether all trading and political agreements, agreed upon between nations, are reported to the Assembly of the League of Nations?

Under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, every treaty or international engagement entered into by a member of the League must be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. States which are not members of the League are naturally not bound by this provision.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Anglo-Italian Agreement to maintain the status quo in the Mediterranean, he has any statement to make on the recently signed German-Italian military alliance; and whether the Italian Government have at any time recently suggested the negotiation of their differences with France?

From the published text of the agreement signed on 22nd May between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Italy and Germany, there does not seem to be any provision that could be held to be inconsistent with Italy's obligations under the declaration of 2nd January, 1937, which was reaffirmed in the Anglo-Italian Agreement of 16th April, 1938. I am not in a position to make any statement as to what may or may not have passed between the Italian and French Governments on the subject referred to in the last part of the question.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by the German Foreign Secretary on the occasion of the signing of this treaty namely, that it was a reply to the democratic war inciters, and will he not again take an opportunity of making it plain that His Majesty's Government are prepared to cooperate with any country which will observe the rules of international law and justice?

I do not think that alters what I have said in my answer.

Does it not appear that this so-called German-Italian military alliance is only a euphemistic way of saying that the Italian army has been placed under German control?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not enter into any formal discussions with the German Government on the subject of the release of Czecho-Slovak assets in this country unless they are satisfied that they will not thereby be according de facto recognition to the German annexation of Czecho-Slovakia;

(2) why Treasury officials have been permitted to enter into conversations with the German foreign office on the subject of the release of Czecho-Slovak assets in this country, in view of the fact that the German Government has no authority or status to negotiate in a matter solely concerning Czecho-Slovakia; and whether the Czecho-Slovak legation in London was informed or consulted before the conversations began?

The informal conversations which have taken place did not imply de facto recognition of the new status of Bohemia and Moravia, and my hon. Friend will have appreciated from the answer which I have just given to the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) and South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the question of recognition is being considered in connection with the future of the representation of His Majesty's Government in Prague. It will be understood from what I have said that there was no occasion to consult the Czecho-Slovak Legation in London in connection with the informal conversations referred to.

Arising out of the answer. First, may I ask whether it is not a fact that formal negotiations are contemplated, as was indicated in the Prime Minister's answer yesterday, and that there is a danger that these formal conversations will in fact imply a de facto recognition? Secondly, is it not a fact that the Czechoslovak Legation still enjoys full diplomatic status, and would it not have been normal to consult or inform them before entering into negotiations with another Government about Czech affairs?

I have explained that the question of the de facto recognition of the new status of Bohemia and Moravia was being considered in connection with the future representation of His Majesty's Government at Prague, and not in connection with any formal discussions.

Is it not quite inconsistent with the policy of collective resistance to aggression that His Majesty's Government should be considering the question of recognising the German annexation of Bohemia and Moravia? Will the Prime Minister not give us an assurance that the Government will not recognise the German annexation?

I have said that the matter is being considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "informal conversations" is only a euphemistic description of conversations between Treasury officials and the Germans regarding the property of the Czech people, the savings of 20 years, which are to be handed over to the Germans? Surely, if these are called informal conversations it is a great reflection upon England because they certainly could not be formal.

Were any representatives of the Czecho-Slovakia Bank associated with these conversations?

Not with the informal discussions. I think they would be with formal discussions.

Can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that no de facto recognition will be given without this House first being consulted?

I cannot give such an assurance.

Are we to understand that the Government are contemplating giving formal recognition to the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia by Germany?

No, Sir. I did not say that. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in his place when I gave the earlier answer. I said that the position was being considered. The question of giving an assurance as to what we would or would not do before asking the House is another matter altogether.

I think this is a point upon which the House wants to be clear. Can we have an assurance that no decision will be taken in this matter until the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

I cannot give that assurance, and it is not usual for an assurance of that kind to be given, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The House has its own way of expressing its approval or not.

The Prime Minister will realise that it is not usual to have one Government forcibly seized by another.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister told the House after the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia that the Government did not recognise the legality or the validity of this act—an announcement which was received with universal approval, may we not have an assurance that the House will be consulted before that policy is reversed?

