Commons Sitting of 3 December 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPPING

    Merchant Navy Training Board
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of War Transport whether any steps are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Report of the Merchant Navy Training Board of June, 1943.
    The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): Yes, Sir. The Merchant Navy Training Board, on which the Minister of Education and I are represented, recently decided to prepare a scheme for carrying out the recommendations of the 1943 Report.

    Duty-Free Tobacco
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of War Transport (1) if he will provide a list showing the prices at which duty-free cigarettes are sold to officers and men on board ships of the Mercantile Marine;
    (2) whether he will make arrangements to provide that the cigarettes and tobacco which are supplied duty free for the use of officers and men in the Mercantile Marine are not sold to them in excess of the proper price, and whether a list of such prices will be made available in every ship so that the officers and men con-
    1884
    cerned can make certain that they are being treated fairly in this respect.
    Mr. Barnes: The arrangements for the provision and sale of tobacco and cigarettes to ships' crews are a responsibility of the owners and managers of the ships and have already been the subject of discussion by the National Maritime Board, on which the officers' and seamen's organisations, as well as shipowners, are fully represented. Tobacco and cigarettes may be bought in this country or abroad and the selling price varies according to the provision which has to be made for additional charges such as insurance and handling. No list of uniform or standard prices can therefore be produced. I am assured that owners are anxious to do everything possible to secure that fair prices are charged and I am asking them to consider the exhibition on each ship of list of selling prices.
    Mr. Janner: Are my right hon. Friend's inquiries with regard to the two cases of overcharging, of which I sent him particulars in August and September, yet completed? What action has he taken to protect men of the Merchant Navy from overcharging meanwhile?
    Mr. Barnes: I think my reply covers the general point. I will communicate with my hon. Friend on the other two matters.

    Repatriation (East Africa)
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-Whiteasked the Minister of War Transport if he will give the numbers of United Kingdom Service personnel and Italian prisoner-of-war personnel who were repatriated from East Africa by the "Capetown Castle" and "Caernarvon Castle" that left Mombasa on 9th October and 21st November, respectively; and if, on those dates, he had notice of United Kingdom Services personnel eligible for repatriation who were not embarked owing to lack of accommodation on the transports named.
    Mr. Barnes: At the dates in question these two ships were engaged on the repatriation of South African troops. They were not en route to the United Kingdom, but to the Middle East. I am forwarding to the hon. and gallant Member a more comprehensive report.
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: Might I ask for an assurance that in any case

    1885
    Italian prisoners of war shall not be given priority over United Kingdom personnel in repatriation? Should not Italian shipping be utilised, provided there is Italian shipping there?
    Mr. Barnes: Whilst, of course, having every sympathy with that view, I am afraid I cannot give such an assurance as these matters are usually arranged in connection with the military authorities, sometimes for other reasons, but, as a general rule, the view of the hon. and gallant Member applies.

    Washington Negotiations
    Mr. P. Freemanasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, in the financial discussions now taking place in Washington, no decisions regarding shipping will be taken without consultation with British shipping interests.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The financial talks at Washington are not specifically related to shipping. I cannot promise that all private interests likely to be affected will be consulted before the Government reaches a decision. There will, of course, be opportunity for Debate.
    Mr. Freeman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when the discussions will be completed?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

  ROADS

    Speed Limit (Western Avenue, London)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of War Transport, in view of the number of road accidents, if he will impose a speed limit upon that section of Western Avenue between Western Circus, East Acton and Hangar Lane traffic lights; that the pedestrian footbridge at the junction of Allan Way and Western Avenue obstructs a clear vision of the road; and will he take steps to remove it to a spot where such obstruction will not arise.
    Mr. Barnes: An analysis by the police and my officers jointly of the accidents which have occurred on Western Avenue during the last 12 months does not indicate that the speed of traffic was a major
    1886
    cause. As regards the footbridge at Allan Way, the necessary alterations will be put in hand immediately to remedy the obstruction to vision, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought the point to my notice.
    Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 70 accidents have occurred during the past 22 months on this section of Western Avenue, and would he inquire into the circumstances of those accidents to see to what extent the lack of a speed limit has contributed to them?
    Mr. Barnes: I will certainly inquire into the route to which my hon. Friend refers, but from the figures 1 have for the 12 months from 1st November, 1944, to 31st October, 1945, there have been 47 accidents on that stretch of road.

    Reserve Pool (Release)
    Mr. Callighanasked the Minister of War Transport how many officers and men have asked to be released from the Merchant Navy reserve pool, in accordance with the arrangements of 21st September, 1945; how many have been released; and when he will extend the groups to whom release applies.
    Mr. Barnes: The announcement on 21st September, 1945, was un extension of the age and service groups eligible for release on termination of current engagements under the Merchant Navy release scheme first announced on 7th June, 1945. Since the scheme started 7,927 officers and men of the Merchant Navy have been released under these arrangements and with the exception of a few cases at present outstanding, all those eligible who have applied have been released. In addition I have agreed to follow the Services in releasing out of turn a limited number of men urgently required for the work of reconstruction, and under this head, 802 officers and men of the Merchant Navy have been released. Since the announcement of 21st September, 1945, I have further extended the age and service groups eligible for release in the case of radio officers and assistant stewards and the position remains under constant review.
    Mr. Callaghan: As the deck and engine room ratings are still only down to group 27, and the reserve pool is growing, would

    1887
    not my right hon. Friend agree to give fresh consideration to this matter immediately?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes; as I indicated, this matter is constantly under review, and I promise to look into it again.

    Haulage Vehicles (Loaded Running)
    Lieutenant William Shepherdasked the Minister of War Transport if he will state the numbers of empty miles run by road haulage vehicles operating under the control of his Ministry during the past 12 months.
    Mr. Barnes: This figure is not available. The hon. and gallant Member may, however, be interested to know that a sample analysis in 1944 showed a percentage of loaded running of 81. While loaded mileage figures obviously vary from time to time according to the incidence of traffic. I have no evidence to suggest that this figure has altered materially since then.
    Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both operators and drivers are fed up with the waste that the present bureaucratic system involves?
    Mr. Barnes: No, I am not aware of that. I am rather impressed by the fact that it has only just been discovered since the Lord President of the Council made his statement.

    London Passenger Transport Fares
    Lieutenant W. Shepherdasked the Minister of War Transport when it is expected that the war time 1 ½. fares on L.P.T.B. vehicles will revert to the normal 1d. rate.
    Mr. Barnes: I see no justification at present for withdrawing the increase made in the Board's fares during the war.
    Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many provincial buses run by private enterprise have not found it necessary to increase their basic fare of 1d., and would he consider the reverting of the London Passenger Transport Board to ownership which is better suited to the wage-earners?

    Brake Testing
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of War Transport whether, in connection with his present campaign to reduce road accidents, he intends to take steps to make compulsory the regular testing of all motor-vehicle brakes with a view to ensuring a pre-determined standard of braking efficiency.
    Mr. Barnes: Powers already exist under which the police and certain of my officers may test the brakes of any vehicle. The Committee on Road Safety recommended the establishment of vehicle testing stations in their interim report and propose to deal more fully with the matter in the further report they are now preparing.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that the testing of brakes usually takes place after an accident has occurred, will my right hon. Friend see whether any definite step could be taken to ensure a regular test, so that accidents could be avoided?
    Mr. Barnes: As I have indicated, the whole matter of safety devices and matters of that description are coming under comprehensive review, and will be related together.

    Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Dainesasked the Minister of War Transport if he will state the present position as regards the supply of goods vehicles as compared with applications approved by the regional transport commissioners; and whether he is taking steps to speed up manufacture of vehicles in view of the great demand for replacements after six years of heavy wear.
    Mr. Barnes: At the present time the numbers of applications for licences to acquire new goods vehicles are in excess of the numbers of goods vehicles being delivered, but the position is improving, and commencing with the New Year the manufacturers programmes of production show a substantial increase.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Why cannot the Minister ease the position by releasing some of the Army vehicles which are now standing in dumps all over the country?
    Mr. Barnes: That question should be directed either to the Secretary of State for War or the Minister of Supply.
    Sir W. Smithers: "Passed to you."

