Commons Sitting of 15 October 1940

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    SMALLHOLDERS, SANDWICK PARKS.
    Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, when 35 holders settled on land in Sandwick Parks, acquired by the Department of Agriculture from the Stornoway Trustees in 1932, these smallholders were informed that they would get the benefit of the Derating Act, but despite this understanding they are now held responsible for both owners' and occupiers' rates, while it is held that ownership is vested in the agricultural Department; and what action does he propose taking to rectify the anomalous position of these smallholders?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): In the particulars of the scheme at Sandwick Parks issued to applicants in March, 1932, the subjects were described and let to applicants as "building sites to be let to bona fide fishermen." With the assistance of loans from the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the holders have erected houses on the sites. The incidence of probable rating was explained before entry. The ultimate decision regarding de-rating rests with the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, who have ruled, in disposing of four separate stated cases, that these subjects are not entitled to de-rating. I cannot agree that there is anything anomalous in the position and there does not appear to be any action which I could take in the matter.
    Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that at the time when these smallholders took possession, a statement appeared in the local Press, from the then Member of Parliament for the Division, that they would come under the Derating Act? Why should these smallholders be treated
    570
    differently from farmers who are enabled to enjoy the benefits of the Act?
    Mr. Brown: I am not responsible for what the local Member of Parliament says in the local Press. I know of no such undertaking. In regard to the other point, these smallholders are within the borough, and I have no jurisdiction there. The Lands Valuation Appeal Court is the final body. Four separate cases have been to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, which ruled that these holdings are not agricultural holdings.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Does the Minister's reply mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot review decisions of this Lands Valuation Appeal Court?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly. If there were to be an alteration, it would mean an alteration of the law not merely affecting these people but affecting everyone else concerned.

    ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in response to the resolution forwarded to him by the secretary of the Scottish Temperance Alliance, Edinburgh Council, regarding the Government failure to deal with the unrestricted use of alcoholic liquors, in order to prevent destruction of foodstuffs and secure efficiency?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have noted the terms of the resolution referred to. Apart from the increased duties which have been imposed upon exciseable liquors, the production of whiskey has been reduced to one-third of the amount produced last year, and the limit set on the production of beer has not, in fact, been reached. I understand that the brewing and distilling industries together are estimated to be using between 25 and 30 per cent. less raw materials than they did before the war. A careful watch is being kept on the incidence of consumption, and I am in touch, in this connection, with other Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Mathers: Apart from the destruction of foodstuffs that is involved here, does not the Minister think that the position has reached a serious pass when a member of the R.A.F. Intelligence Staff, convicted under the Defence Regulations,

    571
    has to plead that he did not know what he had been saying to contravene these regulations, while he was under the influence of drink; and is not that a case for consideration?
    Mr. Brown: That, of course, affects another Department, and I cannot be expected to answer for that Department.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that I know a teetotaller who blethers more than anybody else about everything?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MERCHANTS' STOCKS.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that coal merchants in some areas are unwilling to dump coal in large quantities for fear of destruction by enemy action and inability to insure such stocks; and will he make a statement on the subject?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am not aware of any general unwillingness among coal merchants to lay down stocks for the reasons suggested by my hon. Friend; but if he will send me particulars of any individual cases he has in mind I will have them investigated. The Chamber of Coal Traders has recently drawn the attention of its members to the steps which should be taken by any coal merchant who suffers loss through enemy action; and, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 8th October, a statement may shortly be expected regarding a comprehensive scheme of insurance for property not covered by the present compulsory Commodity Insurance Scheme. These arrangements should reassure any coal merchant who may be reluctant, for the reasons suggested, to lay down stocks.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the Minister for the reply, may I say that I am sure that he will understand that small coal merchants on the South-East coast, where towns are being bombed, are obviously unwilling to stock coal?
    Mr. Grenfell: Really, we do not know of any very large-scale unwillingness on the part of coal merchants. There have been other difficulties, but that is not the great difficulty.

    VALLEYFIELD COLLIERY ACCIDENT.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary for Mines whether any report on the Valley-field colliery disaster, which occurred a year ago, has been submitted by the Commissioner; and when it is proposed to publish it?
    Mr. Grenfell: The Commissioner's report was published at the end of September as Command Paper No. 6226.
    Mr. Gallacher: May I ask whether the Minister intends, arising out of the character of the report, to prosecute the company?
    Mr. Grenfell: I do not prosecute, but the report has been sent to the Lord Advocate for investigation of the charges that are made there.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Apart from any intended legal action, is the Department loking into the revelations of the Commissioner's report with a view to taking administrative action?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, there are many defects which have given me concern. I said so when I spoke in the House on the last occasion. I have already taken the trouble of meeting all inspectors of mines and urging them to give attention to defects of the kind set out in that report.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider discussing this matter with workmen's inspectors?
    Mr. Grenfell: There has been an extension of power to workmen's inspectors. I will require to see how well they are represented under these powers, and, when new appointments are complete, I will consider having a meeting of the workmen's inspectors to discuss this problem and cognate matters.

    STEAMSHIP "CITY OF BENARES" (LASCARS).
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in what circumstances and on whose responsibility the "City of Benares," manned by lascars unsuited to the cold Atlantic route, was chartered to convey children who were being evacuated to Canada; and whether he will give an assurance that, on evacuation of children

    573
    being resumed, vessels and crews familiar with and suited to the appropriate routes will be chartered and chosen, respectively?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): Accommodation in the "City of Benares" for the conveyance of a number of children to Canada was offered to and accepted by the Children's Overseas Reception Board in accordance with the general arrangements made with the Ministry of Shipping. The fact that the crew consisted predominantly of lascars, whose qualities of seamanship have been proved by long experience, was not considered as justifying a refusal of the accommodation offered. As is the normal practice in the case of companies employing such seamen, the lascars were supervised by the usual complement of non-lascar officers and men which the owning company employs. The Ministry of Shipping has only offered the Children's Overseas Reception Board ships if they are found to be well equipped and suitable for the conveyance of children and if the scheme is resumed the same careful practice will be followed.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern in various parts of the country, because lascars are obviously not suited to the cold North Atlantic winds?
    Mr. Shakespeare: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that, about 2½ years ago, on the representation of the India Office that lascars should be used on the North Atlantic route, the Board of Trade held a very exhaustive inquiry and cross-examined all shipowners who had experience in the use of lascars, and that, as a result, the Board of Trade allowed ships to ply with lascar crews, because of their seamanship and dependability.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it not true to say that the seamen's and officers' unions have always protested against the use of lascar seamen on the North Atlantic routes and that ordinarily lascar seamen are not employed on those routes? Why should the hon. Gentleman pretend, because there was a Board of Trade inquiry, that it is now appropriate to the circumstances?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I am pointing out only that, after the fullest inquiry two and a half years ago, permission was given
    574
    for the employment of lascars on the North Atlantic route.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Were the seamen's and officers' organisations called into consultation by the Board of Trade at that inquiry, and, if not, why not? Why say that a full inquiry was held?
    Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question to the Minister of Shipping?
    Mr. Maclean: You know that the inquiry was not a full one.
    Major Milner: In regard to compensation arising out of this accident, to whom should application be made?
    Mr. Shakespeare: I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put that Question on the Paper.

    STEAMSHIP "AL RAWDAH" (INTERNEES).
    Mr. McGovernasked the Minister of Shipping the reason for placing the steamship "Al Rawdah" at the service of the Government of Northern Ireland as a sea prison for 216 internees, in view of the need for conserving our shipping, the cost of this ship and the alterations made; and whether he has made inquiry as to the safety of the lives of the persons interned in this anchored prison ship in view of the chances of bombing or submarine attack?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter): The "Al Rawdah" was placed at the disposal of the Government of Northern Ireland at their request, and at their cost, to provide accommodation for internees for whose safe custody Northern Ireland was responsible and for whom they had, at that time, no other suitable accommodation available. As regards the cost falling on the Government of Northern Ireland, and the policy of using a ship for this purpose, I would suggest that the hon. Member address his inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Mr. McGovern: Can no action be taken to see that shipping is put to proper use and that the Government of Northern Ireland are allowed to provide on their own territory some means of maintaining these persons instead of in shipping?
    Sir A. Salter: Certainly, the Minister of Shipping would be extremely happy if it were possible to make any other arrangement which would release this shipping. At the urgent request of the Government of Northern Ireland we had no alternative to shipping accommodation, and this ship was provided. As to the policy of commandeering shipping for that purpose, I suggest that the Question be addressed to the Home Department.
    Mr. McGovern: Can representations be addressed to the Government of Northern Ireland by the hon. Gentleman's Department, with a view to seeing that this ship is released? Surely representations can be made?
    Sir A. Salter: We are in communication now on that subject.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (BOAT DRILLS).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Shipping what steps are taken to ensure that the crews of vessels in British ports are given practice in the handling of ships' boats between voyages so as to ensure efficient handling of the ship's boat in case of emergency at sea?
    Sir A. Salter: The peace-time requirements in regard to musters and drills of crews were supplemented in July last by the Merchant Shipping (Additional Life Saving Appliances) (No. 2) Rules, 1940, which require such drills to be held in ships, at intervals of not more than one week, for exercising the crew in the practical use of the life saving appliances. One such drill is to be held before the ship leaves port or before reaching the open sea, unless the Master is reasonably satisfied that the crew has received proper training in the use of the life saving appliances by means of previous drills in that ship.
    Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps are taken by his Department to see that these exercises are taken, and is he aware that there is evidence of the inability on the part of the ships' crews to lower the boats during an emergency at sea?
    Sir A. Salter: I have no information on that point, but as regards the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member
    576
    that the exercises should take place between voyages—that is, on land—the official view is that it is better to have the exercises on the ship itself, as the present rules provide.
    Mr. Shinwell: Was there not a recent case in which a ship was torpedoed and the only person capable of handling the ship's lifeboats was a boy of 18?
    Sir A. Salter: I have heard of no such case.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the reports which have appeared in the Press are not correct and that these reports have not come to the mind of the Ministry of Shipping?
    Sir A. Salter: Possibly they are correct, but if the hon. Member has the name of the ship and would give it to me, he would help me.

    FRENCH PICTURES, BERMUDA.
    Mr. Garro Jonesasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he will make a statement about the recent seizure at Bermuda of a large number of works of art belonging to the French Vichy Government; and, further, what is the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to any practicable measures of control over supplies of foreign currency for that Government?
    The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir. It came to the knowledge of officers of my Department that more than 500 pictures, some of which appeared to be valuable, had been shipped in the steamship "Excalibur" from Lisbon to New York via Bermuda. Thereupon, instructions were given for these pictures to be removed from the ship on her arrival at Bermuda. This was done on 3rd October and the pictures were landed and have been placed in Prize under the Reprisals Order in Council. The pictures are said to include works by Renoir, Cézanne, Gauguin, Dégas, Picasso and other French artists. It appears possible that these pictures were abstracted from a well known Paris collection. In reply to the second part of the Question, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, as announced by me on 30th July, to take all practicable measures to prevent the acquisition of

    577
    foreign exchange by the enemy. An important means to this end is the prevention, wherever possible, of exports from all enemy or enemy controlled territories including unoccupied France.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Are these works of art of any considerable importance from the point of view of foreign currency? What is to be their ultimate destination and custodianship?
    Mr. Dalton: As I have said, at the present moment they are placed in Prize at Bermuda under the Reprisals Order in Council, which, as my hon. Friend knows, governs our dealings with exports to enemy and enemy-controlled territories. It is reasonable, I think, to assume that they should be moved from the climate at Bermuda at a fairly early date, as that may have an enervating effect upon them, and it is now under consideration as to where they could best be stored for the duration of the war, at any rate, so that, on the one hand, they may not suffer physical damage and, on the other hand, that they may be seen by a large number of people from the point of view of their artistic value. I am now considering what we can do to achieve those two ends.
    Mr. Leslie Boyce: Would not the equable climate of Bermuda be ideal for them until next Spring?
    Mr. Dalton: I am advised not.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    BILLETING.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that where empty houses are used for billeting the fuel allowance is sufficient to provide adequate heating for the houses?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Commanding officers have authority, in cases where the normal scale is insufficient, to issue the extra fuel necessary to secure a reasonable degree of comfort.
    Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for War how many troops are still under canvas and how long they are expected to continue to be so housed?
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Secretary of State for war (1) when
    578
    all Army units will be housed in winter quarters either in huts or billets;
    (2) whether he can give an assurance that all ranks will be billeted during the coming winter months either in huts or buildings?
    Mr. Law: I cannot state with accuracy how many troops are still under canvas, or how long they will remain so, but steady progress is being made with the provision of suitable winter accommodation, and every week will see a reduction in the number of men in tents. It will be realised that operational needs make it impossible to disperse troops over a wide area according merely to the availability of accommodation, and there is the further difficulty that the housing of persons evacuated from London and other bombed areas has taken up accommodation which might otherwise have been available for troops. Huts are being built all over the country as rapidly as labour can be spared from other essential defence work, and no means of housing the troops is being neglected. I would remind my hon. Friends that the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from France, as well as the bombing of the civil population, has added very considerably to the problem as it was envisaged some few months ago.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that there is no shortage of labour with regard to building those huts, and that many building firms are doing absolutely nothing?
    Mr. Law: There is, however, a shortage of material and of certain forms of labour.

    TENTS (SLEEPING CONDITIONS).
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that no men are now sleeping on palliasses in tents with no floor-boards?
    Mr. Law: No, Sir. Floor-boards are only issued, on medical recommendation, to camps where conditions are such as to necessitate their use.
    Miss Ward: The Question I asked was whether any men were sleeping on palliasses in tents on floor-boards. As I understand, there is quite a number, and it has been impossible to get bedsteads for the men.
    Mr. Law: The position is that floor-boards are issued only in cases where the medical authorities consider it to be necessary. In other cases where men are sleeping on palliasses, they do have groundsheets as well, and in the opinion of medical authorities that is sufficient.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that instructions have been issued by the War Office to the Commands that bedsteads should be made locally for searchlight stations, in particular where men are in isolated spots, surely it cannot be correct for men in tents to sleep on palliasses?

    SHORT LEAVE.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers encamped in districts adjacent to London, who have short leave in London are often compelled to return to camp several hours late as a result of delays caused by air raids; that such men are frequently penalised by extra fatigues; and whether he will take steps to ensure that soldiers who can provide evidence that their lateness is directly due to causes outside their control shall not be subject to punishment of any kind?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I am sure that commanding officers may be relied upon to make a proper use of their discretionary powers in such cases, and I am not aware of any instances to the contrary. I will, of course, investigate any specific cases, if particulars are given to me.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be desirable for the Minister to issue a notice to commanding officers drawing their attention to the fact that soldiers will be delayed during air raids and that allowance should be made for the fact?
    Sir E. Grigg: No, Sir; I think commanding officers can be relied upon to take notice of that fact.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether, since many members of the Home Guard have been asked by their insurance companies to pay 5 per cent. increase or more for their insurances, he will convene a conference of authorised representatives of all insurance companies throughout the country for the purpose of obtaining a ruling which will be universally adopted by them
    580
    all to exclude and delete the naval and military clauses which are embodied in many of these policies, so as to ensure that members of the Home Guard are not penalised as a result of their patriotic endeavours to assist the country?
    Mr. Culverwellasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain insurance companies are demanding an additional premium from life insurance policy holders to guarantee payment in cases of insured persons who are members of the Home Guard; whether he is further aware that this has led to resignations from the Home Guard; and what action he proposes taking to remedy this situation?
    Sir E. Grigg: The importance of this subject to the Home Guard is fully recognised, and I am arranging for an early conference between the various Government Departments which are interested in it.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend really tackle the insurance companies? Is he not aware that it is no use the insurance companies saying that they are actually prepared to go outside their contracts in their desire to be generous? The situation about the Home Guards' life insurance is confused and unsatisfactory. It should be made quite clear to the insurance companies that they need not fear the unknown future if they do the right thing now.
    Sir E. Grigg: I can assure my hon. Friend that that matter is having attention.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: When this matter is considered will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a man may fall between two stools? On account of the nature of the injury he may not get Government compensation, and he may be shut out from insurance because he is a member of the Forces in some shape or form.
    Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to issue serge battle-dress to members of the Home Guard for the purpose of winter duty?
    Major Milnerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in

    581
    a position to make the promised statement on questions relating to the Home Guard?
    Sir E. Grigg: I regret that I am not in a position to make the statement which my right hon. Friend promised upon various matters relating to the Home Guard. The statement will be made very shortly, and will deal with the question of battle-dress amongst others.

    AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that every member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service has a great-coat and has a bedstead to sleep on?
    Sir E. Grigg: Every member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service has either a greatcoat or a rainproof coat with fleece lining. Every member should have either a bedstead with wire mattress or a camp bed. If the hon. Lady knows of any cases where they are not available, I shall be grateful for the information, and will make immediate inquiry into it.
    Miss Ward: Is it a fact that the War Office have decided to issue no great-coats to the Auxiliary Territorial Service people until the supply of mackintoshes with fleece linings is used up? Will my hon. Friend inquire into that, and see that it is altered?
    Sir E. Grigg: I cannot give any assurance about the supply of greatcoats, because the issue is a matter of difficulty. It also affects the Home Guard.
    Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend see that greatcoats are issued as a necessity? It is a matter of great importance.
    Sir E. Grigg: I cannot undertake the issue of greatcoats for the Auxiliary Territorial Service in addition to mackintoshes.

    EYE PROTECTION.
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the number of cases in the last war where men in the services lost the sight of one eye or both eyes, some of which cases might have been saved by some protective device, and as a result of the experience now gained, any steps have been taken to prevent many such injuries during the present war by means of protective devices
    582
    attached to the service men's steel helmets?
    Mr. Law: This matter is under active investigation, and trials are in progress. A device attached to the steel helmet is one of those under trial.
    Sir R. Young: In view of the large amount of money paid in pensions to blinded and partly blinded soldiers as the result of the last war, will the Minister hurry up a decision on this matter?

    POSTAL FACILITIES (EGYPT AND THE NEAR EAST).
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the long delays in receiving letters from the troops in Egypt and the Near East; and whether alternative routes through Odessa and Murmansk or at senders risk by convoy through the Mediterranean have been considered?
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Captain Waterhouse): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that, owing to the interruption of the normal routes, the time of transmission of mails from Egypt and the Near East has unfortunately been considerably increased, but I can assure my hon. Friend that all possible steps are being taken to improve the service. The possibility of using a route via Russia has been kept constantly in sight, but has not been found to be practicable. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics send mails from that country to the United Kingdom via Siberia and the United States of America. My Department is in the closest touch with the Ministry of Shipping and the Service Departments and no possible outlet for mails either to or from the Near East is neglected.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Would it not be possible to ask Sir Stafford Cripps to approach the Soviet Government and ask them to do us this service of sending ships direct to England and thereby facilitate letters?
    Captain Waterhouse: I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Russians themselves send their mails via Siberia.
    Mr. Wedgwood: But, if you ask them, they might do it.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any evidence as to the use by the enemy of British prisoners of war to clear up debris after raids by the Royal Air Force on military objectives in occupied countries?
    Sir E. Grigg: My attention has been drawn to a photograph which appeared in a newspaper purporting to depict British prisoners of war clearing up debris caused by bombardments of Calais by the Royal Air Force. I understand that the employment of prisoners of war on such work would be contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1929, and would, if it is confirmed, necessitate a strong protest to the German Government. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the subject.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible to employ captured German airmen for filling in craters on farms in the country as a reprisal?
    Sir E. Grigg: I am not prepared to accept the argument that because the enemy breaks Conventions we should also break them.
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War what meals are provided by the German Government for British prisoners of war in Germany; and how the quality and quantity compare with the meals provided in Britain for German prisoners of war?
    Sir E. Grigg: Reports received from International Red Cross delegates who visited prisoner-of-war camps in Germany in August indicate that British prisoners of war were then being rationed, in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention of 1929, on the same scale as German depot troops. The United States authorities have been asked to verify this, as it appears from other reports that some British prisoners of war are being rationed on the German civilian scale. The scale for German depot troops is lower than that for British troops at home, on which German prisoners of war are fed, and the German civilian scale is lower still.
    Sir A. Knox: Is there not any way of bringing home to the German authorities
    584
    that our people must be adequately fed? There is definite information that the food is not sufficient, and conditions will be worse when the winter comes on?
    Sir E. Grigg: We can only act through the protecting Powers, which we are endeavouring to do.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that all prisoners of war in Germany are being treated in accordance with the international convention, and, especially, that no discrimination is exercised against prisoners from particular regiments and divisions?
    Sir E. Grigg: There are certain matters, for instance, feeding, in which I am not satisfied that British prisoners of war are being treated strictly in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention, and the necessary representations have been made. I have no information pointing to discrimination against prisoners from particular regiments and divisions, and I think it unlikely that such discrimination exists, as the majority of the prisoners are in two camps, one for officers and one for other ranks.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been called to the report published broadcast in the Press that the 51st Highland Division was being discriminated against by the Germans, that parcels were not being received by them and that they were being badly fed and ill-treated compared with other prisoners of war? Can he give any assurance to the people who are much concerned about this that that is not the case?
    Sir E. Grigg: I have seen the report, but I have been unable to obtain any verification of it. I can give the hon. Member a complete assurance that we will do our utmost for prisoners of the 51st Division, as for all other prisoners of war.

    PRINCE VON STAHREMBERG.
    Mr. Wedgwoodasked the Secretary of State for War the salary and emoluments now received by Prince Von Stahremberg, serving in the French Air Force; and whether they are being paid at present by His Majesty's Government?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I have been asked to reply. The information asked for

    585
    by the right hon. Gentleman is being obtained, and, if he will put down his Question for a later date, I shall hope to be able to give him the reply.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    WINTER CLOTHING, A.R.P. SERVICES.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he appreciates the need for an issue of mackintoshes and stout boots to air-raid precautions wardens; and whether he proposes to make such an issue at an early date?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mebane): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to similar Questions on the subject on 8th October.
    Mrs. Tate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that to differentiate between one branch and another of A.R.P. services sometimes has unfortunate effects?
    Mr. Mabane: If the hon. Lady read the reply, she will see that it refers specifically to the mackintoshes for wardens.

    COTTON MILLS (GLASS ROOFS).
    Mr. Silvermanasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers to compel the adequate strengthening of the glass roofs of cotton mills which are at present a source of such peril to cotton workers?
    Mr. Mabane: Under the Civil Defence Act no obligation is placed upon the proprietors of cotton mills to strengthen glass roofs. Nevertheless, the importance of this matter is fully recognised, particularly in order to enable workers to carry on after the alert and my right hon. Friend is considering further measures to diminish the risk of casualties from glass.
    Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on two separate occasions in the last few months I have requested delegations from Lancashire, who were anxious to interview him on the subject, to refrain from coming, on the express representation to me by his Department that regulations were being made in order to cover this point? If those regulations have been made, will he now receive delegations?
    Mr. Mabane: Perhaps the hon. Member will indicate the nature of those express representations.
    Mr. Silverman: They came to me from the hon. Gentleman's private secretary.
    Mr. Mebane: I cannot accept that.

    DETENTIONS.
    Miss Rathboneasked the Home Secretary how many aliens are at present detained in prisons; how many of these are detained under deportation orders or their war-time equivalent; how many as war refugees awaiting further inquiry into their reliability; how many of the latter class have already been in prison for periods of over two months; and whether, in view of the hardship imposed on the political detainees of both classes by their detention in prison in association with ordinary remand prisoners suspected of criminal offences, he will arrange for their transfer to a separate prison or, preferably, to an internment camp?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The aliens to whom my hon. Friend refers are not detained on political grounds: they are detained on security grounds. As regards many of them it would be desirable, if it proves necessary to keep them under detention for a long period, that they should be accommodated in a camp or some other institution other than a prison. The difficulty of finding alternative accommodation at the present time is great, but the desirability of making special provision for these people as soon as practicable will be kept in mind. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information asked for in the remainder of the Question.
    Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of these people have been in prison for periods of more than three months? Could they not receive some kind of circular letter to inform them that they are detained until they can clear themselves and that their cases will be gone into, so that they will not feel that they are completely forgotten and are there for life?
    Mr. Peake: I think the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension as to the character of a great many of these persons. The greater part of them are seamen who have been taken off Allied or

    587
    neutral vessels, whom we should like to repatriate to their country of origin but cannot at present. On the other point, we are trying to find accommodation outside British prisons.
    Mr. Wedgwood: Is it not true that a large number of these unfortunates are Czech nationals who are in prison, denounced by someone and unable to get any opportunity of having their case heard?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir, I think only a very small number are Czechs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Are not some of them willing to serve on British vessels?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir, they have been taken off vessels because they are known to be Nazi sympathisers.
    Following is the information:
    According to the latest available statistics, the number of aliens detained in prison, in Great Britain apart from those serving sentences, is 691. Of these 29 are awaiting deportation and 447 are detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order, 1920, as amended, because their deportation is impracticable or prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. The necessity of their continued detention is, however, reviewed periodically. Thirty-six are detained under the Royal Prerogative. Of the balance of 179 it has not been possible in the short time since the Question appeared on the Order Paper to ascertain how many are war refugees, but 15 who are known to be war refugees have been detained over two months. The others include seamen detained ashore at the request of the master of their ship; seamen and others refused leave to land and temporarily detained pending disposal; and some aliens detained under Defence Regulation 18B or 18D. As regards the last part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Member that none of these aliens is detained solely on political grounds and that they do not normally associate with ordinary remand prisoners. The question of their transfer to a camp or a separate institution is already under active consideration.

    INTERNEES.
    Miss Rathboneasked the Home Secretary how many aliens are still in alien internment camps; how many have
    588
    been released; how many have already been dealt with by the tribunal appointed to consider cases under Category 19; and whether, in view of the large number of claims likely to prove suitable for reference to the aforementioned tribunal, he will consider either appointing additional tribunals or increasing the membership of the existing tribunal and permitting it to sit in sections, as already permitted to the advisory committee dealing with British Fascists and other British detainees?
    Mr. Peake: Approximately 14,400 Germans, Austrians and Italians are still in internment camps in the United Kingdom. About 5,200 have been released since the White Paper was issued. I am informed that 17 cases under Category 19 have already been dealt with and some 50 others partly considered by the tribunal. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's suggestion in the fourth part of the Question if the number of applications for release under Category 19 appears likely to lead to serious delay in consideration by one tribunal.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at that rate it will take 60 years to hear these cases?
    Mr. Peake: No, Sir. That is certainly not the case.
    Miss Rathbone: Is it not clear that there are certainly several thousands of these cases which should be considered, and if they are all to be gone into, is it not obvious that it will take an immense amount of time to do so?
    Mr. Peake: In point of fact, the number of persons who have made out prima facie cases for Category 19, is much smaller than the hon. Lady suggests.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Can the hon. Gentleman say, approximately, how many applications in regard to Category 19 have been made?
    Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot.

    TRENCH SHELTERS.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SIMMONDS:
    38. To ask the Home Secretary what steps he has taken to render trench shelters dry; and why head wardens receive no payment in respect of their supervisory duties other than the normal wardens' pay?
    Mr. Simmonds: This Question as it appears on the Paper really includes two different Questions. Could my hon. Friend who is to reply deal with them separately?
    Mr. Mabane: I will deal with both points. I fully appreciate the importance of keeping shelters dry, but the standard trench design does not appear to give rise to much difficulty in this respect. If, however, my hon. Friend is aware of cases and will communicate them to me, I shall certainly look into the matter. As regards the second part of the Question, the nature of the wardens' service did not make a system of pay for rank necessary or appropriate, but the matter is now under re-examination.
    Mr. Simmonds: With regard to the first part of the answer, is it not a fact that a large number of these trenches are in fact waterlogged and that it is a very difficult problem? With regard to the second part, is my hon. Friend aware that, both in the first-aid service and in the fire service, extra pay is given for supervisory work; and does he realise that head wardens feel that there is a great injustice in their case?
    Mr. Mabane: As regards the first part of the Question, the standard trench, I am informed, does not show any tendency to become waterlogged, but if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind, I shall be very glad to have them investigated. As regards the second part of his Question, as I said in my earlier answer, the matter is now under examination.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister also consider the position of lay leaders, as they are grumbling as well as the head wardens?
    Mr. Mabane: In Scotland there is a category which is, I think, described sometimes as lay readers, and I understand that they have pay above the basic rate.

    AIR-RAID DAMAGE (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the income limits at present imposed upon claimants for immediate compensation for damage caused by air-raids have created hardship for many people, he will consider the possibility of raising them?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): As my right hon.
    590
    Friend the Prime Minister has already explained, appropriate mitigating measures are being taken in the border-line cases lying just above the income limits normally prescribed for advances in respect of essential furniture and clothing, etc.
    Mr. Hall: Will the Chancellor say what he considers to be a border-line case? I understand that the limit is now £250 for an individual, and £400 for a family man, but does he not think it is rather low?
    Sir K. Wood: I have asked the officers concerned to be generous in their application. The question is receiving consideration. If the hon. Member has any case in mind, I shall be glad to have it examined.
    Mr. Hall: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that £350 is very often a case for consideration? Surely such a case cannot be described as a border-line case?
    Sir K. Wood: I shall be making further proposals to the House in relation to this matter.
    Mr. Toucheasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in many cases of war damage to property it is not possible for the claimant to deliver a detailed claim within 30 days; and whether in such cases the Inland Revenue are prepared to grant a reasonable extension of that period?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It is stated on the form of claim that in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend a reasonable extension of the 30 days will be allowed.

    DAMAGED HOUSE PROPERTY (INCOME TAX AND GROUND RENT).
    Sir R. Youngasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the financial obligations of freehold and leasehold owners of houses destroyed by enemy action; and what concessions are contemplated in regard to Income Tax on the annual value and ground rents payable by the owners of small houses?
    Sir K. Wood: The liabilities of freeholders, leaseholders and others in respect of the repair of and rent for houses which have suffered war damage have already been dealt with by Parliament in the

    591
    Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939. These and other similar matters will also arise in connection with the revised proposals for the payment of compensation which are in preparation. So far as Income Tax, Schedule A, is concerned, the position is that, on a rented house being rendered uninhabitable by enemy action, no tax will be chargeable unless the rent continues to be payable. In the latter event, however, tax would be charged, though limited, if necessary, to tax on the amount of the rent payable. As regards Income Tax payable by owner-occupiers, any question of liability and possible relief would depend upon the facts of the particular case.
    Sir R. Young: In connection with repairs to these properties, will there be any abatement made for the time the houses are unoccupied?
    Sir K. Wood: I think we shall have to decide each case on its merits. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to look into any case, I shall be glad to do it.
    Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that landlords are often prepared to make a substantial reduction in the rent in the case of people suffering as a result of war damage, but that they find they not only lose the amount of the rent they are remitting, but are left with a heavy liability in respect of property tax? Will he look into that?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that many difficulties will arise, as my hon. Friend will appreciate.

    WHITE BUILDINGS (CAMOUFLAGE).
    Mr. Macleanasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the possibility and danger of buildings either of white stone or other light material or those painted white acting as guides to enemy aeroplanes, particularly on moonlight nights; and whether he has discussed with the firms or individuals owning those buildings the advisability of having them camouflaged with dark paint?
    Mr. Mabane: As I am sure the House will realise, it is not desirable to make public details of the policy adopted by the Government for camouflage, but I am communicating with the hon. Member on the points he raises.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that many air-raid shelters, particularly in Scotland, have been built with white concrete roofs; and will he take steps to see that that is changed?
    Mr. Mabane: Attention has been drawn to that matter.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have seen big white motor wagons—as white as snow—running about in London?
    Mr. Mabane: It does not follow that the Germans saw them.
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is one large block of flats in London with white glazed tiles which show up at night, and that, on several occasions it has been narrowly missed by bombs?

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    ALIEN TECHNICIANS.
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to avoid delay, duplication, and the waste of much technical and scientific knowledge, he will consider the establishment of one authority to consider the reliability of alien technical and scientific workers in this country, and, that when an individual has been passed by this authority, he will be open to accept employment in war industries without further investigation?
    Mr. Peake: There is no duplication of authorities concerned with the question of an alien's reliability, but I think what my hon. Friend has in mind is the question whether an alien who has once been permitted to take employment in a war industry can be allowed to change his employment without the necessity of obtaining a fresh permit. That is a question to which consideration is being given.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is satisfied that the number of contracts given to the firm of George Wimpey and Sons, Limited, by all Government Departments ensures efficiency and speed in the national war-building effort and national economy?
    Captain Crookshank: It is the responsibility of the contracting Departments to satisfy themselves that the contractors to whom they let contracts are in a position to execute them within the requirements of the contract. To assist the contracting Departments to this end, central arrangements have been made under which they can ascertain what contracts have been let by other Departments to any particular contractor. I have no reason to think these arrangements have not been adequate in the case of the firm of George Wimpey and Sons, Limited.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this firm persistently obtains contracts in areas in Scotland where they have no plant or organisation and where Scottish firms are on the spot with plant and organisation and able to do the job efficiently and capably? Is he aware that this circumstance must cause a certain amount of delay in our war effort and that it is creating in the minds of building contractors in Scotland the opinion that there is something unsavoury with regard to the manner in which this firm can obtain huge contracts?
    Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I am not aware of anything on the line which the hon. Gentleman suggests, because I have just said that this is a responsibility of the contracting Departments and not of the Treasury.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman carefully consider any representations that may be made with regard to what I have said?
    Captain Crookshank: I should say that representations had better be made to the Departments which let the contracts.
    Mr. Woodburn: Do not the contracts affect a large number of Departments, and is not the only way they can be supervised through the Treasury?
    Captain Crookshank: I said in the reply to the original Question that central arrangements have been made under which Departments can ascertain what contracts have been let by other Departments to a particular contractor.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Will the Financial Secretary inform the House and Members who are greatly concerned about this matter what this central machinery is, to
    594
    which representations should be made, and what Minister is responsible for this machinery?
    Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Gentleman likes to put those Questions down, I will give him considered replies, but I said in my answer that it is for the contracting Departments to satisfy themselves of the capacity of contractors to carry out their contracts.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the earliest opportunity.