Are the Government still pursuing a policy of appeasement?

In view of the very unsatisfactory replies we have received I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment on Friday.

asked the Prime Minister whether, before the Government consent to the release of any Czechoslovak assets in this country which are covered by the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions on Banking Accounts, etc.) Act, 1939, an opportunity will be afforded for consulting the opinion of the House?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).

In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer this point yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend, while there can be no objection to the release of money of this kind to assist refugees or to satisfy British claims, whether we may be assured that any balance that may be left over will not be released for transfer to Germany without prior consultation with this House?

I understand that my right hon. Friend said that if an agreement was reached, it would be laid before Parliament in the usual way. The purpose of the agreement would be to ensure that British holders of these bonds, etc., would be paid their due rates of interest. My right hon. Friend said that if an agreement was reached, it would be laid before Parliament in the usual way.

What is meant by "in the usual way"?

It would be laid before Parliament, which would probably have an opportunity of taking cognisance of it.

Before it became effective?

When the point had been reached. The position is that the Treasury are empowered under the Act to restrict balances and assets pending a satisfactory agreement being made.

The point of my question was to find out whether, apart from these perfectly unobjectionable releases, we could be assured that no money would be released to Germany—that is not the matter to which my right hon. Friend referred—without this House first being consulted.

I can say this, that there is no intention of releasing money to Germany.

What is the point of an agreement with Germany? We are, I presume, exchanging real assets in London for promises of the German Government. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks that is a satisfactory arrangement, and whether he would not prefer to retain assets rather than to have promises?

asked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of men under the age of 25 who have been unable to learn to fly under the Civil Air Guard scheme owing to the Civil Air Guard being full up; and the total number of women over the age of 25 at present under instruction under the Civil Air Guard scheme, or holding A licences as a result of training under this scheme?

Applicants to join the Civil Air Guard are not required to state their age at the time of application, but only when examined for vacancies for definite enrolment. The total number of women over the age of 25 at present under instruction is 338. Of this total, 118 are in possession of pilot's licences of whom 59 have gained their licences since joining the Civil Air Guard.

Has there been any alteration in the scheme?

After consultation between the Ministry and the Civil Air Guard it has been approved that as long as there are men whose age may render them suitable for entering one of the categories for service in the Royal Air Force, preference will be given to men under 40, but the proportion of men over 40 and women shall not together exceed 10 per cent. of the total membership of each unit. Men over 40 qualified as pilots will not be subject to restriction as to numbers.

Instead of limiting the number why not extend the facilities for training rather than limit the number of men and women over 25 who can be trained?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the fact that persons who, purely from patriotic motives, join the Civil Air Guard, are put to considerable expense in travelling to and from the aerodromes and, in addition to giving up their time for lectures and drills, are compelled to provide themselves with uniform, he will consider making some allowance to cover the cost of uniform?

With the aid of a contribution from public funds the Civil Air Guard scheme provides facilities for flying instruction at reduced rates for men and women wishing to fly. While fully appreciating both the spirit that prompts these men and women to come forward for flying instruction and the value of the Civil Air Guard movement generally, I do not consider, in all the circumstances, that provision of uniform at public expense would be justified.

Is it not a fact that these men are compelled to acquire uniforms, and seeing also that they are volunteers, does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that they are justified in expecting that the cost should be covered from the National Exchequer? Is he also aware that at the present time they have to pay between 10s. and £1 per cent. increase on their life insurance, and in view of the fact that they are now being asked to volunteer for foreign service, does he not consider that these errors should be rectified?

Firstly, there is no compulsion on any member of the Civil Air Guard to wear a uniform; secondly, they are not being asked to volunteer for foreign service; and, thirdly, the financial arrangements for the Air Guard scheme were fully notified, and there should be no misunderstanding among the members that the conditions under which they can get flying training for this service at a very low cost to themselves are made largely at the Government's expense, and that the Government's contribution could not go beyond that which was agreed upon with the clubs at the inception of the scheme.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the men have, in fact, been asked to volunteer for foreign service? If he wishes, I can give him proof that that is so.