    Secondhand Motorcars (Price)
    Squadron-Leader Segalasked the Minister of War Transport whether any action has been taken to prevent the sale of secondhand motorcars at prices in excess of their cost when new; and, if not, upon what grounds he has come to this decision.
    Mr. Barnes: It has not hitherto been considered advisable to limit the sale price of secondhand cars.
    Squadron-Leader Segal: Is the Minister aware that many demobilised ex-Service-men find a car essential for taking up civilian employment, and does he approve of the present situation and the racket in secondhand cars?
    Mr. Barnes: I am quite aware of the need of ex-Servicemen and, of course, others, and I have done my best to facilitate the acquisition of cars. In regard to the more complicated problem of dealing with prices, I am rather of the opinion that accelerated production in 1946 is the best way of solving this problem.
    Mr. Driberg: Why is it complicated to say that no car shall be sold for more than its original price?
    Mr. Barnes: Because of the general problem of supervision and matters of that description. In view of this general difficulty, in my judgment, this will best be resolved now by increased production.
    Mr. Eden: Is not the solution the manufacture of cars for the home market, which the Government are discouraging?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not accept that, and the figures in the near future, I think, will prove otherwise.
    Sir John Mellor: Will the Minister represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the removal of the Purchase Tax on new cars would go a long way to meet the difficulty?

    Long Distance Services
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of War Transport if he will define the term "long-distance road services", for the purposes of the Government's policy of nationalisation.
    Mr. Barnes: I should prefer before making any statement to give the interests concerned an opportunity for
    1890
    further discussion in order that we may reach a workable line of demarcation between long and short distance road services.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the Minister have early consultations as, since his statement, there has been a great deal of anxiety caused to many small operators?
    Mr. Barnes: It can be as early as they like, as far as I am concerned.
    Mr. De la Bère: The ordinary man does not want it.

    New Vehicles (Licences)
    Lieut.-Colonel Thorpasked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that an application by the Northumberland Whinstone Company for a licence to replace two tipping wagons took seven months to obtain from the date when they were certified by his Department to be beyond repair; and if he will ensure that a further application on 22nd October will be dealt with more expeditiously?
    Mr. Barnes: I am making inquiries into this particular case and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  RAILWAYS

    Romford-Liverpool Street Services
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Minister of War Transport whether, in view of the overcrowded and inadequate railway service during the morning and evening rush hours, between Romford, Gidea Park and Liverpool Street, he will arrange for additional trains; and if he will take steps to ensure that the trains run to schedule, as for some time most of them have been consistently running late.
    Mr. Barnes: The service between Romford, Gidea Park and Liverpool Street during business hours is the maximum that the L.N.E.R. can provide with their present resources, and I regret that in the circumstances some overcrowding of trains is unavoidable. The late running is mainly due to shortage of maintenance and other staff at locomotive depots. Fog, in recent weeks, has caused further difficulties. Every effort is being made to ensure punctual working.

    L.M.S. Express Services
    Mr. McKieasked the Minister of War Transport if he will make a statement with regard to the consistent late running of the following L.M.S. express trains: the 10 a.m. Glasgow, Central, to London, the 10 a.m. Glasgow, St. Enoch, to London, and the 8.40 a.m. Perth to London.
    Mr. Barnes: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. McKie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for three or four months past all the three trains named in my Question have averaged not less than one hour late, that the travelling public between London and Scotland whose journeys are really necessary, and also the staff, are thereby suffering great inconvenience which they feel is avoidable? Will he give the matter his early personal consideration?

  TRANSPORT (ABERDEEN—SOUTH OF ENGLAND)
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of War Transport what steps he proposes to take to expedite and rationalise commercial transport between Aberdeen and the South of England.
  Mr. Barnes: I am not aware of any special difficulties in connection with commercial transport between Aberdeen and the South of England, but if my hon. Friend will let me have further particulars of what he has in mind, I will consider them.
  Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Aberdeen's geographical position makes first-rate transport by road, rail and sea essential for carrying its merchandise to the thickly populated districts in the South of this island?
  Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot move the geographical position of Aberdeen, but if there are any matters of organisation in connection with transport difficulties, I will look into the matter.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am not asking him to deal with the geographical situation of Aberdeen, but with the transport from that city to thickly populated areas in the South of England?
  Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member will submit to me the problem he has in mind, I will endeavour to deal with it.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is not the financial aspect very appropriate?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Tyre Covers
    Lieut.-Colonel Thorpasked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that lorries used for essential road and construction work have had to be abandoned on the roadside owing to lack of replacement of 34 ×7 covers for tyres; and when tyre covers will be available for quarries and hauliers transporting material essential for road maintenance and the manufacture of concrete.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that there is a shortage of 34 ×7 covers for tyres, but steps have been taken to increase production and as new equipment now on order becomes available the position will show a steady improvement. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish particulars of work held up by shortage of tyres, I will have enquiries made.

    Surplus Government Cloth
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production what quantity of cloth is now held by Government Departments; and what steps are being taken to dispose of it.
    Sir S. Cripps: I have been asked to reply. Some of the cloth held by Government Departments is required for Service needs and for clothing for demobilised men, but 16½ million yards of cloth of various kinds is available for disposal. Cotton and rayon cloth is disposed of through British Overseas Cottons, Ltd., and wool cloth through the Wool Industry Surplus Cloth Corporation, Ltd. Most of these cloths will be available for the home market, while silk cloth will be sold to exporters. Arrangements for disposing of linen cloth, at home or for export, according to the type of cloth, are practically complete.
    Mr. Spearman: In view of the urgent civilian needs, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to accelerate these arrangements for disposal?
    Sir S. Cripps: They are being accelerated, and large quantities have already been disposed of.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can ray right hon. Friend say if some of this cloth can be made available without coupons for uniforms for charitable organisations like the Church Army?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

    Calcium Cyanamide
    Mr. P. Freemanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the pressing demand of agricultural interests to secure supplies of calcium cyanide as fertilizers; whether supplies are now available in Norway; whether the Combined Food Control Board in Washington will provide the necessary permits; and whether he will grant the necessary import licences to make this commodity available to farmers and allotment holders in this country at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir S. Cripps: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to calcium cyanamide. I understand that production of this material is being resumed in Norway; but I am advised by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, that there is no urgent demand for its use as a fertiliser in this country and it is not at present proposed to apply to the Combined Food Board for an allocation of Norwegian supplies.

    Footwear
    Mr. Dribergasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has now been made in securing the return of labour to the footwear industry; and how soon he anticipates that there will be an improvement in the quality and quantity of children's shoes available in the shops.
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he has taken since July to increase the production and improve the distribution of babies' and children's shoes; and with what results;
    (2) what is the estimated present production of babies' and children's shoes; and how it compares with the present estimated demand.
    Mr. Monslowasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the widespread demand of mothers of
    1894
    small children for infants' footwear, including socks, during the whole of 1945; that only two factories are turning out shoes size one to four and that the health of such children is being affected; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the position, particularly during the coming winter months.
    Sir S. Cripps: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Members' permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. and learned Friend also say whether the answer contains any satisfaction or not, as this is really a very burning problem?
    Sir S. Cripps: It contains the facts which my hon. Friend wishes.
    Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some general perspective of the present position, and is he entirely satisfied with it?
    Sir S. Cripps: I can certainly never be satisfied until everybody have all they want, and they cannot have it at the moment.
    Mr. Monslow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend realise the worry this is causing not only to mothers but to the trade?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am sure the hon. Member will realise that it is causing me a great deal of worry.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: As Members of the House are anxious to receive the answer to these Questions, will the Minister read the answer at the end of Questions?
    Following is the reply:
    In 1939, the number employed in the footwear industry was approximately 100,000. In July, 1944, it had been. reduced to 66,770, and in July, 1945, had only risen to 68,175. In the last three months, the rate of return has shown considerable improvement, and the labour force increased by over 2,000 to a total of 70,652. With regard to the production and quality of children's footwear, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) on Monday last. There are over 100 registered firms engaged in the manufacture of infants leather footwear and

    1895
    eight are specifically employed on the production of sizes 0 to 6. The production of infants' shoes was 1,118,669 in October as against 986,515 in July; this represents an annual rate equivalent to 129 per cent. of the 1935 figure. With regard to infants socks, over 800,000 dozen pairs were produced during the period May to August, 1943, but in the same period in 1945 this figure rose to over 1000,000 dozen pairs, an increase of nearly 16 per cent.

    Bedding
    Miss Baconasked the President of the Board of Trade what further steps he proposes to take to increase the supply of sheets and blankets.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 29th October.