    INTERNATIONAL LABOUR BRANCH.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement with regard to the progress which has been made by the International Labour Corps?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): Considerable progress has been made by the International Labour Branch, though much of it has necessarily taken the form of preparatory steps in consultation with foreign Governments. My right hon. Friend is happy to say that the prejudice which at one time existed against the employment of foreign nationals is being gradually removed.
    Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman state the number of persons who have been placed up to date through this organisation?
    Mr. Assheton: I understand that about 700 were placed during August.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Is it possible for any alien to apply through the Employment Exchange, as I know of one who applied and was told that the exchange knew nothing about it?
    Mr. Assheton: Perhaps the hon. Member would give me particulars.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    MILK PRODUCTS.
    Mrs. Tateasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there will be any right of appeal by firms engaged in the manufacture of various milk products against the new Ministry of Food Orders?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): No, Sir. The powers which my Noble Friend has recently conferred upon the Milk Marketing Boards to enable them to implement his policy will be exercised under his general supervision and subject to his direction.

    MILK MARKETING BOARD.
    Mr. R. Morganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food in view of the new powers given to the Milk Marketing Board under Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1716 of 1940, what is the present composition of the Board; what were the previous occupations of its members; by whom were they nominated or elected; and what steps is it proposed to take to ensure that this Board, which is mainly nominated by the producing interests, will have proper regard for the interests of distributors and consumers of milk?
    Mr. Boothby: The Milk Marketing Board is composed of 17 members of whom 12 are regional members elected by the registered producers in the regions, three are special members elected by the producers in general meeting and two are persons co-opted to the Board by the elected members after consultation with the Market Supply Committee. The 12 regional members and the three special members are or have been dairy farmers. The two co-opted members are the Right Honourable the Lord Eltisley, K.B.E., J.P., and the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson). With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question to-day by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate).

    WAR AIMS.
    47. Mr. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister whether, in anticipation of the time when this country and its Allies are in a position to resume the military offensive, he will take an early opportunity of stating, in general terms, our aims in this war, so that this country may take its rightful place as the leader of all those, wherever they may be found, who desire a new order in Europe, based not upon slavery to Germany but upon collective justice, prosperity, and security?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): All this is being borne in mind, but the time has not come when any official declaration can be made of war aims beyond the very carefully considered general statements which have already been published.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the longer a purely negative attitude in this matter is maintained the greater grows the quite false impression that we are fighting this war merely to retain the status quo; and would the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, say enough to indicate that that is not the position of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think anyone has the opinion that we are fighting this war merely to maintain the status quo. We are, among other things, fighting it in order to survive, and when our capacity to do that is more generally recognised throughout the world, when the conviction that we have about it here becomes more general, then we shall be in a good position to take a further view of what we shall do with the victory when it is won.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that one important factor in enabling us, not merely to survive but to conquer, is to assure those who think with us all over the world that we are ready to lead the fight for the better world which we all want?
    The Prime Minister: I think there is great danger in making statements which are not of a very general character upon this subject. Take, for instance, the attitude which we adopt towards the enemy when he is defeated—you will find very different opinions prevailing about that.
    Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the original reply, will the right hon. Gentleman in considering this matter bear in mind the widespread feeling that a statement should be made as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly I bear it in mind, and, having borne it in mind, I have ventured to give the answer which I have given.
    Mr. McGovern: While agreeing with many of the right hon. Gentleman's statements to-day, may I ask whether he does not think that when speeches are

    597
    made from enemy sources it would be a good thing for the Prime Minister in this House to ask a series of searching questions that would, at least, put this country to a greater extent in the right and the enemy more in the wrong—for instance, by asking them what do they intend to do in the various territories which they occupy? These are very difficult questions for them and would compel answers which would bring world opinion behind us.
    The Prime Minister: I think world opinion, as far as it is free, is thoroughly behind us.
    Mr. Mander: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the Ministry of Information have announced that they are running a series of meetings throughout the country on this very subject of war aims, and would it not be interesting to know what they are saying?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the announcement from the Ministry of Information, and I have no doubt that very interesting discussions will take place, but that is quite a different thing from a statement by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Boyce: Would it not be well to kill the bear before you proceed to skin it?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement with reference to the work of the new Ministry of Works and Buildings?
    The Prime Minister: This matter was very carefully considered before the new appointment was made, and I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will await the statement which I hope will be made at an early date.

    HOME DEPARTMENT AND MINISTRY OF HOME SECURITY.
    Mr. Simmondsasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing separate Ministers to the Home Department and the Ministry of Home Security, in view of the grave responsibilities which now fall upon the latter Department?
    The Prime Minister: As at present advised, I do not consider it is necessary to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Simmonds: Is my right hon. Friend bearing in mind that in the Debate last week requests were made in all parts of the House for the separation of these two offices? In view of the great human problems involved in Civil Defence, does not my right hon. Friend think it is vitally necessary that there should not be any possible administrative weaknesses?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters deserve continual consideration.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the Home Secretary is not responsible for Scottish administration, but that the Minister of Home Security is responsible for certain aspects of it? Therefore, will he make an investigation to see that there is adequate Scottish representation on this particular Ministry?
    The Prime Minister indicated assent.

    FRENCH WARSHIPS (PASSAGE OF STRAITS).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Prime Minister whether the formal inquiries into the failure to prevent French warships proceeding to enemy-controlled ports are yet complete; what disciplinary action has been taken, and against whom; whether full discretion to act was given to the officer commanding on the spot to prevent such ships passing the Straits; and whether he can now explain why the First Lord and Cabinet were not consulted before action was ordered or taken against potentially unfriendly ships?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House last week, I do not think it desirable to answer any further questions upon this affair, for which, apart from technical mishaps, His Majesty's Government take full responsibility.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an impression that it was necessary for the officer commanding on the spot to communicate with the home authorities before taking action?
    The Prime Minister: There may be a great many impressions, but I think I

    599
    have said all that can safely be said on the subject at the present time, and, having regard to the difficulties of carrying on the war, I must ask for the support of the House in this.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that there is some disquiet in the public mind because of the apparent contradiction between the statement he made the other day, that the Government were not fully informed on what had happened, and the statement made previously by the Ministry of Information, that permission was given to the French warships to pass through the Straits of Gibraltar? Ought not that matter to be cleared up?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any discrepancy at all between the statements. I am familiar with both statements, the first not being quite in the terms which my hon. Friend has mentioned, but the facts stated by me in my statement to the House are those which are correct.

    BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state precisely the reasons for continuing the membership of the Bank for International Settlements and whether the Government has any holding in this institution?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) on 9th October.
    Mr. Stokes: Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that that reply contains no information of any kind whatsoever, and when will he be in a position to give the information?
    Sir K. Wood: I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Stokes: Then will the right hon. Gentleman read the reply?
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether transactions are still continuing between the Bank of England and the other members of the Bank for International Settlements, and, if so, what is their nature?
    Sir K. Wood: No transactions are, of course, taking place between the Bank of England and central banks of enemy countries, or central banks which are operating in countries occupied by the enemy. With central banks in neutral countries the Bank of England conducts those transactions which are normal as between one central bank and another.
    Mr. Bellenger: Does not the Bank of England act as a constituent part of the Bank for International Settlements, and in that capacity is it taking part in any transaction with other members of the Bank for International Settlements?
    Sir K. Wood: I think I have already answered that. If the hon. Member requires further information, perhaps he will put a Question on the Paper, and I will give him a reply.
    Mr. Bellenger: I asked that Question as a Supplementary Question the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman asked me to put it on the Paper. I have put it down for to-day, but it has not been answered.
    Sir K. Wood: I do not think so, because this Question does not deal with that. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question down on the subject.
    Mr. Bellenger: That is splitting hairs.

    GREAT BOULDER PROPRIETARY GOLD MINES, LIMITED.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has issued, having regard to the decision of an extraordinary general meeting of the members of the Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines, Limited, to transfer the domicile of the company to Australia?
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take with regard to the Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines, Limited, which has transferred its quarters to Australia, contrary to his wishes?
    Sir K. Wood: An application has been received from the liquidators of the Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines, Limited, for the consent of the Treasury, under Regulation 6A of the Defence (Finance) Regulations, to the transfer of the business to an Australian company. The

    601
    application is under consideration, and I hope to be able to give a decision very shortly.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the report of the extraordinary general meeting at which a resolution was passed which means, in fact, that the assets of this company will be transferred to Australia? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that under no circumstances, at any rate during the present emergency, will he permit that?
    Sir K. Wood: I have just said that I will give this particular case my consideration and an early decision. I dare say the hon. Member is aware that there is now a Treasury Regulation which gives power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prohibit anything of the kind he has in mind.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that this company acted in defiance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wishes in this matter?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I made a request to the company not to go forward with the resolution pending my consideration of the matter, and that was not done.
    Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an indication when he hopes to be able to make a decision?
    Sir K. Wood: Within the next few days.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Chancellor make it clear that he cannot be defied with impunity?
    Sir K. Wood indicated assent.

    NATIONAL WAR BONDS (COMPANY INVESTMENTS).
    Mr. Leslie Boyceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to help the National Savings campaign, he is willing to lay down the principle that an investment by a company in National War Bonds shall not have the effect of increasing or decreasing the amount of Excess Profits Tax payable by that company?
    Sir K. Wood: An investment by a trading concern in National War Bonds of any funds available for investment will not
    602
    ordinarily affect the Excess Profits Tax liability of the concern. The position in regard to this matter was fully explained in the reply which I gave on 22nd August to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) on this subject. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this Question and Answer.
    Mr. Boyce: As in a number of cases it does affect the basis on which this tax is payable, will my right hon. Friend agree to the principle being laid down that a company investing in National War Bonds is not to be, as a result, in a better or worse position?
    Sir K. Wood: I think I will confine myself to the answer given on 22nd August, and perhaps my hon. Friend will examine it.
    Mr. Boyce: In view of the utmost importance of encouraging the National Savings Campaign in every way, is my right hon. Friend willing to receive and consider further representations on this subject?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly, Sir.

    LONDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS, LIMITED.
    Mr. Storeyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that London Express Newspapers, Limited, having increased their net profits after taxation but before depreciation for the year ended 30th June, 1940, from £247,579 to £359,707, have decreased their ordinary dividends from £81,600 to £61,200 and have capitalised £135,409 of the year's profits towards the cost of a 200 per cent. capital bonus; whether he proposes to take steps to secure to the Exchequer the equivalent of Surtax upon the profits so distributed; and, as the decision to issue such capital bonus was taken after the Government's announcement that the issue of bonus shares during the war would not be allowed except where exceptional grounds exist, what were the grounds existing in this instance?
    Sir K. Wood: The issue of bonus shares by the company was decided upon with Treasury consent some weeks before the announcement of the prohibition of such issues made in the Budget Speech on 23rd April last. I do not propose to take action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

    CHINA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will grant a loan to the Chinese Government under the Export Credits Scheme or otherwise, similar to that recently granted by the Government of the United States of America?
    Sir K. Wood: No fresh loan to China is under consideration at the present time; but, as the House is aware, this country has already received financial assistance under the China (Currency Stabilisation) Act, 1939, and the Export Credits scheme.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government consider making a further extension of export credits to enable China to purchase oil from Burma?
    Sir K. Wood: As the sterling available to the Stabilisation Fund is not exhausted, and as only a small part of the export guarantees has been taken up owing to our own increased supply needs, I do not think that any question of further sterling assistance arises at present.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it not be possible to take up more of the export-credit money for the purpose of purchasing oil from Burma?
    Sir K. Wood: I must ask my hon. Friend to put that Question on the Paper.

    BANK OF ENGLAND.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total sums to which the Bank of England became entitled in respect of interest and other services for the financial years of 1938–39 and 1939–40, respectively?
    Sir K. Wood: The payment to the Bank for the management of the debt, which, of course, is a very large and detailed operation, is in the region of £1,000,000 per annum. I will communicate the exact figure to the hon. Member later. The interest on the original Government debt of £11,000,000 is paid to the Issue Department, the profits of which accrue to the Treasury.
    Mr. Woodburn: What other moneys are paid to the Bank of England in the form of interest?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question down. I have had
    604
    some difficulty in present circumstances in furnishing the reply to this Question.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
    Mr. Silvermanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to say what is the result of his review, which he promised to undertake on 10th April last, of the suspension of Civil Service examinations?
    Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) on 8th October.
    Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he will be able soon to make a reply to the Questions which have been asked?
    Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the answer which I gave the other day, he will see that I said that under present conditions I can see no hope of the resumption of competitive examinations.

    PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (PRINTING AND PUBLICATION).
    Mr. Speaker: I have now had an opportunity of giving closer consideration to the question of the printing of Parliamentary Papers by the Stationery Office. I am glad to say that it has been found possible to give a direct alarm signal to the printers' premises, so that they will be in the same position as other factory workers. This will make it possible to bring out Parliamentary Papers without any more delay than in peace time. I may add that it would be a convenience to the printers and the Departments if Members would hand in Questions to which an answer is required after a single day's notice not later than 2.30 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: Would it be possible to convey to those concerned the appreciation which the House undoubtedly feels for the ability they have now shown to be able to work under the same conditions as other works?

    NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
    Fourteenth Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [167.]
FINANCE (No. 2) ACT, 1940.

  PURCHASE TAX (COMMENCEMENT) ORDER, 1940.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move:
  "That the Purchase Tax (Commencement) Order, 1940, made by the Treasury under section eighteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th October, be approved."
  The House will recall that under Section 18, Sub-section (3) of the Finance Act (No. 2) of this year the Treasury are empowered to fix the date on which the Purchase Tax will be brought into operation. Under the same Section that Order has to be approved by the House. The Treasury accordingly fixed the date for the coming into operation of the tax to be the 21st of this month, and I have now to ask the House to approve the Order. It will be generally agreed that it is unnecessary for me to refer to the objects and provisions of the Act which have so recently been the subject of Parliamentary discussions. I then made many proposals, which were accepted by the House, by way of modification of the original proposals, in order to meet certain suggestions and criticisms in various parts of the House. Some of these affected the total amount of the revenue which we hoped originally to raise. It is, I think, sufficient now to say—and I think that it must be pretty obvious to everyone—that in view of our urgent and considerable financial necessities, the yield from this tax as finally approved by Parliament must play an important part in raising the large revenue we require, and it is imperative that we should obtain it as quickly as possible. While the immediate yield of a tax may, in the beginning, at any rate, prove to be modified by recent events, and the collection for the first quarter ending 31st December will be short, I think there is no reason to modify the view I expressed, during the passage of the Measure, that the tax will produce this year and subsequently very important additions to the revenue which it would be impossible for us to forgo.
  I should also tell the House that since the Act was passed discussions about administrative machinery, which were proceeding during the summer, have continued with the various trade associations with a view to making the machinery of the tax as simple as possible.
  622
  Matters under discussion have been, for example, the catalogue definitions covered by the main headings in the Schedule and the accounting procedure relating in particular to the methods in which traders should keep their accounts to show the tax due. I am glad to be able to say that in these important matters substantial agreement has been reached.
  Registration under the Act has, of course, proceeded and went on well until there were certain delays in communication. After a short interval in which these were being overcome they started again, and the numbers now registered, and applying daily for registration, are satisfactory. In fact, in all, to date some 40,000 traders have been registered. This covers the great majority of those concerned, and I have every hope that registration will be practically complete by 21st October. Three explanatory documents coming from the Customs have been issued—one on registration, the second on goods liable to the tax, and the third on the form in which accounts are to be kept. These have been previously discussed with the various bodies concerned and have been received as helpful in seting forth the machinery and procedure.
  We have also consulted the various traders about the commencement of the tax, and they have all represented to us the necessity of there being no uncertainty and that, subject to reasonable notice being given, the date for its coming into operation should be finally fixed as soon as possible. I indicated on the Third Reading that it was hoped to commence the tax in October, and I would suggest to the House that 21st October is a convenient date, with due and sufficient notice to all concerned. It is true that air raids have, of course, created difficulties for certain traders, but, although in a number of places there has been a certain amount of interruption and damage, the total of this, as against the total of production, is small. Secondly, although there have been certain interruptions to manufacture and delivery, they have, again, been a lot less than was expected, and in all the circumstances the general position of trade to-day is distinctly good.
  Much the same considerations apply to consumers of goods. To many, of course, the Purchase Tax will come into force at a time of increased wages and remuneration, but there is the position of those who