I should be glad to receive any information as to some misconception which may have existed in some particular unit. I can only give an assurance that there has been no request by the Commissioners that the men should be asked to volunteer for any foreign service.

Are not all the members of the Civil Air Guard expected to wear uniforms? My hon. and gallant Friend said he thought they were not, but I understand that they have to do so.

The Commissioners expressed the hope that the members would get a uniform which is provided by themselves, but there is no obligation, nor is it a condition of their training, that they must acquire it.

Would it not be very uncomfortable for one man in a dozen to be without a uniform because he could not afford it?

asked the Secretary of State for Air the cause of the postponement of the North Atlantic air service?

The commencement of the North Atlantic service has been postponed for a number of reasons. Engines and airscrews could not be installed in the S.30 boats by the required date owing to the necessity for improving engine cooling on the Perseus XIIc type which are installed for the first time in this type of aircraft. The operating company are now anxious, before the in- auguration of the service, thoroughly to test out these engines by a 400 hours' flight test, an arrangement with which my right hon. Friend is in agreement but which, it will be appreciated, must take a considerable and indeterminate time dependent upon weather and other conditions. The practical tests which have been carried out with flight-refuelling have also revealed an uneven filling of tanks and the need for alteration in the fuel-jettisoning system in the interests of safety. I regret the necessity for the postponement of the commencement of this service but my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the desirability of the postponement in the interests of eventual operational safety and efficiency. The previous programme of which the House was informed was necessarily provisional and must now be modified but I am hopeful that the service may commence in July.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us whether the American service has started?

The Pan-American Airways boat reached Southampton yesterday, and I am informed that it left to-day at 10.13, and is due to reach the United States on Saturday next.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that out of the total nominal assets of British Airways, Limited, shown as £689,138, in the latest available balance sheet, £363,587 stands to development account corresponding to no tangible assets; that the company itself and its subsidiaries have made annual losses; and what was the basis for fixing the total effective purchasing price of this company at £573,500?

The value of the tangible assets of British Airways at 30th September, 1938, was found to be roughly equivalent to advances by shareholders amounting to £311,000. The further sum of £262,500, which is included in the proposed purchase price, represents the amount which, after negotiation, was attributed to the value of the organisation built up by the company and the experience which it had gained, account being also taken of the fact that the company had reached a stage in its growth when it could reasonably expect to obtain some return for its past expenditure on development.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the excess amount is upon goodwill, and is not the goodwill, in fact, the promise of the Government to pay money to the company; and, further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the announcement was made a few days ago, the 5s. shares of Hillman Airways, which, in fact, own a certain amount of shares in British Airways, stood at is. 6d. and that after his announcement they rose to approximately 2s., which is, in fact, their value under the agreement?

As regards the first supplementary question, I stated that the amount of £262,500 was attributable to the value of the organisation built up by the company and other matters referred to in the answer. As regards the second supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman will recall my statement with regard to his other question last week, that—and I do not think he will disagree with me—in dealing with this kind of question, the market price of the shares is not a suitable guide.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman give this action its proper name? Is it not a ramp?

No, Sir.

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend's statement is affected by the fact that "Blue Peter" has won the Derby?

Were not all the factors enumerated in assessing the value of these shares taken into account by the market, and is not the market value a better indication of the real value of the shares than the Government actuaries?

No, Sir. I ventured to point out on the last occasion that the prices of Imperial Airways shares on the market have varied very considerably. I do not think anyone who was responsible for this transaction would desire to base the value to be paid by the Government on the actual quotations for the time being on the Stock Exchange. They vary from time to time.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the local education authority of the county of Gloucester are to make arrangements in connection with the provision of a senior school serving several parishes, including Quedgeley and Hardwicke; and whether he can give them any information as to the total number of men likely to be employed by his Department in this area during the next few years?

Yes, Sir. I am aware of the proposal of the Gloucestershire Education Committee to provide a senior school to meet the needs of this part of the county. As I have already informed by hon. Friend, the total number of civilians likely to be employed in the district by the Air Ministry is about 1,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is intended with regard to land required at Barningham Parva, Norfolk; what acreage is involved; and how many alternative sites have been considered?