    Women's Clothing
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the scheme he recently announced for imposing maximum prices on women's non-utility outerwear will have a disastrous effect on wholesale model house trade in this country, thereby completely destroying the valuable export trade that was being developed; and will he reconsider the position in consultation with the trade interests concerned.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am considering, in consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee, whether those businesses which claim to be wholesale model houses are sufficiently different in character and requirements from the industry in general to justify special treatment. But I have no power to fix prices for individual businesses of this kind until the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts can be amended under the powers to be conferred by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. As far as the export trade is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him to a similar Question last Monday.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that it is very difficult for this industry to develop an export trade unless it has a home trade on which to base that export trade; and will he reconsider the whole question with a view to helping this industry, the most important in my constituency?
    Sir S. Cripps: As I have already told the hon. Member, I am now considering it with the Price Regulation Committee.

    Home Timber Department
    Mr. Vaneasked the President of the Board of Trade what reduction in the staff of the Home Grown Timber Department of his Department has been made since VJ-Day; and what further early reductions he is considering.
    Sir S. Cripps: Figures are not available as at the exact dates in the Question. Between 1st July and 1st October, however, the numbers employed in the Home Timber Production Department fell by 1,188, a reduction of 8.5 per cent. The arrangements now being worked out to obtain supplies of timber from Germany should enable further substantial reductions to be made, but it would be premature to give estimates as to the rate of reduction.
    Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is the intention to maintain in peacetime a Home Grown Timber Supply Department at all comparable to that maintained during the war?
    Sir S. Cripps: It will be necessary as long as the present acute shortage exists.

    Invalid Chairs
    Squadron-Leader Segalasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that secondhand self-propelled invalid chairs are now priced at charges over 200 per cent. of their original cost when new; and if he will take steps to control these prices which involve a considerable hardship upon an afflicted section of the population.
    Sir S. Cripps: I shall be glad to look at any case that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. So far no specific evidence of such excessive charges has come to my notice. But if there are such cases, I will certainly consider extending price control to prevent them.
    Squadron-Leader Segal: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider at least laying down a ceiling price beyond which these sales would be made a criminal offence?
    Sir S. Cripps: As I have stated, if the hon. Member will give me the example he has in mind, I will look into it.

    Machine-Glazed Paper
    Mr. William Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of making available supplies of machine-glazed paper to make possible the production of posters advertising British goods shortly to be shipped for export abroad.
    Sir S. Cripps: Machine-glazed paper is being made available to produce posters for export.

    Rubber Boots
    Major Wiseasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for the issue of permits to enable roadmen working in rural areas to purchase rubber boots for necessary winter work in ditches in snowy and wet weather.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. Surplus A.R.P. boots are now being reconditioned and will very soon be on sale in the shops, permit free, at three coupons a pair. I hope that the needs of roadmen and other outdoor workers will be met in this way.

    Small Shop Tenants (Reinstatement)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to provide that, where men who have been serving with the Forces and have been released, who were tenants of a small shop prior to being called up and the shop has been let to other tenants in their absence, the landlord shall be compelled to reinstate them as tenants in every case where it can be shown that he could do so, in view of the necessity for ex-Servicemen to return to their previous business to enable them to earn a livelihood.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The volume of cases of the kind mentioned would not justify legislation of the sort suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister appreciate that there are very real cases of hardship among ex-Servicemen; and will he take special care when replying to me, in view of the importance of the subject?

    Industrial Clothing Coupons
    Mr. Attewellasked the President of the Board of Trade, when the next issue of the industrial ten coupons may be expected.
    Sir S. Cripps: As in previous years, a grant of 10 Supplementary coupons will be given to many workers in industry and agriculture. Full details will be published early in the New Year of the categories of workers eligible and the way of applying to the local offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

    Sports Goods
    Major John Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade, what percentage of sports goods is reserved for the use of N.A.A.F.I.; and what percentage is available for sale to the public through the retail shops of the country.
    Sir S. Cripps: About 55 per cent. in quantity of priority sports goods, i.e. equipment for team games, is at present allocated to the Services and bought, in the main, through N. A.A.F.I. Most of the remainder is allocated to civilian priority users at home and bought in the retail shops. No other types of sports goods are reserved for N.A.A.F.I. except to a very limited extent in one or two special cases.
    Major Morrison: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that there is a considerable shortage among the younger members of the community, and will he do all he can to encourage production?
    Sir S. Cripps: We are doing all we can to increase the supplies.

    Oversea Visitors (Clothing Coupons)
    Major J. Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Regulations covering the grant of clothing coupons to temporary visitors to this country, including information on the numbers of coupons so provided.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. These arrangements have recently been revised, and coupons are no longer issued to visitors from overseas until they have been resident here for two months. If their stay is prolonged beyond this period, they are given 10 coupons as a quarterly instalment of the basic ration. Intending visitors to this country are being advised to bring with them the clothing they will need during their visit, but those who find themselves in exceptional difficulties, e.g. on arrival from the tropics without warm clothing, may apply in writing to

    1899
    my Department for special consideration. In such circumstances, coupons will be given only in so far as is necessary to prevent visitors from suffering hardship during their stay in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wheatley: Will the Minister kindly give instructions to his Department that these applications are to be dealt with immediately and not left for some months?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not think any of them are left for some months. They are dealt with as promptly as possible.

    Knitting Wool
    Mr. Toucheasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of wool for knitting winter clothes for children in the Reigate and Redhill district; why supplies are now scarcer than during the war; and will he take steps to increase the supply.
    Sir S. Cripps: The shortage is general, although the position is improving. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) on 29th October.

    Youth Organisations (Clothing Coupons)
    Mr. Murrayasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that organisations such as the Church Lads' Brigade and others needing uniforms are hampered and restricted in their work owing to the scarcity of coupons; and will he consider the question of reducing the coupon value of surplus secondhand stock, and thus assist these youth organisations to obtain the necessary uniforms.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) on 28th November.
    Mr. Murray: Will not the Minister reconsider this matter, as it is very difficult for people who are trying to keep youth organisations together to do anything unless some reduction can take place?
    Sir S. Cripps: The matter has been considered very carefully, and, very regretfully, we are unable to do it.

    Finished Steel (Export Allocation)
    Colonel Errollasked the President of the Board of Trade how finished steel products have been allocated as between home requirements and the export market up to June, 1946.
    Sir S. Cripps: The steel allocation for the early part of 1946 is still under consideration, and I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter.
    Colonel Erroll: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give full consideration to making a generous allocation to export, particularly to the Middle East, so that we can beat American competition more effectively?
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir, I will certainly give careful consideration to giving a sufficient allocation to export.

    Rubber Study Group
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade to ensure a better protection of native rubber producing interests, by appointing a representative from amongst the packers and shippers of native rubber to the Rubber Study Group.
    Sir S. Cripps: The interests of the native rubber producers can safely be left in the hands of the official members of the United Kingdom Delegation.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is not the general opinion that the interests of the native are being safeguarded at present?

    Furniture Storage
    Lieut. - Commander Gerald Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the embarrassment caused to householders at the present time through the owners of furniture warehouses terminating the leases in order to use them for other purposes; and whether, in view of the fact that those who have their furniture in such warehouses have nowhere else to store it, he will take steps to give special protection to furniture warehouses against the termination of leases until the present housing shortage is at an end.
    Sir S. Cripps: My attention has not before been drawn to any difficulties of the

    1901
    kind referred to. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me details of any case he has in mind, I will look into it.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Fabricated Construction
    Colonel Errollasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production whether in view of the Government's failure to supply sufficient skilled labour for the ferrous and non-ferrous foundries, he will instruct all firms to replace castings by fabricated methods of construction wherever possible.
    The Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production (Mr. John Wilmot): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are taking all possible steps to remedy the present shortage of labour in the iron foundry industry, but in placing Government orders full use is made of alternative methods of construction wherever this is necessary. It is, of course, open to any manufacturer to consider the use of fabricated products as alternatives to castings.
    Colonel Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is giving special consideration to the desirability of fabricating household components instead of casting them?
    Mr. Wilmot: That is under consideration, wherever necessary.