  623
  are unhappily suffering as the result of air raids. The Prime Minister has recently given an estimate of the numbers involved, and, considerable as these misfortunes are to individuals, the numbers are, of course, small as compared with the whole population. I would only say in that connection that the House will be aware that under existing arrangements immediate compensation is paid in full for certain essential furniture and personal clothing where the income of the claimant is below certain limits, £400 or £250, according to circumstances. This scheme will, of course, be continued, but I would like to tell the House that I hope shortly to introduce a voluntary scheme under which the State will insure the personal possessions of all persons above these income limits as well as the possessions, other than essential furniture and personal clothing, of persons with incomes below the income limits to which I have just referred. In these and other ways we are, therefore, making provision for those, small in number, whose cases are undoubtedly hard and difficult. We must also not forget that in making this provision and finding the money the Exchequer will have to make the necessary provision, and that the revenue from the Purchase Tax will help us in that respect.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would the Chancellor say whether this arrangement will be retrospective? There are many very hard cases over the present limit.
  Sir K. Wood: I will give consideration to that question. I will make this point to the House. Consumers generally will not feel the effect of the tax immediately. There is no ground or justification for increasing the prices of the taxable stocks already in the hands of retailers, and these stocks are fairly large. This is, again, of importance to those who have to buy immediately to replace the belongings and goods, damaged by raids, which come within the limited area covered by the tax. The Central Committee on Price Regulation and the Board of Trade will, of course, personally watch the action of retailers on existing stocks, and an important statement for the guidance of traders has just been issued by the Committee. I would like to read two extracts from it, so that the House
  624
  may be aware of the position. The Central Price Regulation Committee says:
  "Tax is chargeable on the wholesale value of the goods, and is collected at the stage when the goods pass from the manufacturer or wholesaler to the retailer. The retailer, therefore, has to pay a higher price for goods which have borne the tax, and for such goods he will have to recover this by charging a higher price to the public, but he must not make any profit on the tax."
  The Committee also make the following statement:
  "The Central Price Regulation Committee has carefully studied the relationship of the tax to retail prices and issued the following statement for the guidance of traders. Any writing up of the prices of stocks in the hands of retailers which has not borne the tax to the prices of goods which have borne the tax is not permissible in any circumstances under the Prices of Goods Act, and any such writing up would render the retailer concerned liable to severe penalties. It is the duty of the retailer to give the public the benefit of the lower prices appropriate to his untaxed stocks of goods so long as such stocks last, and it is believed that they are considerable."
  Therefore, I say that in these circumstances and with these provisions it would not appear that the operations of the enemy, and the small, limited results he has obtained, should prevent us from putting the tax into operation and obtaining the revenue which we badly need.
  There are only two other matters to which I have to refer. Representations have been made by a number of firms and other bodies for certain goods to be exempted under the procedure set forth in Section 20 of the Act. In a number of cases, if these applications were acceded to it would be, of course, contrary to the provisions recently expressly approved by Parliament, and in any case I would suggest to the House that it is obviously desirable to put the tax into operation in the form in which Parliament has just approved it and to watch carefully its operations before coming to Parliament with proposals for any change. The other matter I want to refer to, in which a number of hon. Members took a good deal of interest during the passage of the Measure, is that of expensive drugs. As the House was promised, the intention with regard to the drugs and medicines to be exempted was made public by a notice giving the list of drugs to be exempted, that list being prepared on the advice of eminent medical men who have been good enough to assist my right hon. Friend the

  625
  Minister of Health. Representations about this list have been received and are being urgently considered by the Departments and their medical advisers, after which a list, amended if necessary in view of the representations we have received, will be prepared and, as provided by the Act, laid before Parliament.
  In commending this Motion to the House, I would finally say that the Motion relates not, of course, to the principle of the Purchase Tax, which has already been approved and passed into law, but simply to the date of its operation. I would suggest to my hon. Friends, for the reasons that I have given, that it is desirable, in fact essential, that this should be put into early operation, and I now ask the House to approve the necessary Motion.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think it would be in accordance with the wish of the House that I should say over again all the things that were said on the last occasion, when this proposal was before us in its substantive form, and the only general remark of that kind which I will make is that, so far as I can see, nothing has happened between the date of the passage of the Measure through Parliament and to-day to change the mind of myself or of those who act with me in these matters. We then took the view that the tax, unpleasant as it is, disagreeable, unfortunate, had been sufficiently modified to justify us in supporting its passage into law, and we take that view to-day. To those who take a different view I will say only this: It is generally admitted that this proposal will cause an increase in price in the renewal and replacement of articles some of which are bought by people of very moderate incomes, and in ordinary times the fact that that is so would decide us, and I believe the House as a whole, to veto the scheme. But, of course, these are not ordinary times, and we have to consider not merely this tax by itself but what will happen if this and other taxes are not imposed.
  I support this tax because, if there is to be a rise in prices at all, I prefer that it should be a deliberate, considered rise of a moderate character rather than an indiscriminate rise pressing most hardly upon people least able to bear it. I was very interested in hearing Mr. Maynard Keynes say the
  626
  other day over the wireless that in his opinion there were no visible signs of inflation up to the present. That bore out what I think I said in this House when a number of other hon. Members were taking a somewhat different view. But, of course, in spite of that, the House cannot get away with the idea that there is now no danger of inflation, because the danger of inflation in the second, and it may be the third, year of the war is far greater than it was in the first; and inflation, if it comes, is cumulative. Those who remember the last war will remember that, as the war proceeded, prices went up and up, and the increases became steeper as time went on. It was not a question of a certain percentage increase, of 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. increase. Increases ran into hundreds per cent., and the whole basis of the standard of living for people on fixed incomes was thereby changed. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion, and it is the opinion of those for whom I speak, that it is better to encounter this particular proposal, though it does put up prices, though it will create certain difficulties, because the alternative is one that would be far more dangerous, and would be far more oppressive to the kind of people of whom we are particularly thinking, than will this tax itself. Therefore, if there should be a Division—I hope there will not be—in regard to this matter of the date of the tax coming into operation, I and my Friends will support the Government, and hope that the evil which people have foreseen will be much less marked than some people imagine will be the case.
  Mr. Graham White: Like my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, I do not desire, in the few words which I shall say, to challenge the principle of the Measure or to cover ground which has been covered before. It would certainly fill me with horror, whatever effect it might have upon the House, to lay before hon. Members some of the views which I have had on this matter, and even some which I hold at the present time, but we recognise that this tax has to be imposed because revenue is needed, and the inconveniences of it must be borne as well as may be. I do not know whether there has ever been a popular tax, but this is not one. It will not be a popular tax, but at this time in our history the Government are

  627
  not under the necessity of looking for a popular tax or of making a tax particularly soft. The more direct and simple the Government's taxation proposals, the more likely they are to be accepted by the House.
  This Measure will be unpopular. The increase in retail sales shows that a good many people have anticipated how the tax will work. I have come to the conclusion that the thousand and one pinpricks which will be conveyed by this tax will, on the whole, be worse than a good sharp blow, which might be administered in some other direction. I am by no means clear myself as to where this tax stands at the present time, in our economy as a whole. The Minister's predecessor said that this was a deliberate and resolute attempt to reduce consumption at home, but a different view seems to be taken of it now. It seems to be regarded now chiefly as a revenue-producing instrument in our taxation. It certainly will not reduce expenditure at home. The same amount of expenditure will be devoted to the necessary amount of goods, and I suppose the Exchequer will benefit to that extent. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was an attempt to give an impetus to our export trade. That leads me to a point which I wish to make in this connection.
  The House of Commons had an impression, in the early days of this proposal, that it would set free goods to help the export trade, but now we know that that will not be the case. We know how the tax seems likely to affect our export trade, particularly with the United States. We understand that negotiations have been proceeding between the two authorities in the matter, the American Customs and our own, or the respective Governments, and that, so far, agreement has failed to be reached. It is true to say that, whatever may be the effect of this tax upon the home trade and our consumers, the effect upon our American customers must be disastrous, especially in the consequences to the textile trade. It is not merely a question of date, but of the cheaper materials. I express the hope, however, that this matter will not be dropped, and that, if some modification of the existing law is required, the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to come to the House and ask for such modi-
  628
  fication, in order that our export trade may not be hampered.
  If this tax is to come into operation, it is well that it should do so as soon as possible. I listened with great interest to what was said about the administration of and the preparation for the tax, and I think we are entitled to take an optimistic view of the situation. There is a great deal of confusion in the minds of some-people as to what the proposals are. There have been so many registrations for one purpose and another that, having registered for one thing, they think that they are registered for all. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the very admirable document issued by the Customs Department, a most enlightening document. I did not know there were so many things that could be taxed until I went into this document—No. 178, I think it is. It is not a reassuring document. Reference was made to enemy action which has held matters up; this document deals with matters of registration and qualities of goods which are to be taxed and the rates of tax which are to be borne.
  Numerous letters were received on Monday of this week complaining that copies of the document were not in the hands of the people who were vitally concerned. What I had in mind was that obviously there would be an interregnum, or a period of time in which experience would have to be gained and people would find out how they were to work the tax, how it is to be accounted for, all those questions of liability respecting things which are taxable and things which are not, stocks, and the rest of it. There will have to be a period in which the Customs and Excise display towards the people concerned a tact and consideration, and I would add a leniency, which are not, perhaps, usually associated with the administration of the Customs. Those who have had experience might say that the Customs behave in what seems to the ordinary individual a very arbitrary way. If this tax is to work, there must be a certain amount of conciliation. There will be multitudes of people imperfectly acquainted with the taxation machinery.
  I do not think there is anything else I wish to add, except to express the hope that, when we are in the happy position of being able to repeal taxation, this tax will be the first to be lifted. It is an unfair tax, because it presses unfairly

  629
  upon some sections of the people. We cannot yet measure the effect which it will have upon the price level. The sections of people who will, in the main, be covered by the tax, are those who are least able to pay increased charges. I repeat the plea which I have made for reconsideration of the tax in the light of experience, without delay.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: I am aware, on rising, that I shall be like "a voice crying in the wilderness." I am without any hope of getting the Chancellor to change his mind at this late hour. I said in a previous speech that I thought this tax was the principal mistake that the Government had made, but I now say that the fixing of this date is yet another mistake. I am certain that the advisers of the Chancellor are not looking at the tax from the point of view of the effect that it will have upon the morale of the people of this country. Some of us are doing our best in very difficult circumstances to attempt to keep up the morale of the people whom we represent. Some of the actions that have been taken by certain Departments—and this is one—are not making it any easier for us. May I give the Chancellor an example which does not affect his Department? We fought in this House to try and get supplementary pensions for the old people who were not getting enough to live upon. Because there was a war on we managed after a great struggle to get these supplementary pensions, in spite of a certain amount of official opposition. Now that the old age pensioners who have been bombed out of their houses have been taken in by friends, the supplementary pensions have been taken away from them. Can the Chancellor realise what effect that sort of thing is having in the poor districts?
  In a constituency of which I know something, there are nearly 4,000 homeless people. Within the next week or two these people, by hook or by crook, have to get blankets, kitchen tables, linoleum, clothing, etc. Hitler cannot get them down, but this sort of thing does. They are ashamed at having, for the first time in their lives, to go round getting secondhand clothing and going through charitable organisations. When they go to the officials who assess the damage those officials do not take the line that those people have lost everything. Only
  630
  last night some of these people walked out with only their night clothes. The officials go into great details as to how much these articles cost. They say, "But you bought this several years ago. It cannot be worth as much now." Are they going to take into consideration the fact that to replace clothing, kitchen tables, linoleum and all those goods which have "gone west" is going to cost very much more? The Chancellor talks about business going on as usual and says that as far as he can see there would be no likelihood of people being overcharged, and that if they are overcharged, there is the Price Regulation Committee. The Chancellor should come to my constituency or to the constituencies of some hon. Members and see what good the Price Regulation Committee would be. I know of cases where windows have been blown out three times a week; as fast as they are put in, out they come the next day. The Chancellor says that the Price Regulation Committee will come along and see that nobody is overcharged. You can picture Mr. and Mrs. Smith, having lost everything and possessing only what they stand up in, having been charged a shilling or two more for a kitchen table with money which they have managed to obtain from somebody, setting in operation the whole of the machinery of the Price Regulation Committee. The whole thing is a farce.
  We are all accustomed to the Chancellor's spirit of smug complacency, and his feeling that everything in the garden is going on well and that there is only slight, infinitesimal damage. Let us be perfectly candid. The Chancellor knows perfectly well that such suggestions are not correct. It was really the Government with which he was associated before that did so much harm with this smug complacency. The Chancellor is making a profound mistake in selecting this date. Whatever the Chancellor will get out of it, it will not pay for a fortnight of this war. On the other hand, what damage will be done? As a result of what happened last week we are now going to spend an enormous amount of money in providing bunks for people in shelters. Yet they will be charged more for beds when they buy them for their houses. From the point of view of trying to keep up the chins of the people of this country, the Chancellor is doing a very sorry day's work in deciding to

  631
  apply this tax at this time. I am sorry to have to say these things, because I have been a loyal supporter of this composite Government since it started. Like other Members who represent industrial constituencies which have been hit by this "Blitzkrieg," we have not been going through easy times. The Chancellor is going to make it still less easy.
  Captain Strickland: There are one or two points with regard to the Purchase Tax which should be cleared up, because it has a great bearing on the industrial life of the country. I am not going into the question of maintaining the morale of the country from the cash point of view, because this country does not depend purely upon cash. On the whole, this is a chance for every citizen in the whole of this country to contribute a large proportion of the cost of this war which is being fought on his behalf and in his defence. There are two points with regard to businesses which I would like to raise. The first is that which has been discussed on one or two occasions before. That is the effect of placing this tax upon goods in this country and making the price the reasonable selling price, and the effect upon the taxation which may be put on our goods when they go into other countries when the tax is based on the usual selling price of this country. Another point I want to put is this: On 31st July, in Ways and Means, we had a Resolution on the Purchase Tax, and the opening phrase of this was:
  "(a) Provision shall be made for charging a tax in respect of purchases whenever made from wholesale sellers of such goods as may be specified in any Act of the present session and in respect of such other transactions whenever made relating to such goods as may be so specified."
  It appears to me that unless this matter is cleared up there may be a chance of a double tax on some goods in this country. Already certain Customs and Excise officials have declared that their reading of this particular Section as set down in Committee of Ways and Means is, that whenever a sale takes place by a wholesaler a tax shall be put on in accordance with this Purchase Tax; that is to say, that in the case of those manufacturers who, in the course of their business, sell their goods through factories, when the sale takes place from the manufacturer to the factor there shall
  632
  be a Purchase Tax placed upon it, and that when the factor in his turn sells those goods to the retailer there shall be another tax charged. I would like those points cleared up by whomsoever is to respond from the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Woods: I could have hoped that when we heard the Chancellor he would have made a much more substantial case for the urgency with which he proposes to impose this tax. It seemed to me that his case was built up on an entire misrepresentation of the facts. For example, the Chancellor suggested that the case against the commencement of this tax at this early date must be due largely to the viewpoint of those who are civilian victims of this war and who need replacements. That was practically the only case he dealt with, and it was a masterpiece of misstatement. It gave the impression that it was quite a small thing, that the numbers were trivial, and that everything was arranged, so far as these people were concerned. I do not suggest that the Chancellor was trying to deceive the House and the country, but if he was not he himself has been led up the garden, and his eyes are not open to the facts, as we see them in our constituencies. He said, on the question of compensation, that the numbers are small. In fact, the numbers are considerable. The destruction is out of all proportion to the casualties. Whole areas are destroyed. If there is one virtue in these raids it is that they have resulted in a number of demolition areas being destroyed. Those are areas, however, where the people, because of their poverty, have to take the poorest housing accommodation, as they have to take the poorest of everything else. It is this class of the population which is hardest hit. Those people lived in very old houses, and the effect of blast on such houses is far worse than the effect on more substantial property. In such areas it is common to find that slum property is razed to the ground, while other buildings which are fairly substantial have stood up.
  I could find constituency after constituency in London where the proportion of damage has been perhaps 5 per cent., but many Members here could say that in their constituencies 20 per cent. of the population have been affected. There is a ward in my constituency where practically