The land to which my hon. Friend refers is under consideration by my Department for use as a landing ground. The area involved amounts to 285 acres. Eleven alternative sites have so far been considered but none has been found to be suitable.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will arrange for the grass taken from aerodromes to be dried or stored in order to decrease the tonnage of imported feeding-stuffs required for our livestock population?

Arrangements already exist under which my Department enters into contracts with firms interested in grass preservation. The firms maintain the aerodrome surface and cut and fertilise as necessary. During this year, contracts have been let in respect of 13 Royal Air Force aerodromes and further contracts will be arranged where opportunity offers and operational requirements permit.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Mr. Archibald Safford, reporting on his committee of inquiry with regard to the free carriage of children on public service vehicles, suggested that the three-years age-limit should not be regarded as a universal rule, and that local circumstances might justify an exception; and whether he will reconsider his decision to impose the three-years age-limit on the Birmingham Corporation?

Mr. Safford, who had had the advantage of hearing counsel on behalf of the Birmingham Corporation, states in paragraph 36 of his report: There may be local circumstances not within my knowledge that would justify an exception. I can only say that no such circumstances were brought to my attention. In any case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Sir Smedley Crooke) was informed on 8th May, I have no power to re-open an appeal which has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Statute.

Surely under Section 81 of the Road Transport Act, my right hon. Friend has the right to vary any specific order? What I ask him to do is to agree to consider whether there are not circumstances which ought to make this free carriage apply to children up to the age of five.

I am afraid that Mr. Safford said in his report that he did not think so. I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend but I am advised that I have not the power to alter the decision.

Is the Minister aware that the decision which was given does not affect trolley buses and tramcars, and, therefore, those districts which are served by petrol buses are now being penalised and are being unjustly treated, as compared with those districts which are served by other forms of public transport?

Yes, Sir, I am perfectly well aware what the decision is.

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in the case of Birmingham, as of other large cities, the people most affected are those who have been pushed out of the centre of the city to live five or six miles out, and that it is a very definite hardship on working class people to have to pay for children between three and five and will he give very serious reconsideration to the whole question?

I have said that I am prepared to discuss it with my hon. Friend, but I am advised that I have no power to reopen the case, now that the statutory procedure has been gone through and it has been decided.

Has the Minister no power to go back to the gentleman who held the inquiry and ask him to reconsider his recommendation in view of the representations which have been made.

No, I understand that I have no power to reopen the case.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the many recommendations against the lack of proper road lighting, and the varying standards where some lighting exists, he will state what steps are now to be taken, in the interests of road safety, to effect a suitable system of road lighting throughout the country?

The recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Street Lighting have been brought to the notice of the principal lighting authorities and the systems which have recently been installed show that regard is being had to the committee's recommendations. I have no power over the lighting of any roads, other than trunk roads, where the Minister of Transport can enter into agreements with the responsible lighting authorities. In all cases where I have made such agreements for the lighting of trunk roads my Department is careful to satisfy itself as to the adequacy of the installation proposed.

In view of the fact that the committee has reported that chaos is being caused and that danger arises from the fact that there are so many lighting authorities, with different powers in different areas, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to reconsider the whole question of lighting, with a view to getting some kind of uniform standard?

That would, obviously, require legislation, but the question will be borne in mind if there is an opportunity for legislation.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he approves in principle of the Transport Advisory Council's Report; and, if so, whether he will take immediate steps for the preparation of the statutory scheme to carry it out?

asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take on the report of the Transport Advisory Council on the railways application?

The Government have decided to accept in principle the recommendations of the Transport Advisory Council in their report on the proposals of the main line railways; and I should like to pay tribute to the work of Sir Arthur Griffith Boscawen and his colleagues. The specific changes in the law which may be involved require careful consideration, but it is intended to introduce appropriate legislation as soon as possible next Session.

asked the Minister of Transport on what date the recent report of the Transport Advisory Council was first made publicly available; and how the main line companies were enabled to publish a résumé of the report before the report itself was available for Members of this House?