    Royal Ordnance Factories (Production Programmes)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production (1) If he is yet able to announce his production programme for the Royal Ordnance factories it is proposed to maintain in operation;
    If he will give the minimum figure to which employment will be reduced in each of the 19 Royal Ordnance factories, respectively, which are to be maintained in production; and
    Whether he will cease reductions in establishments of Royal Ordnance factories until their production programmes have been decided upon.
    Mr. Wilmot: The production programme for the Royal Ordnance Factories cannot be completed until the Service Departments, who are at present re-assessing
    1902
    their requirements, have formulated definite programmes, but it is our intention that, alter satisfying the needs of the Services, the Royal Ordnance Factories shall play a full part in meeting essential civilian requirements including supplies for the housing programme. My hon. Friend will, therefore, appreciate that it would be premature to give figures of nucleus employment, factory by factory, as the level of production is not yet settled and we are in process of considerable re-planning and re-equipping for civilian production. Reductions in the labour strengths at some of the Royal Ordnance Factories must, however, continue in view of the severe curtailment of Service demands for warlike stores.
    Mr. Davies: Cannot the Minister possibly give some indication of the minimum strength of the establishment in certain of these Ordnance factories in view of the uncertainty which prevails at the present time amongst employees there?
    Mr. Wilmot: Certainly, I will do that as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: What does the Minister propose to do about those factories he does not intend to keep in operation, such, for instance, as the Tullos factory in Aberdeen?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am afraid I cannot go into details about any particular factory, without notice.

    Footwear (Demobilised Personnel)
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he will state the number of pairs of boots and shoes which will require to be manufactured by 1st June, 1946, for supply to those being demobilised.
    Mr. Wilmot: During the nine months ending on 30th June next we need to make 2,250,000 pairs of shoes for supply to those being demobilised.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the Minister satisfied that leather is available for this production and can that leather be procured, priority being given over production for civilian requirements?
    Mr. Wilmot: I think the answer to that is "Yes,'' but perhaps the hon. Member will put it down, if he would like particulars.

    War Materials
    Captain Gammansasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production (1) how many tanks and aeroplanes of all types were completed during the month of October; and what is the monetary value of the orders for both still outstanding;
    (2) how many completed military aircraft, tanks, armoured vehicles and 25-pounder guns were completed and passed final inspection for handing to the Services in the month ended 31st October, 1945.
    Mr. Wilmot: During the month ended 31st October, 1945, we produced 666 aircraft of all types, 120 tanks, 109 armoured vehicles and no 25-pounder guns. These totals include a large number which were in an advanced stage of production when the war ended. Production programmes are shortly to be reviewed in the light of a reassessment of their requirements now being carried out by the Service Departments. The monetary value of outstanding orders does not, therefore, give any accurate indication of future production.
    Captain Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many men and women are at this moment engeged on the production of war materials?
    Mr. Wilmot: Not, I am afraid, without notice.

    Inspectorate (Outside Works)
    Lieutenant W. Shepherdasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he will state the number of inspectors attached to outside works who were employed on 1st May, 1945, and 1st November, 1945.
    Mr. Wilmot: The number of inspectors on the strength of my Ministries and attached to outside works was 27,135 on the 1st May, and 11,380 on the 1st November, 1945.
    Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there still are attached to outside works a large number of inspectors who are serving no useful purpose, and will he see that they are directed to more useful channels?

    Surplus Vehicles (Disposal)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production, in
    1904
    view of the limited transport available, if he will take immediate steps to secure for the use of the public service motor cars that are now lying idle and are standing exposed to the weather, particulars of which have been sent to him.
    Mr. Wilmot: The hon. Member has sent us a copy of a recent Press photograph of one of the vehicle parks under my control. I would refer him to my answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) on 15th October, which gave full details of the procedure which is followed in disposing of the vehicles in these parks. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this reply.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that there are thousands and thousands of vehicles parked all over the country? In view of the shortage of transport, will not the right hon. Gentleman release them at once, and if they cannot be used as they are will they be broken up and the parts used? Will he take some definite steps to put the matter right?
    Mr. Wilmot: I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that it would be a very foolish policy to fill our roads with unsafe vehicles. The vehicles which have been passed to my Department, and which are needing repair and reconditioning, are being dealt with up to the limit of the capacity of the industry, which we are doing everything we can to increase.

    Gas Meters
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production if he is aware of the shortage of gas meters, which is preventing people from sharing their homes in accordance with Government policy; and if he will take immediate action to deal with this shortage.
    Mr. Wilmot: The production of gas meters has been substantially increased since the beginning of the year. I was not aware that their shortage is having the effect to which the hon. Member refers, but if he knows of any such cases and will give me particulars I will certainly try to help.

    Malayan Rubber Shipments
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production what quantities of rubber and tin have been purchased in

    1905
    Malaya and shipped to this country respectively since the re-occupation of that territory; and who will receive the money paid for these stocks.
    Mr. Wilmot: No purchases of tin have yet been reported, but I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade that 24,311 tons of rubber have been purchased in Malaya, of which 16,484 tons have been shipped to the United Kingdom. These purchases have been made from the Custodian of Enemy Property in Malaya, in whom are vested the stocks found there and settlement will be made with him.

    Housing Components (Castings)
    Colonel Errollasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production from what sources he expects to obtain such castings as are needed for the State manufacture of housing components.
    Mr. Wilmot: These requirements will be obtained from the foundry industry.
    Colonel Erroll: Is the Minister satisfied that foundries can supply the castings for the purpose?
    Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir, I think so.

    Aluminium Houses
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production at what rate he is charged for the aluminium that is being used in the emergency bungalows?
    Mr. Bossomasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the aluminium that was used in aircraft damaged during the war is now being reused for the emergency aluminium house.
    Mr. Wilmot: I will answer this Question with No. 99, to which I have been asked to reply. The aluminium used in these houses is charged for at the controlled prices of £85 per ton for the virgin ingot and £46 per ton for the secondary ingot. A considerable proportion of the latter is recovered from scrap from damaged aircraft.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the Minister explain how much is of the one kind and how much is of the other, so that anybody can make an intelligent estimate of the real cost of this aluminium?
    Mr. Wilmot: Not without notice, Sir.

    Bomb Distributors, Nottingham
    Mr. Quintin Hoggasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production how many bomb distributors for the R.A.F. have been manufactured in Nottingham since VJ-Day.
    Mr. Wilmot: None, Sir, but certain components which form a small part of bomb distributors are still being manufactured by one firm there, under subcontract.

    Gift Binoculars
    Lieut.-Commander Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production whether he is aware that those who, in 1940, gave their binoculars to the Ministry of Supply instead of lending or selling them to the Government, are now being informed that if surplus Service binoculars are ultimately available an opportunity will be given to those who gave or sold their binoculars to the Government to purchase a replacement through normal trade channels; and whether arrangements can be made to give more favourable treatment to those who gave their binoculars freely than to those who received full cash value for them.
    Mr. Wilmot: Whilst I greatly appreciate the public spirit of those who made gifts of all kinds to the country towards the prosecution of the war, I am afraid that it is not possible for those who gave their binoculars to the Government to receive more favourable treatment in the disposal of surplus binoculars than those who sold them to the Government.
    Lieut.-Commander Williams: Is the Minister aware that in the future there may be further national emergencies, and if the Government now treat those who gave their binoculars generously, they are much more likely to have a successful appeal in the future?
    Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir, I appreciate that, but I am afraid that at that time imperfect records were made and binoculars were only one item among many, which included pots and pans and motor cars, which were donated for this purpose.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give those who gave their binoculars to the country at that time,

    1907
    the opportunity of purchasing binoculars from the Government out of the surplus stock?
    Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir, the same as the others.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

    Vikings and Tudors
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production how many Viking aircraft and how many Tudors have now been ordered by or for the Ministry of Civil Aviation; and when he expects that delivery of them will have been completed.
    Mr. Wilmot: It is contrary to established practice to give particulars of orders placed by the Government with individual firms. I am, however, able to state that a total output of 85 Vikings and 83 Tudors is expected by the end of 1946. The majority of these aircraft are for delivery against orders placed by the Ministry of Aircraft Production; some are being produced for private sale.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the total output will be adequate, in view of the tremendous potentialities?
    Mr. Wilmot: No, Sir, I hope we shall be able to build up the output, as labour becomes available.
    Mr. Bowles: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's Department and/or the Ministry of Civil Aviation, or even the operators themselves, give these orders to these firms now?
    Mr. Wilmot: Orders are placed by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and, in addition, some orders are accepted for private sale and export.

    Brabazon I
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production what is the amount of money expended to date on the Brabazon I aircraft, and what is the estimated total cost; and when is the prototype aircraft expected to be flying.
    Mr. Wilmot: It is contrary to established practice to disclose contract prices, or payments to individual firms. The first prototype aircraft is expected to fly in the Spring of 1947.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister satisfied that when this aircraft does fly it will have a performance equivalent to American aircraft?