  633
  all the people will have to make replacements. To talk of those people as though they were an insignificant proportion, is not right. If an egg is bad, it may be argued that it is a small egg, but it is bad just the same. After having been hit by the enemy, these people are now going to be hit by the British Government, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) said, there will be considerable resentment about this. Also, the war is not over yet. We may find consolation, for what it is worth, in the fact that Germany also is suffering; but the results of these raids are cumulative. The time may come when, instead of these people being a minority, they will be a majority of the poor population. Then, the argument that is based on the statement that the number is small will be invalidated.
  The Chancellor's next point was that the compensation is in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham has already exploded that point. If the Chancellor is under any impression that the compensation is in full for poor people he need only consult any person who has been a victim. Only this morning, on arriving in London, I had a casual meeting with a woman who was waiting for her train to the North. She had just come out of hospital, had lost everything, and had herself been injured. She had come away with her night attire and dressing gown; and £2 17s. was all that she was allowed to equip herself with clothing. All that the compensation enables such people to do is to equip themselves with shoddy clothing, to enable them to go out into the street. It is not good enough to say that they can go to charity because some kind people have a surplus. We want these people to be put on a parity with their previous condition.
  The next point that the Chancellor made was that there were still large supplies in the shops, and that people would be able to draw from those supplies. That is an entire misrepresentation. I challenge the Financial Secretary, before he replies to this Debate, to get any essential simple replacement in furniture or clothing in any store in London. There are big stocks of specialised goods which are not in constant demand, but I have gone out of my way to inquire in furniture stores what stocks there are, and I find that for all
  634
  essential commodities, such as kitchen tables, ordinary kitchen chairs, bedding, blankets and woollen underclothing, you can tender your money in vain. Only the other day I was discussing with a constituent of mine the question of purchasing bedding for people who have been bombed out of their homes. Money would not buy a single bed. We have bought up all there were, and we are still trying to get more. If you go to an outfitting store in London and inquire about woollen underclothing, you will find that they are turning trade away, because the stocks are not there, although the orders have been placed for a very long time. If the Chancellor is arguing that these victims will not pay the tax because the retailers have large stocks, his argument is entirely false. The people will have to wait until supplies come in, and all those supplies will bear the tax. This state of affairs will get worse as the destruction becomes more widespread. If the Chancellor's case is based on these arguments—and these are the only arguments I heard, although I listened to him very carefully—it is an utterly inadequate case, and is unworthy of this House.
  The Chancellor made the broad statement that about 40,000 firms had registered, that others were registering every day, and that registration would soon be complete. Is there any indication that it will be completed by 21st October? I was hoping that the Chancellor would have given some information that would help in solving a number of problems which traders are facing. There is a good deal of complexity in this subject, and the Chancellor would be doing a service to the trader if he would deal with one point which is raised. When the tax was announced, it was assumed by everybody that registration would be restricted to actual manufacturers, that the retailer, when he drew his supplies, would pay the tax, an account would be kept, and it would be passed on to the purchaser over the counter. The regulations provide that a retailer who is in a sufficiently large way can register. I understand that some of the multiple concerns and general stores, who have their wholesale warehouses and therefore buy in bulk, are registered. That raises a problem for a large number of firms as to whether they should or should not register. Will a general combine store, where they have say, a tailoring department, register for

  635
  that department, or will it be possible for them to register the whole of the concern and so receive the whole of their goods free of tax, and subsequently for them to apply it? This is a question which I know from personal experience is causing a good deal of concern. Traders want to know what is involved with regard to registration. Some are assuming that because they have to register the full name of their business concern to cover one or two small departments, they will therefore be registered for the whole of their trade, whereas they are only registered actually, I think, in regard to the category of actual manufactures.
  There is another point which I thought was glossed over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was that actual stocks which are held will not be taxed, but he gave no indication of the creation of any machinery to give the public any guarantee that stocks held by retailers on which the Government receive no tax will not be sold without the amount of the tax being put upon the price. I realise his difficulty and that he cannot give any opinion, because it is almost an insoluble problem. Many shopkeepers have not the staff to enable them to keep a record of the marketing and the date of the receipt of say, every piece of china, of every piece of cloth and of every garment, and so these things go into stock. For example, a ready-made suit of a certain size may sell quickly and be out of stock and require replacing from the manufacturers, whereas other sizes may not be much in demand and will be sold as tax-free garments. The tradesman may have to say to the customer, "This suit fits you better, but it will cost you 15s. more because there is a tax on it. This other suit does not fit you in the same way, but it will be 15s. cheaper. It is the same quality but a little larger and does not fit so well, but the tax has not to be paid upon it because we had it in stock beforehand." It is almost an impossible task for the retailer to keep details carefully, and it will involve him in very considerable difficulty, and in almost every commodity, it will be absolutely impossible to discriminate between stock upon which the tax is imposed and that which is free from tax. If this matter is left without any helpful suggestion being given to the retail traders, they will be placed in a
  636
  quandary and find things very difficult, and indeed their difficulties are now fairly considerable.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will no doubt remember that when this tax was previously discussed he himself made an important question of the export trade. He said that if we consumed certain commodities at home, none would be available for export. That was, in his presentation of the case, a very substantial argument for the tax. It was pointed out in the course of the debate that, instead of helping the export trade, it would definitely hinder it, because America in particular assessed the taxes on importations on the selling price of the commodity as it would be sold to the consumer in the country of origin. The Financial Secretary acknowledged that that was so and that, therefore, it would not help the export trade. He gave the impression to this House that if that argument was substantiated, and there was no possibility of modifying the position, it would be a substantial argument against the imposition of the tax.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is introducing an argument that goes beyond the terms of the Motion.
  Mr. Woods: I think you will appreciate that the point I am making is in Order. Until some definite agreement had been reached, it would be satisfactory, both to this country and to America, not to make the tax operative. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who may have been unduly optimistic at the time, said that it was one of those little difficulties which could be smoothed out, but it has not been smoothed out, and, instead of helping, it will injure the export trade. If he could hold out some possibility or hope of coming to a mutually satisfactory agreement with America on this question, it would be a justifiable argument for postponing the day of the commencement of the tax. The Control of Goods Act and the supplies coming to retailers will make very little difference to the actual volume collected by the earlier impost. Everybody in a position to buy has already bought for the winter and, in some cases, for next summer, and the winter beyond.
  The people who will really be hit are the poorest of the poor, who have to live

  637
  from hand to mouth and cannot make any provisions for to-morrow. They will be the first victims. I therefore appeal for a reconsideration of the matter in view of the plight of so many people who have been made the victims of the loss of their household goods and of those who will get no compensation, because, for the time being, their income places them outside the provisions. Nevertheless, they have lost in proportion to their income a corresponding portion of their worldy wealth. Many of them have no security with regard to their employment, and some of them are above the compensation limit. There is promise of legislation at an early date whereby a mutual insurance scheme may cover everybody. Until that scheme is put into operation, this tax ought not to come into operation. All the arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used in so far as they were factual were substantial arguments for postponing rather than implementing the tax.
  Mr. David Adams: I disapprove of this Order primarily on the very broad ground that it is a menace to our national unity. The Government have advised the country that nothing is more urgent than the preservation of unity among all sections of the community. Surely a tax of this character, which attacks the standards of life, particularly of the industrial workers, is bound to tend in that direction, and it seems to me that it is the product of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is sadly lacking in imagination. Could there have been selected a worse method of raising taxation than this, in which, whether we like it or not, the goods of the community, if the war continues for some period, are bound to be destroyed and will require replacement? It has been very carefully considered in my part of the country—the North East coast. We have been fortunate so far in escaping the "Blitzkrieg," but it is believed that it may ensue to that district in process of time. If London, where there is supposed to be an overwhelming quantity of goods of all sorts, and the situation has been provided against, is in the difficulties which have been indicated, what must be the situation on the North East coast? There is no question that the operation of the tax will very seriously affect working-class standards of life.
  638
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor told us somewhat unctuously that he had made many notable concessions. I should like to know in what direction the working classes have been benefited by those concessions. I am satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman could give no satisfactory answer to that query. When one considers that the total amount raised in the course of 12 months will maintain the war for the period of 10 days only, one sees how short-sighted is the policy of the tax and how effective are the reasons for asking that its operation should be postponed sine die. If we endorse this order, we endorse, in my judgment, the completest refutation of the doctrine of equal sacrifice in the war. It is a tax upon the worker's standard of daily life, whether he is employed or unemployed. It is not a question of what his income is or whether it is assured or not. If he is below the proper standard of life, as we are assured some millions yet are, he must make his contribution to this crushing burden. His standard of domestic comfort, of health, and of entertainment will fall, and these are, in the case of many millions, admittedly too low already.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is talking about the tax as if it was not already approved and passed by the House. The only question is whether it is to come into operation on 21st October or some other date.
  Mr. Adams: I am putting forward reasons why the operation of the tax should be postponed. Had we been financially in extremis, I should agree to the operation of a tax of this character, but, as the Chancellor has decided that many deep wells of wealth should remain untapped, and we not being in extremis financially, this is the last form of taxation that ought to be imposed, and I make my personal protest in the name of my constituents, who will suffer grievously through its operation.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish to express my bitter opposition to the tax coming into operation on 21st October. I represent a constituency mostly composed of miners and agricultural workers, who are well known to be among the poorest-paid workers in the country, and in my constituency there is already very heavy and grievous poverty. With the coming into operation of this tax almost unbearable

  639
  burdens are to be placed on them. The Co-operative movement has come out very strongly against the tax, and the same applies to the trade unions. It was shameful to introduce such a tax, but to propose the date of 21st October, at a time when so many are having their homes destroyed and are losing everything they possess, is doubly shameful. It is a crime against the very people who have suffered. I cannot understand how any who claim to represent the working classes, and to represent the better world which we desire for the masses of the people, can support the coming into operation of the tax. It is not a revenue-producing but a poverty-producing tax, and that is the desire of the financiers of the country, to crush the masses of the people down to the bottom level of poverty. If those who claim to represent the working-class movement and who sit on the Government bench had a sense of reality, the tax would never come into operation.
  Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I fully appreciate that one is not permitted to discuss the merits or demerits of the Purchase Tax, but rather to offer arguments why the date of its introduction should be postponed. It is with that intention that I venture to address the House for a few minutes. I am of the opinion that the Purchase Tax, in principle, is bad, that in practice, it will prove to be unwise, and that it is, therefore, desirable that the date of its operation should be postponed as long as possible.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member is apparently trying to do something which he already knows to be impossible. He must not in any way argue against the tax, the decision on which has already been made by the House.
  Mr. Beaumont: I submit to your ruling, but may I advance this as an argument for the postponement of the tax? It was explained this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the original date for its introduction would have been 1st October, that owing to certain difficulties, caused by the dislocation of communications, it had not been found possible to bring it into operation then, but that it is now proposed to introduce it on 21st October. I submit that
  640
  there are other reasons as well as disturbance of communications which make it inadvisable to bring the tax into operation at the present time. I submit that those same factors which disturbed the lines of communication at the same time demolished the homes of the people. That being so, it is vitally necessary that these people should have a chance at least of re-adjusting their lives before they have to pay any additional amounts for the necessities of life. One of the grave dangers of the "Blitzkrieg" is that people are going to lose sleep. If the nation loses sleep, it will lose energy and power. You cannot have refreshing and re-invigorating sleep unless you have the necessary comforts upon which to sleep. There are thousands of people at the present time who have been deprived, because of the demolition of their houses, of essential bedding and blankets upon which to sleep. Even if the tax has to come into operation on 21st October, may it not be found practicable, and certainly advisable, that certain essential articles of domestic use, which are now in the Schedules, should not be taxed? The inability of a number of people who have lost their homes to obtain bedding and blankets is not only due to the fact that they have not the money, but also to the fact that these household necessities are not available, because there is a definite shortage which cannot be made good by 21st October. Therefore, you will further penalise all those people who are having to suffer because they happen to live in certain places where bombs have fallen.
  There is the additional problem in the case of people who have been compelled and advised to evacuate into areas less prone to attack. In these areas you have created the problem of providing additional bedding for the people who are offering hospitality, and for those who accept the billeting allowances. They are finding great difficulty in obtaining bedding and blankets for the use of evacuees. Furthermore, this is a matter which affects the Forces of the Crown. The Armed Forces are being billeted, and wisely so, this Autumn and Winter in houses and huts, and in many cases in private houses. The people who have to billet the soldiers have also to find the necessary blankets and bedding, and it will mean that they will have to pay an excessive and totally unnecessary increased charge as a result

  641
  of the introduction of this tax. I hope that the introduction of the Purchase Tax will be postponed long after 21st October. If that is not agreed to, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer still hardens his heart and is not prepared to make that concession, may we ask that consideration be given so that certain articles, such as bedding of all kinds and blankets, now upon the list of non-essentials, shall be regarded as essentials and not subject to the tax?
  This will definitely penalise the poor and affect those who have been the hardest hit. I do not think that in the long run it will prove to be such a wonderful method of securing a great volume of money for the purpose of carrying on the war. If the purpose of the tax is to prevent the manufacture of luxury articles—and here I must be careful in what I say, because I may be called to Order—I think it would be much better to have prohibited their manufacture altogether. Whereas the tax will press most harshly and unfairly upon that section of the community which has suffered all the discomforts and horrors, I submit it will be wise that the date should be postponed. But even if it cannot be postponed and this House determines it shall come into operation on 21st October, may I reinforce the plea that kindly consideration shall be given whereby certain articles which now will come under the Purchase Tax shall not be taxed, because they are absolutely essential for the well-being of the community? In the Autumn and Winter ahead of us comfort and the possibility of obtaining sleep are two things which must be considered. We shall make it much harder for the people if they have not the necessary beds, bedding and blankets because they cannot afford to pay the increased prices consequent upon the Purchase Tax. I hope that consideration will be given, first, to the postponement of the tax until all these difficulties have been overcome, and, secondly, if the postponement cannot be granted, that sympathetic consideration shall be given to the removal of certain articles of need, comfort and utility from the non-essential list which have now become absolutely essential to the well-being of a large number of the community.
  Mr. John Morgan: I feel that there must be in the minds of the Treasury a case for the further postpone-
  642
  ment of this tax if they could do it without loss of face. They have evidently come up against administrative difficulties in the fact that they have sought for a further three weeks. It is not only due to the fact that transport difficulties have recently ensued, but also that they have found it very convenient to postpone the date, even for three weeks, to meet their own administration difficulties. I have no doubt that some of the factors still remain, and that a further postponement would be welcomed if the Government could do it without loss of face, and without any feeling that they had had to yield to public pressure because of the unpopularity of this tax.
  Within the last few weeks I have sensed that women are very perturbed about their shopping difficulties. They have suddenly become aware that it is very difficult to shop with satisfaction to domestic economy. They go to a shop and find they cannot buy a commodity because they are told that the quota has been exhausted. Whether that is due to the fact that the deterrent element of this tax has begun to operate, I do not know. Certainly it is high, and Germany has found that a moderate tax is much more equitable than a high one. If the deterrent part of this tax has begun to operate and goods have disappeared from the shops, the women are aware of it, and they are not looking forward to this winter with any degree of favourable anticipation. The bombardment of London is becoming the concern of people further away because of its actualities. We are getting intimations from the Food Minister that he is having difficulties. The people have had their butter ration reduced, and it is accepted, but it is one of the things that is most regretted in the domestic field. When the women find that, in addition to having difficulties in obtaining goods, they are to have a marked increase in the prices of things that they very much want at the beginning of the winter, I believe that the Government will contribute from the Treasury angle a real factor in a disturbed feeling in industrial areas. In other words, there will be an element of industrial unrest creeping in.
  I was in a mining area yesterday and was handed this pay sheet. I was used to this sort of thing a year or two before the war. The mining areas are about to enter a period of short time. This is

  643
  a three-day pay sheet, which was handed to me yesterday by a working woman. Six other women in the audience held up similar half-time pay sheets. If an element of unrest were introduced into the industrial areas it would be very unfortunate. I am not arguing against the principle of the tax. I believe that the deterrent element is now operating and is unnecessary because goods are disappearing from the shops. If the Government want revenue from the tax and they want to give a sense that it is not being unfairly imposed upon sections of the community, the spring would be a far better time to bring it in. I do not believe the Treasury are in need of the money that this tax will yield between now and the spring. This is an unfortunate time in the mood of the average housewife to introduce it, and it will add to their difficulties in a most unfortunate form.
  Mr. Charles Brown: I want to urge the Financial Secretary to reply to a point raised by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) about the effect which this tax will have on the export trade. There are firms which are considerably perturbed about it, particularly those which are exporting to the United States. There are in my constituency several hosiery firms who will be interested to know what will happen to the hosiery which they export to the United States if some understanding has not been reached with the American Government. At an earlier stage in these discussions the Financial Secretary assured the House that this point was raised in discussions that were taking place. I now ask him to let us know whether there have been discussions about it with the American Government.
  Mr. Broad: I am sorry to have to intervene against the Government in this Debate, but I feel that it would be wrong to give a silent vote. I feel, too, that it is necessary to repeat points that have been made by previous speakers, because the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary do not seem to have been impressed sufficiently by the points that have been made as to the effects of this tax on the thousands of people who have lost their all in the air raids. In the main these people are the poorest, they have no reserves behind them, and it has taken
  644
  years to accumulate their little bits of furniture, their domestic utensils and their clothing. They are now down and out. They still have spirit, however, and if anything is calculated to take that spirit from them it is to feel that now that they are down the Chancellor is kicking them. These people cannot postpone purchases and cannot make old things last a little longer because their things have gone and they must purchase now. I ask for a postponement of the tax so that the effect on these people can be considered in a sympathetic way by the Chancellor and so that he can find some way of remitting the tax or making some provisions so that they will not have to appeal to charity in the replacement of their homes because the tax will have made the things they want too costly to buy. We should not force these people in their misery to have to pay through the nose, not because of an inevitable rise in costs owing to the extra cost of shipping and other things, but because of a tax imposed on them.
  I urge a postponement until the spring because these people will not have adequate clothing or bedding through the winter if the tax is imposed. Charity may do something, but it is mean for the Chancellor to say that they can go to the Lord Mayor's Fund. People want extra clothing now for going into the air-raid shelters, and they must buy it now. If they have to go to shelters shivering and the children are badly clothed, the effect on the health of the people, not only from the inadequate clothing but from insufficient feeding, may be serious. If they have to replace their things out of their meagre wages, it will be at the expense of their food. The effect on the health of the people may be even more serious in physical suffering and deaths than the air raids themselves. If the Chancellor is not prepared to see that these poor sufferers from the war are relieved from the effects of taxation on the prices they have to pay, I hope he will postpone the tax until the spring and again consider its effects. When the tax was first mooted air raids had not begun and they were not one of the considerations taken into account. It was thought it would be easy for people to postpone their purchases and make old things last a little longer. I know it will be a cheap virtue to those who are able to do that to wear their old clothes a little longer; most of them are in that position. They have already got a decent stock of