The report was made available to the public early on Friday morning, 19th May, and the hon. Member will appreciate that, though published by the Stationery Office, it is not a Parliamentary Paper. Copies of the report in the form in which it was agreed by the council have naturally been in the possession of all members of the council since the day it was signed. I understand that the railway companies' representatives on the council prepared a resume for the purpose of forestalling the numerous inquiries they anticipated, and they arranged to release that resume at the same time as the report itself was made available to the public.

Having regard to the considerable number of questions which have been asked in this House as evidence of the interest and anxiety of Members of the House about the terms of the report, would it not have been better had that report been made available to the House before it was available to interested parties outside the House?

This is a matter on which a question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in another connection. This report is not a Parliamentary paper, and hon Members have to go through the procedure of applying to the Vote Office or the Stationery Office for it. I regret very much if any hon. Member thinks that the House has been treated with discourtesy, but, frankly, I do not think that any harm has been done.

On a point of Order. Is it not the case that a number of these reports were formerly issued as Parliamentary papers but that the right of Members of this House to get them in the Vote Office was taken away during the "Geddes Axe" period of economy, and do you not think, Mr. Speaker, it is high time that these State papers were laid before the House and treated as Parliamentary papers one again?

That is hardly a point of Order. It was decided a long time ago, and I should want to consider it very carefully before I made any alteration in the present practice.

We were told at the time that, in order to save expense, these papers would not be issued to Members who did not, it was thought, take any particular interest in them, and that we must apply to the Stationery Office for them if we wanted them. They were, therefore, still treated as Parliamentary papers, but it was decided that application would have to be made for them. Consequently, are not Members of this House entitled to receive copies of these papers, before they are issued to the general public?

I would have to consider that point very carefully before I gave an answer.

Although, as the Minister says, this report was not a Parliamentary paper, yet it was a report to the Minister of Transport, and in those circumstances would it not have been better that Members of this House should have had priority in seeing the terms of that report?

As I have said, I am very sorry if any right hon. or hon. Gentleman finds himself in any way aggrieved, but it never occurred to me to issue the report otherwise than as it has been issued.

Did the railway companies communicate with the right hon. Gentleman's Department stating that it was their intention to publish a resume of the report?

I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the train service between Raynham Aerodrome and Fakenham, Norfolk; and whether he will take steps to secure that extra omnibus services are instituted to enable airmen and their families stationed at this aerodrome to travel to this neighbouring town?

The railway company have furnished me with particulars of the train services which are available for this aerodrome, which has quite recently been opened, and have assured me that they will be very ready to provide additional facilities as soon as the traffic warrants them. As regards road transport, I have no power to compel omnibus operators to institute any particular services. If they wish to do so, their applications are considered by the Traffic Commissioners, and I have no power to interfere with the commissioners' discretion to grant licences unless an appeal against their decision is made to me under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I am informed that the commissioners for the area in question will very shortly consider applications by local omnibus operators for licences to run omnibus services between the points mentioned.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the financial difficulties that have arisen in connection with the Ruckholt Road bridge, Leyton, portion of the East-West road scheme about which advice has been tendered to him by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and whether, in view of the inability of the county council financially to assist the Leyton council, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I am aware that the Highways Committee of the Essex County Council have refused to recommend the council to make a contribution as they consider that this part of the East-West connection should be constructed as a trunk road and the whole cost defrayed from the Road Fund. I am not in a position to entertain this suggestion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as he is not prepared to entertain this suggestion, it means that the development will impose very severe financial burdens on the ratepayers, both of Leyton and of Essex generally; and will he not do something to relieve the ratepayers of that burden?

Unfortunately that does not alter the fact that Parliament laid down in the Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act what the trunk roads were to be, and I cannot put anything into that Schedule which is not there.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether arrangements have been made to secure supplies of chromium and chrome alloys adequate for the present and expanding munition programme?

I am advised that the answer is in the affirmative.