  ATOMIC ENERGY (CONTROL)
  Captain Blackburnasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to associate the U.S.S.R. and France with the proposals to be laid before the Assembly of the United Nations by the U.S.A., Britain and Canada for the control of atomic energy.
  The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are in consultation with the United States and Canadian Governments on the whole question of the procedure for bringing before the United Nations Organisation the proposals in the Tripartite Statement of 15th November for the control of atomic energy. I hope shortly to be able to make a further statement to the House on this important question.
  Captain Blackburn: May we take it that, in the meanwhile, it would be in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government for the permanent members of the Security Council to be associated at the earliest possible opportunity with the proposals to be laid before the Assembly of the United Nations in January?
  The Prime Minister: That seems rather to anticipate the decision.

  DUTCH EAST INDIES (EVACUATION)
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the appeal from the chairman of the Batavian Red Cross for the evacuation as quickly as possible from Java of 200,000 people, all said to be in danger of being kidnapped or butchered; and what steps he is taking to meet the appeal.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): I have been asked to reply. I have seen a Press report of an appeal on the lines indicated in the hon. and gallant Member's Question. The appeal itself has not yet reached me, but I have received a copy of another appeal addressed to the Dutch Lieutenant-Governor-General on 26th November by

  1909
  members of women's camps in Batavia regarding the evacuation of women, children and aged and sick persons from Java. It is not yet clear how many persons would be involved. I have, however, instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at The Hague to seek the views of the Dutch Government on the whole problem as soon as possible. In the meanwhile, we are urgently investigating certain possibilities relating to reception areas and shipping facilities.
  Major Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the immediate danger is that a large number of these women and children are, apparently, in the interior, that it is not a question of getting them out of the country so much as bringing them into a safe part under British protection, and that the Batavian Red Cross are deeply concerned lest a most terrible tragedy might occur unless some action is immediately taken?
  Mr. McNeil: As I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates, the difficulties here are manifold, but I do assure him that His Majesty's Government are zealously concerned with this project and will not easily be halted.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country as a whole will firmly support any definite and determined steps which are taken to help these people, but will never forgive any half-heartedness and lack of decision?
  Mr. McNeil: There will be no half-heartedness.

  BELSEN TRIAL
  Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many convicts in the Belsen trial were adjudged guilty of murder and did not receive sentence of death.
  Mr. Mathers (Treasurer of the Household): None of the accused in the Belsen trial was specifically charged with murder. The charges related to ill-treatment of internees which, in some cases, caused their deaths. Eleven of the 30 found guilty were sentenced to death, but the Court did not specifically state in its findings that any of them had been responsible for causing deaths.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply shows what a farce the whole thing is?

  AGRICULTURE

    Machinery (Servicing)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with mechanical equipment on the farms throughout the country, he will arrange better facilities for maintenance and repair than exist now; and whether he will endeavour to ensure that in every district competent agricultural engineers are available to give special consideration to those members of the Forces who have gained mechanical skill in the R.A.F. and R.E.M.E. to set up on their own, or join existing agricultural engineering firms, so as to provide for the regular servicing of farmers' machines.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Facilities for the maintenance and repair of agricultural machinery should improve as more skilled labour becomes available with the release of men from the Forces. Discussions are now in progress with representatives of employers and workers in the trade, and the Ministry of Labour hope shortly to arrange a scheme for the training of persons released from war service who wish to enter employment in the industry.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the need for speeding up this matter, since maintenance and repair are vital on farms to-day?
    Mr. Williams: Most certainly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Can the Minister say whether these men may apply under the Class B release scheme?
    Mr. Williams: I believe that when the Ministry of Labour's scheme is available, those who emerge under Class B may be able to qualify for tuition while doing their ordinary jobs.

    Opencast Workings (Land Restoration)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Agriculture how long a period it is estimated is required, and the approximate price of cultivation and manures per acre, before land handed back after opencast working is capable of producing an average corn crop or grass ley.
    Mr. T. Williams: Provided the top soil is properly replaced and spread, and seed is sown—following on the necessary cultivations—at the appropriate time of the year, a grass ley could be ready for grazing within three months from the time cultivations commenced. Similarly, a crop of Spring corn could be ready for harvesting within 7–8 months and Winter corn within 9–10 months, but seeding direct to corn is not encouraged. The approximate cost of cultivations, manures, seeds and labour does not normally exceed £15 per acre.
    Colonel Clarke: Can the Minister tell us whether the cost of the preparation and replacement of this soil is added to the cost of the opencast coal?
    Mr. Williams: I think that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Baldwin: Can the Minister say from where the top soil is to come which is to be put back again, since it is buried?
    Mr. Williams: It will come from where it happens to be.

    Sugar Beet (Processing)
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will arrange for the sugar-beet factories to be kept open for the acceptance of sugar beet from the farms of Norfolk for a sufficient time to ensure that the heavy crops which have been produced are not left on the farms and wasted.
    Mr. T. Williams: The Government will do everything they can to ensure that sugar beet suitable for processing is not wasted.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister satisfied that the periodic reviews that are taking place regarding the processing of this crop are satisfactory?
    Mr. Williams: Quite.

    Dispossessed Farmers (Appeal Tribunals)
    Flight-Lieutenant Haireasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet any statement to make regarding Government intentions to set up independent appeals tribunals for the hearing of cases of farmers dispossessed of their holdings by County War Agricultural Executive Committees.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I apologise for the length of the reply. I have decided to set up eight regional tribunals of a non-statutory and informal basis, pending the introduction of permanent legislation to give effect to the policy which I announced in this House on 15th November. Each will consist of a chairman with legal qualifications selected by me, together with one member selected from a list of persons nominated by the National Farmers' Union and one member selected from a composite list of persons nominated by the Central Land Owners' Association, the Land Agents' Society and the Chartered Surveyors' Institution jointly.
    As soon as the tribunals are set up, a farmer will have the right to appeal, should he so desire, against any proposal by a county war agricultural executive committee to terminate a farm tenancy or to take possession of a farm in the interests of more efficient food production and to state his case before a tribunal, who will report to me. The final decision will be taken by me as the Minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of the Emergency Regulations concerned. Each regional tribunal will be appointed ad hoc to deal with a case, or group of cases in a particular locality, regard being had in the selection of the personnel to the geographical situation and the type of farming in question.
    Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Will there be retrospective consideration in the case of farmers who were dispossessed during the war?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir, that would be quite impossible, since the evidence is no longer available.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does this apply to Scotland, and if so, will appropriate bodies be drawn upon for the members of these tribunals?
    Mr. Williams: I think my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replied to a similar question last week.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: When will these fresh arrangements come into operation, and will the House have an opportunity of discussing them beforehand?
    Mr. Williams: I hope the tribunals will be set up almost immediately, but I do not see the point of any discussion upon them.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is it the Government's intention to consider setting up tribunals for appeals other than those against dispossession?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

    Class B Releases
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Minister of Agriculture how many claims for Class B releases have been sent to his Department by the War Agricultural Executive Committees in England and Wales; how many of these claims have been brought by his Department to the Ministry of Labour; and how many of them have been rejected or held up by the Service Departments concerned.
    Mr. T. Williams: Approximately 1,900 applications for Class B release under the individual specialists scheme have been sent to my Department by war agricultural committees, 756 of these have been recommended to the appropriate authorities. Release has been approved in 602 cases, and 35 have been rejected for non-compliance with the essential conditions. Decisions are awaited in the remaining 119 cases.
    Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discrepancy between the number of cases recommended by the committees and the number of cases sent forward by his Ministry will cause a great deal of disquiet in the country?
    Mr. Williams: I do not think so. The committees are fully aware that the Department can recommend only those who are recognised as specialists.
    Mr. Bartlettasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many important claims for Class B releases for agricultural purposes are not supported by War Agricultural Executive Committees; and whether he will encourage these committees to forward to his Department all claims which will result in a useful increase of national food production.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now been able to issue fresh instructions to War Agricultural Executive Committees allowing them to recommend more applications for Class B releases from the Services in respect of experienced farmworkers; and if he will state the terms of these instructions.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture why, having regard to the gravity of the labour situation in agriculture, the War Agricultural Executive Committees have only seen fit to recommend 25 per cent. of the applications for release under Class B which have been referred to them.
    Mr. T. Williams: So far it has been possible to secure the release under Class B of agricultural workers only in cases which comply with the conditions laid down by the Government for the release of "individual specialists." Most of the applications made to war agricultural executive committees do not comply with these essential conditions, and it would accordingly be useless for committees to support them or forward them to my Department. The whole question of Class B releases for agriculture has, however, been under consideration, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service hopes to make a statement on the subject in the very near future.
    Mr. Bartlett: Before the Minister makes that statement, will he remind his right hon. Friend of the important part to be played in any planned agriculture by these war agricultural executive committees, and therefore, the importance of persuading the farmers that they are there to defend the interests of agriculture and not to impede them?
    Mr. Williams: I am constantly reminding my right hon. Friend of that.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Has the number of releases absorbed the quota of Class B releases for agriculture?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir, not yet.
    Mr. Maxton: Are the county war agricultural committees supplied with a definition of "specialists"?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, I think every committee knows exactly what is meant by "individual specialist." He must be a person who is going to take full responsibility for a farm.
    Mr. De la Bère: The position is very unsatisfactory.