  645
  clothing which does not wear out so quickly. The seats of the mighty are not so hard on clothing as the benches and planks on which workmen have to sit. Poor people have lost all their clothing, even the suit which they kept by for Sundays, and to replace it they are being asked to pay the extra demands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that the people who have lost their goods, effects and clothing shall not suffer and that he will postpone the tax until he has reconsidered the position. Having done so, he may think it advisable to withdraw it altogether and replace it with another tax which will bear some relation to the ability of the people to pay and will not hit the poorest at the expense of the wealthy.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): If I may, I will answer a few of the questions which have been put in the Debate. I do not want to re-open the main Debate, because there has been some skating already in that direction with regard to the virtues, or, as some think, the vices of the tax itself. The short point is whether or not the tax shall come into force next week. I think we must not lose sight of something of the wider picture, and that is that this tax is part of the heavy imposition of taxation which the country has to bear. My right hon. Friend who opened the Debate did pose the question in the most interesting light when he said that we all ought to consider what would happen if the tax were not imposed. If there was to be a rise in prices, it was, he said, much better that it should be moderate and considered in the open light of Parliament after discussion and debate rather than come to the House in an indiscriminate manner. I think we should keep that fact in mind.
  Mr. Woods: How will this increase prevent other increases? There is no guarantee that it will prevent other increases.
  Captain Crookshank: I was merely saying that this was an interesting line of thought which my right hon. Friend propounded and that so far as it went I thought it was an admirable line to have at the back of our minds. Most of the objections raised this morning have been on the grounds that because there has been, alas, suffering and material destruct-
  646
  tion as the result of recent weeks of bombing, the tax should be postponed—presumably indefinitely. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), who spoke with very great feeling in this matter, said he detected in all this the idea that we must go on with business as usual. So far as I know, that phrase has not ben used in this war in any sense in the way in which it was used in the last war, but what is certainly true is that my right hon. Friend requires money as usual, and a great deal more than usual. It is for that reason that it is necessary to have the tax in being and in working order as soon as possible.
  The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) feared that the documents, which are very clear considering the complication of the subject, were not yet in the hands of everybody concerned. I cannot say whether the documents, which were issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, are or not, but before they were produced at all they were subject to very long discussion of administrative details with everybody concerned, and I doubt, therefore, whether the great associations, and other associations speaking for bodies of traders, have found anything novel and surprising in them. Apart from that, steps were taken to try and get them out as quickly as possible.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) quoted from the Act and suggested that there might be the possibility of a tax being paid twice over. He suggested that there might be double tax in the following sense, that it might be collected when the manufacturer sold to the factor and then again when the factor sold to the retailer. That cannot happen, because if the factor is a wholesaler, he will be registered, and if he is registered, he will buy tax-free and charge the tax when he sells; but if he is not a wholesaler and is not registered, the tax is charged when he buys, and he does not put it on when he sells. The hon. and gallant Member, and various other hon. Members, also raised the point about the export position. I cannot take that very far this morning, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) that the matter has been the subject of friendly discussion with the United States authorities and that it appears highly probable that in general

  647
  the Purchase Tax will be included in the value of imported goods on which the United States Customs levy ad valorem duties. We realise that that may have an effect on certain parts of the export trade, but I think it would be necessary to have some experience of the administration of the scheme as a whole before we can be in a position to find the solution to this difficult problem without endangering the revenue
  The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) asked me two questions which I would like to answer. He wanted to renew the old battles again, but he was not quite consistent. In the early part of his speech he was complaining about the imposition of the tax because, he said, there were no stocks of woollen underclothes in shops, and then, at the end of his speech, he said it would be very difficult in any given shop to distinguish between what had come into the shop before the tax was imposed and what had come into it afterwards. He said it would be very difficult for the shopkeeper, but either it will happen or it will not happen. If there are no stocks, the difficulty will not arise.
  Mr. Woods: I was dealing with the statement that stocks are abundant, and my point was that in whole ranges of commodities stocks are practically depleted and that those are commodities that are vitally necessary to carry on a home. Those other stocks which remain will be the stocks I referred to about which there will be the confusion.
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member made a statement which suited the particular argument which he was advancing, but it really did not fit in with the other parts of his argument. He asked another question about registration. He said some firms were both manufacturers and retailers, and he wanted to know what was their position. If the manufacturing part of the business exceeds £2,000 a year, then they are registered as manufacturers for that purpose, but that registration does not extend to the general retail side of the business. They are merely registered within the business for the manufacturing part of it. I think that was fully discussed and explained when the Bill was before us.
  Mr. Woods: I think it does want elucidating.
  Captain Crookshank: I have elucidated it, I think, and I daresay it is still further elucidated in these documents, but I cannot read them all. The clear position is that if there is a concern which is an ordinary retail business but has a manufacturing branch and the business of that manufacturing branch exceeds £2,000 a year, then it is registered for that part of its business as a manufacturing concern. The rest of the business is unaffected; in respect of that they are merely retailers.
  Mr. J. Morgan: What manufacturing year?
  Captain Crookshank: A year of 12 months.
  Mr. Morgan: But any year—a war year or a pre-war year? It makes a difference.
  Captain Crookshank: I should not like to say offhand, but it is all laid down. I do not think any of the firms concerned have any doubt at all about it.
  The hon. Member for Finsbury also asked about some large multiple stores which might not be registered under the Act. I think that perhaps he has forgotten Section 26 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, which deals with that point. There again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am wondering how far I can go along this road, but if the hon. Member will consult that Section he will see that in the case of those exceptional businesses, the initiative rests on the Customs to approach them to register.
  I have dealt now with the specific questions which I was asked, and I have only to say that my right hon. Friend has pointed out that it is desirable and essential that this tax should come into early operation. It does appear that one or two hon. Members are not sure about the adjective "desirable," but can assure them, from this side of this Box, that from the Treasury aspect it is absolutely essential that we should get all the money we can for the purposes of the war. The very fact that hon. Members have stressed the need for giving this and that assistance to bombed areas, providing compensation, and the rest, shows how wide is the field of activity in which money is

  649
  needed. If we are to do all those things we must get the money, and this is one of the ways in which we ask the House to help us to get the money, and as soon as possible. As my right hon. Friend has said, it may very well be the case, in fact, it is bound to be, that because the tax does not begin to operate until 21st October, we cannot hope to obtain in the first quarter to the end of this year, as much as we had originally hoped for; but that is no reason for not getting as much as we possibly can. I think that on reflection hon. Members will see that with the grave financial problems which confront the nation to-day it would be
  unwise in the extreme to put off the coming into force of this tax to some other date, and then to some other later date still, because I have a suspicion that the arguments they have adduced to-day were, most of them, arguments which would be applicable to any time at which the suggestion was made.
  Question put,
  "That the Purchase Tax (Commencement) Order, 1940, made by the Treasury under Section eighteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 8th October, be approved."
  The House divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 28.

  Division No. 70.]

  AYES.

  [2.20 p.m.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Apsley, Lord

  Groves, T. E.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Ridley, G.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

  Robertson, D. (Streatham)

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mit'm.)

  Blair, Sir R.

  Hepworth, J.

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.

  Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.

  Brocklebank, Sir Edmand

  Hurd, Sir P. A.

  Russell, Sir Alexander

  Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)

  Jarvis, Sir J. J.

  Salt, E. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Jennings, R.

  Sanderson, Sir F. B

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Scott, R. D.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Latham, Sir P.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Cary, R. A.

  Leach, W.

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Silkin, L.

  Channon, H.

  Levy, T.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Liddall, W. S.

  Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Llewellin, Colonel J. J.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Lloyd, G. W. (Ladywood)

  Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)

  Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Lucas, Major Sir J. M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir W. F.

  Culverwell, C. T.

  Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Maitland, Sir Adam

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Thorne, W.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Train, Sir J.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Doland, G. F.

  Mayhew. Lt.-Col J.

  Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

  Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.

  Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)

  Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)

  Waterhouse, Captain C.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

  Watkins, F. C.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Webbe, Sir W. Harold

  Ellis, Sir G.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, Sir Sydney

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Munro, P.

  White, H. Graham

  Fletcher. Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Navlor, T. E.

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Noel-Baker, P. J.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Paling, W.

  Wilmot, John

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Pearson, A.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Gibbins, J.

  Plugge, Capt. L. F.

  Wootten-Davies, J. H.

  Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Wragg, H.

  Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.

  Pym, L. R.

  Granville, E. L.

  Radford, E. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

  Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)

  Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Holdsworth.

  NOES.

  Broad, F. A.

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Maclean, N.

  Chater, D.

  Hardie, Agnes

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

  Martin, J. H.

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Maxton, J.

  Daggar, G.

  Key, C. W.

  Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)

  Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

  Lee, F.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

  Leonard, W.

  Stokes, R. R.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Lunn, W.

  Gallacher, W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. W. Green and Mr. Woods.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

  TIMBER (CHARGES) (No. 2) ORDER, 1940.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move—
  "That the Timber (Charges) (No. 2) Order, 1940, made by the Treasury under section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 17th September, be approved."
  The effect of this Order is that the timber charge is not to be payable in certain cases. Under the original Order, it was laid down that a national levy should be imposed upon all timber sold, partly with the intention that timber merchants should not take an undue proportion of profit. A small charge was made to that end. That Order was made some weeks ago. The purpose of the present Order is to remit that national levy in three cases. The first is in the case of certain imported timber, and the ground for remitting the additional charge is that the timber is being imported at the same price as other timber and therefore there is no purpose in imposing the additional charge because there is not an extra profit. The second object is to give the Minister power to limit the charge in regard to certain second-hand or recovered timber. Owing to the shortage of timber, recovered timber, obtained from the destruction of premises or in other ways, and second-hand timber, are being used. The Order permits us to remit the special levy which was provided under Order No. 1 in regard to second-hand timber. Thirdly, the Minister can remit the levy on timber which may be damaged by insects or in some other way, and which cannot be sold as new timber. The timber, nevertheless, has to be used, and we want to get it into the market. We want to limit what would be an unreasonably high charge on timber of so small value. The effect of the Order will be to make more practicable the original Order, the principle of which was agreed to by the House of Commons some time ago.
  Mr. George Griffiths: I see that this Order includes these words:
  "by the addition to the proviso of the following proviso."
  In the proviso referred to there is mention of pit handles. In Yorkshire we
  652
  do not call them handles but pit shafts. They are used by the thousand. In fact, a real collier cannot work without a pit shaft. In some of the places where I have worked we have been using anything up to a dozen pit shafts a day. I have seen four or five shafts broken in a day. These shafts continually wear out. I would like to know whether this Order means that these implements are now to be increased in price. If so, can the Minister tell us to what figure the increased price will go? This information is not given anywhere in the Order.
  Mr. Macmillan: In order to save time, perhaps I should point out that, if this Order were not made, the additional national charge would be levied on this class of goods. By making this Order we do not raise the additional charge on this category of goods.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am very pleased with that answer. Does the Order affect pit timber or only pit shafts?
  Mr. Macmillan: Pit timber was specifically excluded from the No. 1 Order.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have had those two assurances that pit timber and pit shafts will not have a levy placed upon them. I was rather afraid about it. Pit timber is now costing 6d. a ton, and if there is any levy the cost will come out of the colliers' wages. Eighty-five per cent. of it comes from the miners and we, as representing the miners, are desirous of seeing that nothing more goes out of their wages. Having had those assurances, I will not press the matter to a Division this afternoon.
  Mr. John Morgan: I would like to know whether salvaged timber is included in the term "damage to secondhand timber." It seems to have been the policy of the Timber Board to concentrate great stocks of timber at the ports. I should like to know whether that fact means that considerable quantities of timber will be exempted from tax. At what point is the charge to be made? If this timber had been distributed throughout the country perhaps we should not have so much damaged timber to exempt from this charge. Does salvaged timber become exempt from the operation of this charge?
  Mr. Macmillan: I would point out that this is not a tax. The purpose of this charge is to prevent profiteering by a particular class of merchants who happen to have held stocks prior to the time when the necessary rise in price came into operation owing to the rise in the value of imported timber. If the price is spread it is to the advantage of all users, and it will prevent an undue profit which would go merely by chance to a particular class of timber owner. It will even things up and it is in no sense a tax.
  Mr. Morgan: But the consumer pays?
  Mr. Macmillan: The consumer pays, but it has the effect of raising the price less than otherwise would be the case, because it is taking into account the present price of imported timber and the price of original stocks. This is an intervening period in which we are trying to even things up so that the advantage does not go entirely to the merchants. With regard to the question of salvaged timber, it will come into this category of exceptions and we shall not raise the levy on salvaged timber either from ports or any other place where it may be destroyed, injured or damaged. The wider question of the policy of distribution is a different one. Unfortunately, timber has to be imported through the ports; it is the only way in which it can be brought in. It is very difficult not to have certain stocks of timber at the ports, but every possible effort is being made, having regard to other demands upon transport, to distribute these stocks all over the country. That is, and will be, the policy of the Control.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That the Timber (Charges) (No.2) Order, 1940, made by the Treasury under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 17th September, be approved."

  WAR AIMS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Holdsworth.]
  Mr. Mander: I desire to raise the question of which I gave notice the other day on war aims
  654
  and the policy of the Government with regard to their explanation to the people of this country. I have always felt that it was not reasonable, while we are fighting the battle of Britain, to expect the Government to come forward with anything of the kind or to spend much time thinking about it. However, we are now coming to a stage when the people of this country will desire to know what are the ideas of the Government with regard to the ultimate war and peace aims. I am sure it will be to the advantage of the world if they are known at the earliest practical moment. So far, to my knowledge, this Government has not expressed any views at all as to its war aims. The late Government did. They went some way. It is true that some of the things that they said were not too satisfactory, but it is up to this Government to go at least as far as the old one and give us as much information as they feel able to give. I feel encouraged to bring forward this matter because of a paragraph that I saw in the Press the other day, which had apparently been broadcast by the Ministry of Information, to this effect:
  "The Minister of Information is initiating on October 7th an Empire publicity campaign in this country. The idea is to stress that the war is not a fight between Great Britain as an island and Northern Europe, but something that is a vital concern to the Empire as a whole. It is hoped that the Dominions will interest themselves in the scheme."
  Now we come to the significant part.
  "The Government is working out a policy of war aims and post-war plans—"
  That is good news; I am delighted to hear it. I wish them the best of luck:
  "—and the campaign is intended to give the public a definition of these aims—"
  Certain information with regard to the aims has therefore already been given to the public.
  The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): Can the hon. Member say in which paper the paragraph appeared?
  Mr. Mander: I fancy it appeared in most organs of the Press. It was in the "Times," the "News Chronicle" and others. I was under the impression that it had been issued by the Minister of Information, but if he denies that then, of course, I accept his word. At any rate, it was published on authority of some kind. It concludes with the words:

  655
  "… thereby anticipating the demand that is likely to be eagerly expressed as soon as the blitzkrieg or any invasion attempt fails."
  That paragraph certainly requires some elucidation or explanation or repudiation, whichever it may be. It would not have found its way into the Press without some kind of foundation. Reading that, I thought one way of obtaining information would be to put down a Question. I therefore put down this Question:
  "To ask the Minister of Information if he has any statement to make with reference to the policy of war aims and post-war plans on which the Government is working, and the campaign intended to give the public a definition of these aims; and whether the position of allied governments fighting with the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations will be included?"
  I put in that final section because it seemed to me to be very important that in any views which we express on this subject we should not confine ourselves to the British Empire, but that we should have regard to the very gallant Allies whom we have fighting with us at the present time. Some of them do not like our saying from time to time that we are standing alone, because some of them have vast possessions in the world and they were and will again be great nations. The reply I received rather astonished me. It was:
  "I regret that I am not yet able to make any statement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1940; col. 480, Vol. 365.]
  I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say a little more than that to-day. I am raising this matter in the friendliest possible way. I do not want to embarrass the Government in the least; I am a very warm supporter of the Government. But I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say something of general interest and value on the subject. Let me refer to one further statement which has appeared in the Press. It is an extract from a remarkable speech—one of a series of remarkable speeches—by the Minister of Labour. He was reported on 10th October as follows:
  "The whole question of the reorganisation of our social services would have to be faced sooner or later. Nor were they unmindful of the After-War. A Cabinet committee to consider these problems has been established."
  That is interesting. The report goes on:
  "There might he other trying periods, but it was a little difficult when dealing with
  656
  War Aims and reconstruction to put precisely on paper what we were going to do until we had won"—
  We can all agree on that—
  "The Government, however, was working out general principles of guidance for both at home and abroad."
  It is quite clear that something of importance is going on, about which, possibly, nothing could be said at present except that it is going on. That would be reassuring up to a point. There is the other question of these meetings which I have already mentioned. That certainly wants relating to the Cabinet committee which, we are told, is sitting. On the general question, I would just say that I am quite sure that the sooner the Government are able to make clear to the House of Commons and to people outside, in this country and the rest of the world, what are their general ideas about the world after the war the better it will be. The peoples of the world are looking for some reassurance that we are not going back to the old state of affairs, that we intend to build up a happier and more prosperous world at home and a better world abroad, where peace will remain permanently, so far as we can make it so.
  Mr. Graham White: I do not want to pursue the question of whether this is a moment at which any statement of war aims should be made. I want, however, to say a few words on another matter which, I think, is of considerable importance. Hitler has announced that he is establishing a new order in Europe. The new order of Hitler is, of course no new order at all; it is based on universal slavery, and will be recognised as such by everybody who studies this new system. It is, however, of the very greatest importance that the Government themselves and the people of this country should be giving their minds, so far as they are free to do so, to the preparatory study of the work which will have to be done after the war. Much of the constructive work of this country—technical education, the work of the Workers' Educational Association in considering social movements, and the like—is being damped down. The Workers' Educational Association are proposing to work on Saturday afternoons and Sunday afternoons. In vast areas they find themselves restricted in their efforts because the people are in the shelters. That brings me to my point.