Is it not a fact that the Government have shown much more concern about securing adequate supplies for Germany than for this country?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) who compose the committee or advisory section of the Machine Tool Trades Association who agreed to the importation of machine tools; why have the needs not been met in this country; why are national factories not being established to manufacture the machine tools; can a statement be made on the costing system that the Government proposed to the Machine Tool Trades Association; why it was disagreed to; and what is the present position;

(2) whether he can make a statement on the consultations and negotiations that have taken place between Government representatives and the Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association; and if not, when he expects to be in a position to make such a statement?

Discussions regarding machine tools have been conducted with a special committee appointed by the Council of the Machine Tool Trades Association. The necessity for the importation of machine tools results not only from the large demands occasioned by the rearmament programme but from the desirability of maintaining our export connections. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, we have for some time past enjoyed a considerable overseas trade in machine tools. As regards the establishment of national factories for machine tools, I am advised that in view of the time required for constructing and equipping them, the carrying out of the programme would not be materially assisted by this means. Negotiations with the Machine Tool Trades Association are nearing their conclusion, and I hope shortly to be able to make a statement on this subject.

Could we be given the names of the special committee which has been advising in connection with this matter?

I could give the information if required.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the very great success of the Admiralty factory for jigs and gauges at Sheffield, and then reconsider the question of a national machine tool factory?

I am by no means closing the door to the suggestion of creating a factory of this kind if required. I was merely answering the hon. Member's question.

In view of the well-founded suspicion which exists in this trade and among all who are familiar with it, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer that point in the question which asks for the names of those who compose the advisory section or the special committee who are advisers on this matter?

Certainly, I will give that information if required. I thought the hon. Member really asked what committee had been conducting the matter, and I answered that it was a special committee elected by the association itself.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a suspicion that the committee are responsible for advising on the importation of these machine tools and that they are personally involved in it, and, in view of that suspicion, can we be given the names of the committee?

Certainly, I will give the names of the committee to the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, to the House."]—and to the House. I have nothing to conceal in this matter, but in my own view the suspicions that the hon. Member has mentioned are not well founded.

The question asks the Chancellor of the Duchy "who compose the committee." Is not that equivalent to asking for the names to be read out to the House in answer to the question?

I did not read it as such. I thought the hon. Member was asking for a description of the body concerned, and I have given it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not furnished, on the paper which he holds in his hands, with these names?

No, Sir.

Is it not a fact that at least two of the leading importers of foreign machine tools into this country are also leading members of that association?

In order to dispel any suggestion that these names have been concealed, I will undertake to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

On a point of Order. Can you, Mr. Speaker, tell us what remedy this House has against the inability of Government Departments to understand plain English?

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the value of the orders placed within the past 12 months with manufacturing firms in the Colne Valley, Yorkshire, Huddersfield and Dewsbury, respectively, for cloth for Army, Navy and Air Force purposes?

I regret that the collection of the necessary information would entail a great deal of work, which is undesirable under existing conditions of pressure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether steps are being taken to see that all competent manufacturers in the area have an opportunity of tendering for this cloth?

Yes, Sir. This particular contract for cloth is always put out to open tender.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why some officers in the Navy under the age of 30 years with the rank of lieutenant receive a marriage allowance and other officers of the same age and the same duties are not allowed to receive marriage allowances?

No payments of marriage allowance to lieutenants under 30 years of age have been authorised. I might add, however, that any warrant officers who may be promoted direct to lieutenant's rank under the scheme promulgated last March, and who are already in receipt of marriage allowance, will continue to receive it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the age at which officers and men of His Majesty's Navy will receive marriage allowance is to be lowered so as to conform with that announced for the Army by the Secretary of State for War?

As stated by the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Military Training Bill, it is the intention that the qualifying age at which men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines will become eligible for payment of marriage allowance should be reduced to 20 years. The date for the introduction of this change has not yet been settled. The reduction will also apply to warrant officers.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, when the repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter," occasioned by mine explosion in 1937, were completed; and what was the date of recommissioning this ship?

The repairs to His Majesty's Ship "Hunter" were completed on 10th November, 1938. The ship recommissioned on 18th October, 1938, for trials and subsequent service.

Have the costs of repairing this ship been fully discharged? Might I put it in another way? Have all the costs which have been incurred by His Majesty's Government in repairing this ship been fully met?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.