    School Harvest Camps
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture how much assistance has been given to agriculture by those attending

    1915
    school harvest camps this year; and if he expects that such help will be needed again next year.
    Mr. T. Williams: I estimate that about 45,000 boys and girls have helped with the harvest this year from camps organised by the schools, and this assistance has been of the greatest value. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the grateful thanks of the Government both to the boys and girls themselves and to the masters, mistresses and other helpers who have willingly given up so much of their holidays to organise these camps and make them a success. The need for school harvest camps will be at least as great in 1946 as in the war years, and I feel sure that I can rely on the continued support of the schools.

    Training Scheme
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex- Servicemen and women have been accepted for training under his scheme; and how many have been refused.
    Mr. T. Williams: Up to 31st October, 477 men and women had been accepted for training and 69 applications had been rejected.
    Mr. Roberts: On what grounds were the applications refused?
    Mr. Williams: On the ground of unsuitability.
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture what classes of persons it is intended to exclude from the advantages of his agricultural training scheme by paragraph three of the scheme.
    Mr. T. Williams: Agricultural training under the Government's Vocational Training Scheme will be available to all applicants who are accepted by the Ministry of Labour and National Service as satisfying the conditions of eligibility of that scheme and who satisfy my Department that they intend to seek and are physically and otherwise suitable for a permanent livelihood on the land. No particular classes of persons are being excluded from the scheme.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister explain briefly in ordinary language what paragraph 3, under which men are excluded, does in fact mean?
    Mr. Williams: Since it is the Ministry of Labour and National Service who are interviewing these applicants, perhaps it would be for that Department to interpret paragraph 3.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the statement was sent out by his Department?

  NEWFOUNDLAND (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE)
  Major Asterley Jonesasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) what is the total number of children attending school in Newfoundland Labrador; and what percentage of them attend during compulsory school age;
  (2) what is the total number of children attending school in the island of Newfoundland; and what percentage of them attend during the compulsory school age.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): The number of children attending schools in the island of Newfoundland is 69,130 and in Labrador about 750. Of these the percentages attending during compulsory school age are approximately 74 per cent. and 76 per cent. respectively.

  CANADIAN FORCES (AFFILIATION ORDERS)
  Earl Wintertonasked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that instances have occurred where affiliation orders made against members of the Canadian Forces have not been carried out owing to the soldier or airman concerned having returned to Canada; and if he will communicate with the Government of the Dominion of Canada with a view to seeing if such orders can be made enforcible in Canada.
  Mr. Parker: If an affiliation order is made by a court against a Canadian soldier, the Canadian military authorities make such deductions as they deem appropriate from the pay of the soldier concerned for the benefit of the mother. These deductions cease on the man's discharge from the Forces, and there is thereafter no way in which payment of the order can be enforced by the Canadian military authori-

  1917
  ties. Civil proceedings can, however, then be taken in the appropriate Canadian court. It would be difficult to ask the Canadian Government to pass special legislation for the enforcement of affiliation orders made in this country, since no provision exists in United Kingdom legislation for the enforcement here of affiliation orders made in Canada.
  Earl Winterton: Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise how profoundly unsatisfactory his answer will be to these unfortunate people. How can some poor girl institute proceedings in Canada? I desire to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment, as I think a gross injustice is being done.
  Mr. Parker: Very few cases have arisen up to now, but we are keeping a watch on the matter.

  FILM INDUSTRY
  Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the extension of the film making activities of Mr. Arthur Rank and his associated companies he will take steps to ensure that small exhibitors not connected with Mr. Rank get a fair share of these films at equitable rates and with priority as to time of showing.
  Sir S. Cripps: I have been in consultation with the British film producers, and steps are being taken to restore to them as fast as possible the maximum amount of film studio space with the necessary complement of skilled manpower and studio equipment. By this means, I hope that more British films will become available to all exhibitors, large as well as small. I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 7th November to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves). It is not proposed at present to control film rentals or to interfere with the booking of British films to the cinemas.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his reply
  1918
  does not in any way cover the point made in the Question and that it means that the small produce is left in the hands of the trusts, who are not so much their friends as the answer appears to make out?
  Mr. De la Bère: What about the small exhibitor? We want to know more about this matter.

  CHINA (INTERNAL AFFAIRS)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the policy which has been followed by the British Government with regard to Chinese internal affairs during recent years.
  Mr. McNeil: The policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Chinese internal affairs has been and still is to treat them as matters for China herself to resolve. I would add, however, that it is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government to see China a strong, united and prosperous nation.
  Captain Gammans: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House and to the world that there has been no interference whatever by His Majesty's Government's representatives with Chinese internal affairs during the last six months?
  Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has already stated so.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that, owing to the bilateral agreement made with China and other countries, the answer of the hon. Gentleman by no means covers the Question, and that an early statement of the Government's real policy in regard to China is needed?
  Mr. McNeil: I cannot accept the implication that this is not our real policy. I am of the opinion that the answer has met the Question which is on the Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make financial provision for the purpose of facilitating the production equipment, repair, alteration and acquisition of houses and other buildings, and to make provision for limiting the price for which certain houses may be sold and the rent at which certain houses may be let, it is expedient—

  (1) to authorise the Treasury to advance money out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of defraying expenses of the Minister of Works in performing functions in connection with—

  (a)the purchase, production and distribution of building materials and equipment for buildings;

  (b)the carrying out of work undertaken for the purpose of providing housing accommodation;

  including expenses incidental to the per-performance of those functions and charges—

  (i) in respect of premises, supplies or services used in connection with the performance thereof; and

  (ii) in respect of expenses which fall or may ultimately fall to be borne in providing superannuation benefits in respect of persons who have been employed in connection with the performance thereof;

  so, however, that the total amount outstanding in respect of the principal of such advances shall not at any time exceed one hundred million pounds;

  (2) to authorise the Treasury, for the purpose of providing money to be so advanced as aforesaid, to raise money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, and for that purpose to create and issue securities which shall for all purposes be deemed to have been created and issued under that Act;

  (3) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any sums payable by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the pro visions of the said Act, into a Fund to be established under those provisions;

  (4) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all sums paid by the Minister of Works to the Treasury in respect of advances under the said Act and of any amount standing to the credit of the said Fund when it is closed;

  (5) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph and the application of sums so issued, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest which would other wise be payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, and, in
  1920
  so far as they do not represent interest, in redemption or repayment of debt;

  (6) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums pay able by the Minister of Works in respect of advances under the said Act after the said and has been closed;

  (7) to authorise the increase by fifty mil lion pounds of the limit upon the sums which the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of de fraying expenses incurred by the Minister of Works for the purposes of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944; and

  (8) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required to be so paid in consequence of in creasing the limit upon the estimated value of houses or flats in respect of which guarantees may be given under section ninety one of the Housing Act, 1936, or under section seventy-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, as amended by section sixty-seven of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935."

  Resolution agreed to.

BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL
Considered in Committee
[MAJOR MILNER in the chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Advances to Minister of Works.)
3.17 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1,line 13, at end, insert:
"from outside the United Kingdom when such materials and equipment will not be procurable in the quantities required and at times required from sources within the United Kingdom; and for purchasing building materials consisting of structures ready for erection as houses and permanent equipment for such houses."
This Amendment raises the question of the limits upon the articles of association of the unlimited company which the Government are proposing to form. I recognise that it is inevitable, however desirable or undesirable it may be, that the Government should engage in bulk purchase for the goods required from overseas for houses. That is due to currency difficulties. I quite appreciate that if a number of possible purchasers were able to go into the oversea market there might be competition which would result in prices being lowered against us, and there is the danger, with Government purchasing, that one price only will be offered and the Government told that they can take it or leave it. None the less, speed is of vital

1921
importance in this matter, and it may be that greater speed will result from Government purchase overseas.
The case for bulk purchase is recognised in this Amendment, and also the case for the Government's purchase of articles required for permanent prefabricated houses, but, apart from those two categories, I suggest that the Government have not made out any case at all, so far, for purchase, as distinct from making arrangements for production and distribution. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works said that, over a very wide range, particularly of those items for which the Ministry of Supply was responsible, it would be necessary to place Government orders. He went on to make this statement:
"These orders may either take the form of direct bulk purchase or manufacture in Royal Ordnance Factories and resale by the Government, or they may take the form of what are called production agreements, under which the firms undertake to produce certain quantities of particular articles and the Government undertakes to indemnify the firms in respect of any goods unsold at the end of the period covered by the agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th Nov. 1945; Vol. 416, c. 905.]
So the Government, obviously, are contemplating two different ways of operating, and I suggest that all that they want to achieve can, in fact, be secured—leaving on one side for the moment the permanent prefabricated houses and purchases from oversea—by this method which they themselves have indicated, of entering into production agreements, with provisions for price control and with provisions that the loss, if any, through non-sale of the articles produced, shall be borne by the Ministry of Works. If that is done, the only loss, as I see it, that will fall upon the taxpayer through the Ministry of Works will be if the Ministry of Works overestimate the demand for the goods for which they authorise production in this way. Contracts of this sort will not lead to any increase in the price of the articles due to the intervention of the Ministry of Works. If that form of production agreement is entered into, the manufacturer will supply direct to people requiring the goods, or to the building materials agents who hold the stocks for the actual builders. I ask hon. members to contrast that system, which the Minister of Works said he was considering adopting, with the other system
1922
of the purchase of goods produced in this country by the Ministry of Works. What is that going to result in, and what is it going to achieve? In itself, it will not achieve increased production, because increased production can be effected by using the powers contained in Subsection (1b). But it is bound to mean purchase by the Ministry of Works, and then there must be resale by the Ministry of Works. Looking at the financial side, is it not bound to mean that the ceiling price of the Ministry of Works is going to be considerably in excess of the price for which they bought the goods from the factory? The Ministry of Works have to cover themselves against the interest they have to pay to the Treasury on this £100 million, and, not only the expenses which they themselves incur, but the expenses which every other Ministry incurs in engaging in this Government big business?
It seems to me to follow that building materials purchase within the United Kingdom by the right hon. Gentleman opposite is going to carry an increased cost before it gets into the houses, an increased cost above that which that article would carry if the Minister merely entered into a production agreement of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated. I ask the Minister to indicate when he thinks any instance of purchase within the home market is likely to be of advantage to the housing programme, leaving on one side, of course, the case of the permanent prefabricated houses and purchases from overseas covered by this Amendment. Quite apart from the financial grounds, I put this argument to the Minister as an argument against his Department engaging in wholesale purchase. If his Department becomes the owner of thousands and thousands of windows or other articles, these will have to be stored somewhere, and distributed throughout the country. Is that not likely to mean delay and duplication of effort in trying to get the goods on to the sites at the right time? The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recollect the contribution which the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Captain Marples) made in the Second Reading Debate. I ask him seriously to consider that point, and to indicate today that he can accept this Amendment, because, as I see it, having read his Second Reading speech again most carefully, the right hon. Gen-

1923
tleman has not put forward any demand for bulk purchase of goods in this country which cannot be as adequately met by dealing with the problem under paragraph (b) of this Subsection.
This Amendment falls within a narrow compass. It deals only with the actual purchase of materials, and I do suggest, on the grounds I have put forward, that this Committee would be reluctant to grant the Minister powers of purchase unless the Minister can show conclusively that these powers of purchase, if exercised, will result in the quicker erection of houses at cheaper prices, and will do more than a production agreement, whereby the Minister guarantees that a certain number of goods will be sold, whereby the taxpayer bears the burden of the loss only if the Minister miscalculates and whereby the actual cost of the item, when it goes into the house, is not enhanced by the intervention of the Minister of Works.
The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): I think anyone who read the Amendment before hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech would recognise that it had been put down as what I would call normally a "wrecking" Amendment. It just goes to the basis of the Bill itself, and seeks to prevent us doing all the things we were wanting to do. For that reason, if for no other, we could not of course, accept it. The hon. Member who moved it made the point that he was not seeking to interfere with our exercising bulk purchase outside the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, it is questionable whether we shall need to do any bulk purchasing from outside the United Kingdom. We do not need power—
Mr. Willink: What about the Swedish houses?
Mr. Tomlinson: I was speaking of bulk purchases of materials. The purchase of materials from abroad can be financed in other ways. Timber, for instance, is bought for many other things besides houses. This Amendment would prevent us buying in bulk, and the hon. Member's argument is that we should be prevented from buying in bulk because we can by other means—by the system he outlined—arrive at the same result. He suggested that we should drop bulk purchase, and
1924
instead of using these powers should use production agreements guaranteeing production. I would point out that, if it is a question of saving money, guarantees under production agreements would require as much finance as bulk purchase. So if we look at this matter from the standpoint of whether or not there is going to be a loss, it seems to me that in either way we may be in danger of having to pay for the facilities we obtain.
3.30 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid I cannot have made my point clear. What I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say on Second Reading was that the loss which would fall on the Ministry of Works fund under a production agreement, would only be to the extent to which the Ministry of Works had overestimated the demand for particular parts.
Mr. Tomlinson: In that case the only loss there can be is to the extent to which the Ministry of Works have over-estimated the amount which has to be bought. That is a distinction without a difference. From the little I know about finance, I can see no real difference on the one hand between paying because you have bought too much, and giving on the other, a guarantee, and then not taking it all. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that this Amendment would prevent us from financing, by way of purchase and resale, the production of building materials and components in Royal Ordnance factories. One of the objects of this Bill, as was stated on Second Reading, is to develop in certain areas these factories for the purpose of meeting our requirements. To give up that power would, I suggest, defeat one of the principal objects of the Bill.
Mr. Willink: In reference to the use of this power in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, surely the Ministry will not buy from Royal Ordnance factories. There seems to be some confusion of thought. Would not anything produced in Royal Ordnance factories come not under paragraph (a) but under paragraph (b). That would be making arrangements for production, not for bulk purchase.
Mr. Tomlinson: It could be bought. From my short experience I know in-

1925
stances in which one Government Department has bought from another what it needs in order to carry out its particular function. It may also be necessary to buy in bulk so that prices may be equalised. If an industry is to develop all round, those firms which are less efficient than others will require to be paid a larger price in order to keep them going, and to bring them into line with those from whom the Government can buy things more cheaply owing to their greater efficiency. Yet their goods should be obtainable at the same price. For all these reasons, I think the Committee should reject the Amendment, and get on to other Amendments on the Paper which are intended to improve rather than to wreck the Bill.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must confess I am a little disappointed at the Minister's reply. Either I did not make myself clear when I moved the Amendment or he has avoided—I do not suggest deliberately—answering the point I made. I quite appreciate that if he miscalculates badly, he may buy more than he requires under bulk purchase, and of course if he enters into production agreements he may guarantee the production of more goods than are in fact required. But the point I made on that—and the right hon. Gentleman I venture to say has not dealt with it at all—was that if he secures production agreements guaranteeing production, the only financial burden that will fall upon his fund will be in respect of the amount of goods unsold. Those are the very words he used in the course of the Second Reading debate. He then said that the only undertaking was to indemnify the firm in respect of any goods unsold at the end of the period covered by the agreement. Two points emerge from that. That loss is limited to the amount by which he overestimates.
In the case of production agreements, the articles that are produced are not saddled with any proportion of cost due to the intervention of the Ministry of Works. But when the Ministry of Works engage in bulk purchase before these parts are sold to the local authorities or to the contractors for the houses, they must have added to the purchase price something by way of interest for the Treasury and the expenses of the Ministry. It was on the contract between
1926
purchase which involves that increase in price on what is going into the house, and the production agreement where there is no increase of price on what is going into the house, that my argument was based. The right hon. Genleman has not dealt with that at all. With regard to the point about the Royal Ordnance factories, I suggest that, if there be any purchase and sale between two Government Departments it is really in the nature of an accounting transaction, and is not a genuine purchase and sale as contemplated by the first part of this Clause. I suggest that that function would come in well under production and distribution. As for his third point, about equalisation of price, I must confess I am not quite clear as to what he meant. One of the arguments in favour of bulk purchase of building materials seems to be. that he is going to fix a price of purchase from the manufacturers which will keep the inefficient firm in full production with an additional profit to the more efficient firms. Does he mean one flat rate of purchase price? If so, we ought to know about it and consider it with more care than the right hon. Gentleman has given to it. Or does he mean that he is going to buy at whatever price he can and then try to fix one price for resale? If that is what he is going to do, then again the resale price must take into account the two items I have mentioned, the expenses of his Ministry and the Ministry of Supply if it is engaged and any other Ministry, together with the repayment not only of the principal but of interest on this large sum which the right hon. Gentleman wants to have placed at his disposal.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to these points, because he really has not replied to them at all in what he said just now. He dealt with this Amendment as if it were something quite different from what it is. He says he does not want this power of purchase from overseas. That was deliberately put into the Amendment, not because he might want it, but because the need for that was seen in the case of the purchase of prefabricated permanent houses. What is not justified is this wide power of purchase which may lead to delay in the production of houses, and not only that, but lead to every tenant of these houses having to pay something extra in rent.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 213.