  657
  It will be within the knowledge of hon. Members that Christianity was preserved in the catacombs, where the Christians were driven by Nero and other people who, in their day and generation, were not unworthy predecessors of the people who have set out to destroy liberty and democracy to-day. I urge the Minister to consider whether he could not set on foot discussion centres and so on in the shelters. I know that it is not an easy task, but I see no reason why, when Christianity was preserved in the catacombs by Nero, the future of England should not be considered in the shelters. That is why I raise this subject, in a discussion which, until a few minutes ago, I did not know was to take place. The time spent in the shelters may become longer and longer as the nights grow darker. I think we should consider these matters of which I have spoken in the underground world of which we are likely to see more than we like during the next few months.
  Mr. Woodburn: I am disturbed about this campaign for a Government statement of war aims, which carries the implication that this country has gone to war for some special positive purpose. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) brought to our minds the fact that Hitler had gone to war to impose a new order on Europe and the world. As far as I am aware, this country had no such intention in September, 1939. We went to war to resist Hitler in his attempts to impose a new order on Europe—and that was our only purpose. If we are now to impose a new order, that will be an extremely big job. Those who ask that we should announce war aims, seem to suggest that these war aims are to include a new order for the world; that we should take up the task which Hitler has usurped, by dictating a new world order. I believe that that is beyond our strength and our ability. Those who suggest it should make an announcement of what they propose. Are we, after defeating Hitler, to continue this war in order to force Turkey, Russia, and all those countries which are under semi-dictatorships, to adopt democracy?
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Are we to fight and suffer and lose
  658
  our young men in order to make sure that a dictatorship which was once in existence shall be re-established?
  Mr. Woodburn: Are we to dictate to other countries how they should govern themselves? The party for which I have the honour of speaking makes as its first purpose in this war that other countries should be allowed to decide their own forms of government and live their own lives. Therefore, our first declaration to the world should be that we have no ulterior peace aims or war aims at all; that Britain is out for nothing except to defend the right of countries, our own included, to live their own lives and carry on their own civilisation. We have associated with us other countries which have been brow-beaten and dominated by Hitler. It is true that we must stand with them in the recovery of their liberties, but that is a different thing from the supposition that we have to draw up some precise scheme by which we are to decide how the world shall live. To anyone who wishes to say that, I would suggest that he should start with Ireland. If anybody can tell us how we are to solve all the problems of Ireland, then, I believe, they can solve the problems of the Balkans, of the racial minorities in Europe and the religious problems of the world, which to me are insuperable.
  I do not say that we can ever go back to the status quo. There are humpty-dumpties who have been knocked off the wall in this war and will never be put back again. But to suggest that we in this country have the wisdom and the power to draw a blue-print of the new world without consulting the other people who live in it is fantastic. If we are to bring real peace, the German people must play a part in framing that real peace. There is no one who thinks that peace can come without consulting 120,000,000 people, of great ability and culture, or that they can be suppressed and kept under for 40 or 50 years, while we call it peace. That is impossible. [Interruption]. There are 120,000,000 people in Germany and associated with and supporting Germany, and they must be consulted and brought into harmony with the rest of the world.
  Mr. Mander: Would the hon. Member mind saying who are the 120,000,000 supporting Germany and associated with Germany?
  Mr. Woodburn: There are 80,000,000 German people to start with, and there are the other people associated with them.
  Mr. Mander: I ask the hon. Member to be good enough to state who they are?
  Mr. Woodburn: There are plenty of people in Europe supporting Germany at the moment. There are quite a number in France. You would not have France under Germany to-day if there had not been a number of people there in harmony with the Fascist mind supporting the German Government. These people will number another 40,000,000. The same happens in other countries in Europe. There is to-day a great body of people—we need not quarrel about the figures—who are cultured and able—and you cannot have peace in the world unless those people are part of a harmonious world order. If the Government, therefore, are to announce the precise terms we are to impose on the world it will send a feeling of despair into the hearts of the people because they will realise that no sooner have we finished the job that we started out to do, than we are to start another great task of remodelling the world according to our heart's desire. The greatest peace aim that we can announce to the world is that we have no motive except to restore the liberties of the world and the rights of people to govern themselves. By the fact that we have no aims, no ulterior motives and seek no British gains and that Britain wants nothing out of the war and is prepared to make sacrifices to bring about that world order, we shall probably make a greater contribution to bring unity into the world than by anything else we could do.
  I ventured to make the suggestion some time ago that, while we cannot decide the world order, there is no reason at all, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead said, why people should not be considering what the world order is to be like; what can be done and what can be put forward for consideration. This is a different thing from intimating peace aims. We could draw up what we think might be a proper order. My right hon. Friend in a speech some time ago drew a sketch of what he thought might be a world in which people could live in peace and in which many of the faults of the League of Nations could be
  660
  eliminated, and in which the Governments of the world would come into some sort of relationship and work together in harmony. Those considerations can, when peace comes, be put before the people who are making that peace and I certainly think it would be an advantage if men who are separated from the conduct of the war and who have a worldwide knowledge of the culture and the troubles of the world could be set apart during the war to think out possible solutions for some of these problems. This would be put forward not as a dictated peace or as peace aims drawn up by the victor to be imposed upon the vanquished. It would be put forward by men of reason, so that when war shifts from the battlefield to the conference table, peace can be put forward as a proposition for the better conduct of the world.
  Mr. Davidson: Surely, my hon. Friend will agree that, if we draw up such a plan as he outlines and decide that this ought to be the future of the world, and that it is good for the world, it will have to be submitted by one of two parties, either victor or vanquished.
  Mr. Woodburn: I agree. There is no reason why every party that sits round the conference table should not make its contribution by putting forward its propositions for consideration. We have every right to do that, and we can draw up our ideas on the subject as long as these are not what are called the Government's war aims, the aims for which we are going to carry on the war until we have the power to impose them on the rest of the world. The two things are quite distinct. We are entitled, as the last speaker suggested, to draw up aims for the conduct of our own country, but surely these are not war aims. We can remake our country without war. We want to remodel our own country according to reason and the best wishes of all the people in the country. That is our own business, but we must leave other countries to manage their own affairs. We are concerned only with the relations of the countries, one with another. That is a matter for a new world order, but that world order must include all nations of the world, including those with whom we are at present at war.
  Miss Rathbone: Like other speakers, I was

  661
  unaware until a short time ago that this question was to be raised, and it is far too big a question to be really dealt with extempore. But as it has been raised, I should like to put forward briefly a few of the points that have been in my mind. I would remind hon. Members that during the first six months of the war a tremendous amount of the time of very many of the best brains of the country was extensively devoted to this question of the application of peace aims and war aims. The League of Nations Union, the Federal Union and many other bodies were thinking along their own lines and laying down fairly elaborate concrete schemes of settlement after the war. I always found during that period that it was rather difficult to feel enthusiastic about these schemes, for a reason which does not exist any longer. That reason was that, when we were fighting side by side with one great Ally France, and we knew—all of us who new the French mood—that one of the difficulties at the end of the war would be the conflict between French ideas of post-war settlement and our own. Now that France is out of it, that difficulty to a certain extent has been swept away. I still feel that the Prime Minister is right in saying that it would be difficult to lay down anything like a prognostication of the peace aims we are going to impose if and when we are victorious, because it must depend on the war situation, and it is, of course, a very difficult and controversial question.
  I believe, however, we are missing an opportunity and that there is a possible middle way between the attempt to prophesy and lay down the lines of the future, which must depend on the situation at the end of the war, and saying nothing at all, or the extremely general statements that so far have been put out by the Government. I think many Members do not put themselves in the place of the millions of people all over Europe who, although no doubt, in a way, they would rather we won the war than the Germans, are not enthusiastic because they are uncertain of what we are fighting for. To many of us, it seems almost a platitude to go on repeating that we have no Imperialist or aggressive aims, but I am not at all sure that, in view of the continuous and in many ways skilful propaganda of Germany and Italy, the idea that this is merely a combat between two groups of Imperialistic powers may
  662
  not gain hold. From the point of view of foreign propaganda it is extremely important that we should keep on repeating, even ad nauseam, the ideals for which we stand, not in quite as vague terms as those in which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) put it, not merely that we are working for a better future for the world—I do not think that carries much weight—but we could in many ways outline the kind of thing that we mean by better order.
  For one thing we mean the kind of ideals for which the League of Nations stands, not necessarily sticking to the details of League of Nations machinery but the main ideas underlying it—no successful aggression, no changes in the status quo except by appeal to some impartial tribunal in which all the nations concerned should take part. That is not out of date. It is not premature at this stage to put forward the idea that the kind of order that we want to establish after the war would include a League of Nations which should band itself together this time meaning it, as they did not before, to resist any attempt to impose a change in the order of Europe by force and to have common resistance against aggression, the reign of law, and an appeal to tribunals, so far as possible impartially tepresenting all nations. Obviously that cannot be done hastily, but I believe the Government might work out a statement on which it would be possible to obtain agreement which could be made the basis of continuous propaganda by foreign countries. Extraordinarily little is known of what is being said in foreign countries by those who have not time or knowledge of the languages to listen regularly to broadcasts from the European countries, and yet what we are saying to those countries is immensely important. I feel that the Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. ought to supply the House of Commons, at any rate, with much more regular reports of what kind of propaganda they are carrying on in foreign countries.
  I am not at all satisfied that they are making the use they might of people belonging to those foreign nations themselves. We have in this country, groups of some of the ablest men in Europe who have for years been carrying on the fight in Italy, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia against Nazi and Fascist aggression. They know their own countries. They

  663
  know the kind of thing which will appeal to the industrial workers, the peasants, the women and the Churches. What use is being made of the knowledge of those foreign experts? Are they really being encouraged, as they might be, to assist in broadcasting and preparing the leaflets which are circulated? I am not at all satisfied that they are and it seems to me that Parliament nowadays is too much foregoing its right to know and to criticise the working out of foreign policy. Much of our war policy has to be kept dark from us for fear of enlightening the enemy. We almost seem to be letting control of foreign policy go out of our hands.
  I regretted very much hearing the Prime Minister's statement that he was going to put aside any idea at present, in spite of the representations which have been put forward, of any further statement on peace or war aims. I believe that he is losing a great opportunity. We are tempted to think too insularly, and not to put ourselves into the minds of those in other countries and those in our own country with whom we are not in daily and constant contact. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) about trying to remind those in shelters, living under difficult conditions, of the ideals of democracy and liberty and for what Great Britain stands. Even more strongly I should regret losing the opportunity of finding means of bringing home to the people of Germany, Italy and Rumania, and all the other countries which are gradually submitting to the Axis, what we are fighting for and some of the things we are fighting against. Cannot we state the settlement to which we will consent after the war, and say that it must not be a settlement which will leave future dictators free to impose their will upon the world? There is a great deal of suspicion among some of ourselves, and also in other countries, that authoritarian views are represented in our own Government. We must get it into the heads of the public, and those in other countries, that whatever the terms of the war settlement are, it will be a settlement which provides for the future peace, freedom and self-determination of peoples with the establishment of machinery for common resistance to aggression.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: I will not detain the Minister very long, because I think he will desire to give an adequate reply to the rather full discussion which has taken place. I can speak very safely on this question, as representing my own constituency of industrial workers, and with some knowledge of the opinions of the Glasgow people themselves. It might be true that to issue a specific blue print—which has never been desired by any hon. Member in this House—would certainly lead to a certain amount of controversy inside this House and the country. I would remind the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that we entered into this war after agitation from various parties in the House, and after agitation from this party, in particular, because we desired not only to give to the people of this country, but also to the world, that freedom and democracy which we, as Socialists, cherish. To say that we merely took up the attitude that we were resisting Hitler and that we must make no positive statement is incorrect. If those workers who are poverty-stricken, and those who suffer from bad housing, and those who are being called up to make the greatest sacrifices, were to say to an hon. Member for this or that area, "Can you tell me what my son is fighting for; can you say whether in the future our conditions will he more assured than before?" we must he able to state to them that we are fighting for a democracy that will give there a better chance.
  We must tell them something which the Government have told us, not something we desire ourselves, but something official, from the head of the State. The Prime Minister said to-day that we were not fighting for the status quo. I would point out to my hon. Friend that if we are not fighting for the status quo, we must be fighting for a condition of affairs which is different. There must be alterations. Therefore, what are we as Members of Parliament to say to the soldiers, the housewives, and the men who are carrying on the services? When they point out the sacrifices and the death and disaster that have taken place in London and in Scotland, England and Wales, are the Government merely to say it is because we are resisting Hitler? Have the Government no reward to offer? The men, the working women

  665
  and the boys and girls who are making great sacrifices, have a right to ask the Government, "What is your policy for the future of this country, and what do you guarantee in return for our sufferings?" It is the Government's duty to say, "We guarantee you certain conditions that you never had before." There have been vague promises from the Prime Minister and others. There have been half promises that things will not be as they were, but there have been no definite promises from the Government with regard to what the changes will be. We hear that a committee is in existence to discuss social conditions after the war. My hon. Friend gave it his blessing, but it is no use waiting until after the war until one party or another is in power to decide whether certain things shall be done or not. They ought to be submitted to the nation to-day. It will help the morale of the people if they know they are fighting for things that really appeal to them and that will give them enthusiasm to be successful in the war.
  Mr. Woodburn: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that while what he says would stimulate the morale of the people, the very opposite would happen if we promised them nothing in this country and put before them some scheme for forcing democracy on other countries.
  Mr. Davidson: No one has submitted that we should say to the people of this country, "You are getting nothing, but we are going to force democracy on other countries." This is a fight for democracy, which has no national borders, and we have always maintained, particularly on this side of the House, that the oppression of the workers in any country is an oppression of the whole working-class movement. We are an international organisation. Unless we can show the discontented and oppressed sections of the countries in the world that we are going to benefit them, and that we are to bring some improvement in their conditions, and unless we can show clearly that the great Government of Great Britain will ensure certain benefits for them, what can we expect? It is the duty of the Government to weigh these facts very carefully indeed and to come out on the side of the oppressed people in other countries. I believe that
  666
  our war strategy could be more forcibly and effectively directed among the discontented elements of those countries which are under Hitler's rule to-day. We know from our friendships with people abroad that there must be hundreds of thousands of people in those countries who are for the moment stifled and oppressed and who could, if they received definite word from this Government that things were to be done for them, spread it among their organisations in a hundred different ways.
  We have nothing to be afraid of in fighting for democracy and in the belief that we intend to bring to the victims of Fascism a meed of pleasure, comfort and ease in their lives and a re-creation of their liberties. In my opinion the Government are missing a great opportunity, first of all in not making it perfectly clear to our people at home that the old position is not to be re-established. The position in this country to-day is this; that while there is a semblance of unity and while there is a National Government, at Trades Union Congress meetings and political meetings of all parties speeches are made by leaders which aim at preserving the integrity and increasing the support of their own particular parties. We know it is true, so let us not draw the blinds over our eyes. Let us not continue in the old-fashioned way of letting one section of the people say, "If we are in power at the end of the war, we will do certain things," and another section say the same thing, thus creating bewilderment in the public mind. No working-class man or woman believes that if the Tories are in power at the end of this war, freedom and liberty will be given to the oppressed, and Tories do not believe that the Trades Union Congress or the Labour party will do it either. The only means of attaining national unity is for the Government to submit as soon as possible a programme which will appeal to the people of this country—a policy and a programme worth fighting for, and worth sacrifices, which will bring some hope to those discontented and oppressed sections of the community in the world. Such a policy will rally them to the cause of Britain, which ought to be the cause of world democracy.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope I may be forgiven if I intervene on a problem connected with foreign affairs;

  667
  it is the first time I have done so since this war broke out. I speak for myself, but I am very pleased that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has raised this very important issue to-day, and I should like to put a point of view about this war which has been borne in upon me for some time past. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the time has arrived when His Majesty's Government ought to tell the people of this and other countries what we are fighting for. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Information has been in the United States of America, as I have, and I am sure he will have learned that leading politicians there are not quite satisfied with the objects we state we have in view in connection with this war. The only reason I have for saying a word about this important problem is that I have travelled a little over the Continent of Europe. What are the problems that caused this war? Before you can state your peace aims you must find out what caused this war. It is. not Hitler himself who caused this war. As a matter of fact, there are people in Great Britain and in France who welcomed Hitler at first because he was going to stamp out Communism on the Continent of Europe; he is now, however, declaring war on the very gentlemen in France and in Great Britain who welcomed him at the time.
  I have been in Danzig. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about Danzig? In the settlement of this war what is to happen to that city? I will tell the House what I saw in that city, which is predominantly German, more German than Liverpool is English. The Corridor is predominantly German. [Hon. Members: "No."] Well, take the statistics.
  Sir Stanley Reed: Surely the hon. Member is aware that the Corridor was go per cent. Polish?
  Mr. Willink: Fully 90 per cent. Polish, I should say.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: If the hon. Member will take the statistics before the Corridor was "Polonised," he will see what the position was. Then, what is to happen in Gdynia, the port that was built, I understand, by French money, in order to make a port for the Corridor and destroy
  668
  Danzig? Then what is to happen to the Sudetenland, and to Austria; and, above all things, what has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about the problem of tariffs? And what about the Ottawa Agreement? I represent a fair body of opinion when I say that slogans like "Fight Hitlerism" do not appeal to us at all. This war is based on economic considerations from beginning to end, and I think the time has arrived when the Government ought to state what it is we are fighting for.
  I was very pleased with what another hon. Member said about the situation at home; what are His Majesty's Government going to say about economic conditions at home at the end of the war? Take the textile industry of Lancashire, employing 700,000 people in one county. Because of tariffs, restrictions and quotas all over the world, that trade was reduced to about 50 per cent. Those are the problems to which His Majesty's Government ought to call attention. In the coal industry we have lost many of our markets. What are His Majesty's Government going to say about the coal industry? What about payment for goods by barter instead of payment in gold? I am a novice in these things, but I understand that the British and French Empires and the United States can pay for their goods in gold. Germany and other countries have no gold.
  I do not want to be too critical, and in any case not a word of mine must be taken as giving the slightest indication that I sympathise with Hitlerism. I detest Hitlerism, detest it wherever I see it—in our own country on occasions. We have met it here at home, and I suppose we shall meet it here later on. For the sake of the boys who are prepared to fight for this land, I make this appeal for a statement of our peace aims. I have attended annual conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union almost all over Europe, and I am sure that most of the people who attended those conferences from time to time and who believe in the things that we believe in—democracy, freedom, liberty of opinion, liberty to worship as we please—will rally more to our cause in their own countries if His Majesty's Government will tell us what we are fighting about in this war.
  I do not know what hon. Members feel about London, but I am very sad about

  669
  it. It is no joy to me to know that the working classes have been blown sky-high in Berlin and in Hamburg merely because our people have been treated in the same brutal fashion in London, Manchester and Liverpool. The time may well arrive fairly soon when this view will be more generally accepted about these things. Greater men than I have stood here, John Bright among them, and he once said something like this:
  "I have heard a hundred arguments in favour of war, but I have yet to listen to a good one."
  I was elected to Parliament because I opposed the last war, and if I am to be fair to my conscience and to myself, I must say once again in this House that war has settled nothing in the history of mankind—nothing at all. Some day, when the statesmen of Europe have blown their respective towns to pieces, they will hold a great banquet, and then they will ask each other, "What is it all about?" Before then, they will have killed millions of people, and women and children will have fled from their capital cities to find refuge somewhere else. I hope that the House will forgive me for saying things about which I feel deeply in regard to war; but unless I am mistaken, the statesmen of the belligerents must get together soon, or they will destroy these two capitals. Buildings that were erected by the craft and genius of men of long ages ago are being blown to bits in the twinkling of an eye. I do not like the work of genius being destroyed in Germany, France or in our own country, I appeal, in order to clear the diplomatic air a little, that the Government will, at long last, tell us what we are fighting for.
  Mr. Stokes: We have just listened to a very emphatic and sincere speech from the front Bench on this side of the House. I rise to support my hon. Friend, although possibly not in the same terms or with the same eloquence or vehemence. I am convinced that the time is long overdue for the Government to make a positive declaration of what we are fighting for. My profound conviction is, whether it be right or wrong—and one can say only what one does believe—that such a declaration would have a profound effect upon the working people of Germany as well as upon the working people throughout Europe and the British
  670
  Commonwealth. I was profoundly dissatisfied that the Prime Minister should tell us to-day that he still thought that the time was not ripe.
  I should like to know, when the Debate is being wound up, especially as the Minister of Information is to reply, whether our propaganda is not entirely at fault. Who has made Hitler really popular in Germany since the war started? I am not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Information, because his office has been through various vicissitudes; but, without any doubt, it is our own propaganda that has done so by rallying all the elements sympathetic to us behind Hitler. I know that the House will rise and oppose me when I answer my next question, but who has made our present Prime Minister really popular among the people in this country? Dr. Goebbels, because he keeps on telling our folk and the people of Germany that our Prime Minister is the one man whom the people of Germany should really fear.
  I question very much our methods of propaganda, but I have intervened particularly in order to take the Minister of Information to task on a matter over which I had some correspondence with him in the past few weeks. On 19th July this year, Herr Hitler made a speech in German. I think I am right in saying that it was made at about 6 o'clock in the evening. At 9 o'clock that night, the British Broadcasting Corporation, through a gentleman with whom I am not personally acquainted but whose name is Mr. Sefton Delmer, broadcast a reply. Mr. Delmer said:
  "We throw back the appeal in your teeth "—
  that was an appeal to reason. I agree, after reading the appeal, that there was not an awful lot of reason in it. I saw the speech which the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to send me. It went all over England, but several copies reached me too. Mr. Delmer went on:
  "Our reason, our national strength, our feeling of honour and justice and our sense of responsibility to the world demand that we fight on with all our might for the freedom that you wish to destroy."
  All right; I am not complaining at all with what Mr. Sefton Delmer said. The point is, is it right, and is this House of Commons going to put up with it, that

  671
  the British Broadcasting Corporation should apparently answer for the great British Empire a speech made in German at 6 o'clock in the evening, through the voice of a person of no importance employed by the B.B.C.? I think it is entirely wrong. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Information protesting against that course having been followed. He replied:
  "I have had inquiries made and Mr. Delmer, while speaking in his own name as a private individual known to certain members of the Nazi Party, expressed comments which were made with the full knowledge of the relevant authorities and in consultation with them."
  I was amazed that a speech broadcast in Germany at 6 o'clock and rebroadcast three hours later in England should not first have had better consideration from responsible people. I wrote to my right hon. Friend, and I told him that I should like to know a little bit more about what he meant by saying:
  "with the full knowledge of the relevant authorities and in consulation with them."
  He replied that the discussion took place
  "With the appropriate officers in the Ministry of Information, and I myself listened to Hitler's speech. People in the Department of Propaganda of the enemy were also listening. None of us had any doubt as to how Hitler's speech could be answered. Neither was there any doubt in the Foreign Office or among the population."
  How he knew that by 9 p.m. I do not know. I am protesting not against the answer but against the method of answering. I consider that when a speech of that importance is made, whether one agrees with it or not—and I am bound to say that I found myself in almost complete disagreement with it, but I should have had a much better answer than Mr. Sefton Delmer—it should have better consideration before an answer is given on what is regarded as the national means of communicating with the outside world. I wrote to the Minister again on 11th September and said:
  "Am I to understand that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not himself approved the broadcast, and am I further to understand that the Prime Minister was not consulted before the reply was sent?"
  Again, to my surprise, the Minister of Information said that it was not a reply to Hitler's speech but a commentary on it, and that what might be regarded as
  672
  an official reply was given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs three days later. In my opinion, and the opinion of many people outside this House who are much more competent to judge than I am, a speech of that importance should not have any reply sent to it until consideration is given to it by the responsible authority in this country. Surely the responsible authority in this country to make a reply to a speech of that kind is the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if possible after consultation with this House. I hope that no other speech of that kind will be answered until full and clear consideration has been given to it by the people responsible to this country.
  Let me turn to the point of this Debate, that constructive aims should be stated by His Majesty's Government. I have been accused recently, after a speech in this House, of not putting forward constructive proposals. Let me say that I have put forward constructive proposals, since 1st October last year, until I am tired of doing so, and that nobody in the Government takes a bit of notice. I dare say that one day—perhaps not while I am alive—people will find it possible to agree with what I put forward. In order that there shall be no doubt, let me now say that I want to tell the German people, and all the peoples of Europe, that we do not seek to reconstruct Europe as it existed prior to 3rd September last year. I am not prepared, on any account whatever, to support the tariff-ridden Europe which we knew before the war. If we are to have peace, tariffs must go; and as soon as we, as one of the leading nations, make it clear that that is a policy that we support, the better it will be. Most of us are not prepared to support the international moneylenders' racket. I hope that that is a matter that we shall discuss to-morrow. I want to see the complete abolition of the present monetary system ultimately based on gold; and the sooner we make our currency system relate itself to the productive capacity of the countries concerned, the better for everybody. I would like to see it made clear that the British Empire, with its enormous land areas and resources, is prepared to do something for the security of Europe. All of our immense areas of land and our natural resources are, for some man-made reason, now under the undisputed control of the

  673
  monopolists. Make it clear to all people, whatever their creed, however much they may be our enemies, that these restrictions will be swept aside, that we will do our utmost to bring economic security to all the peoples of Europe; and in that way assure that, in so far as in us lies, peace shall be brought to all the peoples on this earth.
  The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) devoted a great part of his speech to criticism of the Government for their action in allowing a reply to a speech by Hitler to be made by a distinguished journalist the same day. I was extremely relieved to hear that I had given the hon. Member a perfectly sound reply to every question he asked on the matter. It seems to me that what the hon. Member is complaining about is not what Mr. Sefton Delmer said, or the way in which he said it, but simply that he said it without sufficient collaboration with the appropriate authorities.
  Mr. Stokes: The authority of the Government.
  Mr. Cooper: I was going to say that Mr. Sefton Delmer, whose name is well known in Germany, where he was a foreign correspondent for many years, took care that nothing he said should commit the Government, and that steps were taken to see that nothing he said should embarrass the Government. All that my hon. Friend says is that he would have liked more time to have been given for the speech to be considered. There, he has my sympathy. With regard to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), he has given warning that he would raise the matter, but it was only this afternoon that I heard of it.
  Mr. Mander: I gave definite notice to the Parliamentary Secretary last Thursday that I would raise the matter to-day at four o'clock. I think I am perfectly in order. If my right hon. Friend was not informed, that is not my fault.
  Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member will accept my word that the first I heard of it was after one o'clock to-day. Therefore, on this subject of the first importance I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues. I think the Debate has certainly done no harm and
  674
  may have served one or two useful purposes, except for the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), which frankly was the speech which we might have anticipated from him, rather emphasising our responsibility for the war and minimising those of the enemy, a speech prompted by a very genuine hatred of war, a speech which asked what we are fighting for. Most of us are well aware what we are fighting for, which is a very different thing from our final war aims. Except for that speech, I have heard nothing with which I could quarrel. The speeches have served to show how important the subject is, and also how difficult it is. Whether this was the exact moment to raise it is another question. The two reasons given by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton were not, I think, convincing.
  Mr. Mander: I was asking a question with regard to the statement broadcast in the Press that the Government were holding a number of meetings at which statements would be made with regard to their war aims, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what that means and what is being said.
  Mr. Cooper: No such official statement has been issued. The Ministry of Information has been running a campaign explaining the Imperial situation of the British Commonwealth of Nations to the people in the country, to reinforce the knowledge that they already possess of these matters, and one of the statements we have issued says that this Commonwealth of Nations will give the world, after the war, guidance in the right way of facing up to the problems presented by Germany's attempt to dominate the world by force, by a new combination of nations, a new experiment in international co-operation based on consent. This must surely form a guide to any international experiment which may be undertaken after the war. That is all that was meant to be said.
  I think the Debate has also demonstrated the extraordinary difficulty of proceeding in any detail towards a definition of war aims. I am certain that the majority of us are pretty plain about what we are fighting for. As the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) said, we did not start this war in order to introduce any new improvements in the world. We struggled against this war. We did not

  675
  wish to be led into this war. We saw that there was much in the world that needed improvement, but we did not see any problem that needed improving so badly or any improvement in any way that we would like to introduce that would justify the desperate policy of entering into an international war. We stand for a certain way of living. We think that that way of living, that form of comfort, has in this land at least given to our people for a long period the greatest blessing and political institutions; it has given them order, liberty and progress. Perhaps order has occasionally been disturbed, but less than in any other country. Perhaps the liberty has been limited, but it has been more extended probably than anywhere else in the world. Perhaps the progress has been too slow, but it has at any rate been set and always in the right direction.
  Mr. Stokes: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept his definition of democracy as being a state which allows you to be idle, starved and grumble about it?
  Mr. Cooper: I will not enter now into an argument with my hon. Friend as to definitions of democracy, but certainly the last definition, the right to grumble about it, is one that I hope will always be reserved to our people. As far as idleness and starvation are concerned, there has been less idleness and starvation in this country than in most other countries. When we come down to defining exactly what it is we are going to do after the war, I was challenged by the hon. Member for Westhoughton as to exactly what the countries of Europe are going to be. The solution of the Polish question and the Czech frontiers are absolutely matters that no one can deal with in the House of Commons—not while the war is raging. But when we get beyond that general basis of agreement, immediately we find differences of opinion, and in any statement that the Government may make in the future, the most desirable of all things is that they should command the greatest possible unanimity, not only of all people and all parties in this country, but of all people and of all parties throughout our great Dominions, and also of all those nations whose Governments are still upon our side and who are still our Allies; and also that will make the widest possible
  676
  appeal to those men of good will and lovers of freedom who are now the slaves and vassals of our enemies. That is why it is so difficult and delicate a problem. Even this afternoon, in such agreement as there has been, there has arisen on one Bench a difference between two Members opposite and, therefore, when you come to think of the scope of the problem with which we are faced, you must make allowances and give power to those who are struggling to face them.
  I admit quite frankly the desirability of issuing a statement as soon as possible, but "as soon as possible" does not mean haste. There should be no undue haste in issuing a statement of this kind. As far as unanimity can be achieved, it will be a good thing, when we are in a position to do so, to make a statement. Meanwhile, we are all, with one solitary exception in this House, clear as to what it is we are fighting for. We are clear why we went to war. We saw the hand of tyranny gradually being extended ever Europe, and we saw one free nation after another, one small Power after another, falling a victim to this hideous tyranny. And we have seen their own culture extinguished; we have seen their citizens reduced to slavery. That is not the opinion of the hon. Member opposite, but I can assure him it is the opinion of 99 out of every 100 in this country. When we saw that that same threat was coming ever nearer to us and that it threatened those upon whose friendship we relied and would eventually threaten the whole world, then only did we take arms to defend our liberty and the freedom of the world.
  Mr. Stokes: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? That is what we are fighting against and not fighting for. We are fighting to destroy that. That, I understand, but it is no use fighting for a negative object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that stated the better.
  Mr. Cooper: We are fighting for our liberty. When we walk about the streets of London we see how buildings have been destroyed. Some of them may have been beautiful houses, and some may have been ugly houses. If we had been asked a year ago whether we wanted to destroy those houses in that way, we would have said, "No, let them stand and serve their purpose as long as possible." But

  677
  now naturally it is our duty to take thought of how, when the time comes, we can build them up again, better and more useful than ever. Equally this world which is now being destroyed by this terrific war, a war which we never desired and which we were prepared to do almost everything to avoid, when this war shall
  678
  have destroyed a great part of the modern world, it will be our duty then, as it must be our duty now, to think how we can rebuild a more and more beautiful fabric.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.