Division No. 40.]

AYES.

[3.43 p.m.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Harvey, Air-Cmdr. A. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.

Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Baxter, A. B.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Howard, Hon. A.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Bossom, A. C.

Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bower, N.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ross, Sir R.

Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Carson, E.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

Channon, H.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

De la Bère, R.

Marples, Capt. A. E.

Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

Marsden, Comdr. A.

Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Marshall, Cmdr. D. (Bodmin)

White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Erroll, Col. F. J.

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gammans, Capt, L. D.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Commander Agnew and

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Mr. Studholme.

NOES

Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hobson, C. R.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Daines, P.

Holman, P.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Davies, A. E. (Burslem)

Horabin, T. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

House, G.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Hoy, J.

Attewell, H. C.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Austin, H. L.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ayles, W. H.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Ayrton-Gould, Mrs. B.

Deer, G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Bacon, Miss A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Mai. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Baird, Capt. J.

Diamond, J.

Keenan, W.

Barstow, P. G.

Dobbie, W.

Key, C. W.

Barton, C.

Dodds, N. N.

Kinley, J.

Battley, J. R.

Douglas, F. C. R.

Kirby, B. V.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Kirkwood, D.

Belcher, J. W.

Edelman, W.

Lang, G.

Benson, G.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Berry, H.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Leslie, J. R.

Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lever, Fl. Off. N. H

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Ewart, R.

Levy, B. W.

Blackburn, Capt. A. R.

Farthing, W. J.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Bottomley, A. G.

Foot, M. M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

McAdam, W.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

McEntee, V. La T.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Freeman, Maj. J. (Walford)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Freeman, P. (Newport)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Brown, George (Belper)

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

McLeavy, F.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Gilzean, A.

McNeil, H.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Goodrich, H. E.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Callaghan, James

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Grey, C. F.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Grierson, E.

Marquand, H. A.

Cluse, W. S.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Mathers, G.

Cobb, F. A.

Guy, W. H.

Maxton, J.

Cocks, F. S.

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

Collick, P.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Collindridge, F.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Mikardo, Ian

Collins, V. J

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Haworth, J.

Monslow, W.

Cove, W. G.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Moody, A. S.

Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.

Hicks, G.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Murray, J. D.

Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Naylor, T. E.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Walkden, E.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Royle, C.

Walker, G. H.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

Warbey, W. N.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Skinnard, F. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W)

Weitzman, D.

Parker, J.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Sparks, J. A.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Pearson, A.

Stamford, W.

Wilkins, W. A.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Perrins, W.

Stubbs, A. E.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Popplewell, E.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Swingler, Capt. S.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Willis, E.

Pritt, D. N.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wilson, J. H.

Randall, H. E.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Ranger, J.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Yates, V. F.

Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Reeves, J.

Thorneycroft, H.

Zilliacus, K.

Reid, T. (Swidon)

Thurtle, E.

Rhodes, H.

Tiffany, S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Tolley, L.

Mr. R. J. Taylor and

Robens, A

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Mr. Simmons.

Mr. McKie: May I call your attention, Major Milner, to a point of Order which I ventured to raise before, namely, the slipshod way in which the Government Tellers announce the result of the Division?
The Chairman (Major Milner): There. is no point of Order in that.
Mr. McKie Mr. McKie rose—
The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat. There is no point of Order in the matter which the hon. Member has raised on this and on a previous occasion. Mr. Willink.
Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, at end, insert:
"where existing and projected factory capacity is estimated to be insufficient to produce the quantity required at the dates required and where existing channels for distribution are inadequate for securing an even flow of such materials and equipment."
This is an Amendment not to be described by any fair-minded person as a "wrecking" Amendment. That phrase disappointed me in the discussion on the previous Amendment, because in the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works, in marked contrast to the Minister of Health, gave my hon. Friends and myself the credit of desiring to make this Bill workable. The basis for this Amendment is partly the extreme vagueness of Subsection (1 b); and the Amendment is intended to limit and define the area within which the Minister of Works will be
1930
empowered by this Bill to make and carry out arrangements for the provision and distribution of materials or equipment. In the Second Reading Debate it was indicated—if I may take distribution first—that it was not the intention of the Government to submit a supplementary distribution system insofar as the present organisation is itself capable of meeting the need. In another part of the Second Reading Debate we were told we were to make no mistake that the Government were to go into the distributive trades in a large way. Consequently I am sure that neither this Committee nor the people as a whole have any idea what are the intentions of the Government in this field. These words are extremely wide. I agree that parts of the Bill must be wide in their language in order to allow for sufficient flexibility. Let us examine them for a moment. It is proposed that the Minister of Works should be given an unlimited function only defined by the words:
"(b) making and carrying out arrangements for the production and distribution of any such materials or equipment;"
I think it is common ground in all parts of the Committee, and it is certainly felt in every city and town and village of the country, that the basic difficulty in getting on with housing is shortage and mal-distribution of labour. The difficulty lies in building up the appropriate team, the balanced gang, for there pair and building of houses, and no doubt the same is true in the distributive trades. It was intended in the Debate, as I understood it, that the

1931
purpose of the Government was really precisely what is expressed in this Amendment, namely, that—if I may now quote the words of the Amendment—
"where existing and projected factory capacity is estimated to be insufficient to produce the quantity required at the dates required and where existing channels for distribution are inadequate for securing an even flow of such materials and equipment "—
fresh arrangements can be made by the Minister of Works. It cannot, I imagine, be the intention of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, where they estimate that the existing and projected factory equipment is sufficient, or where they estimate that the existing channels for distribution are adequate to secure an even flow, that they should desire or plan for powers to intervene. Consequently, this Amendment is merely to safeguard the Minister against pressure to intervene where he, in fact, believes there is no need for his intervention.
There is one very grave risk with regard to this project if it is taken with a wide application. To build up, at a time of shortage of labour, at a time when existing and well tried businesses and organisations are finding that their prime difficulty is to get their staff, to build up at that very moment a subsidised, financially irresponsible organisation will do more than anything else, I believe, to hold up rapid progress. That is why I hope very much that the Government will be willing to be taken at their word—their word expressed in the Second Reading Debate—namely that this arrangement to intervene will only be undertaken where there is a satisfaction in their minds that either the factory's capacity or the existing channels for distribution are inadequate to the need. What is the use, where there is adequate factory capacity and plant, at a time when we know that the labour will not be sufficient for our purposes for many months to come, to build up fresh staffs, fresh organisations, with the result that the existing organisation and existing factory capacity will be starved, will not be producing up to capacity, and all the time there will be this rivalry? So this Amendment is devised for a practical end. It is devised to arrive at the mind of the Government. If it is not accepted, if it is challenged, it can only be, as I see it, on the doctrinaire basis that even where they think the capacity is adequate, even
1932
where the organisation is adequate to secure a sufficient and an even flow of the material, none the less, they want powers to set up their own organisation. If that is the attitude taken, then we and the country as a whole will know what are their intentions, but if, as I hope, they accept the view that I have expressed with regard to the intention and meaning of the Amendment, namely, that it is merely putting into words what the Minister said on the Second Reading Debate, we shall be exceedingly satisfied.
Mr. Kirkwood: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I put this question to him? Are we to understand that this Amendment has been designed for the express purpose of assisting the Minister over the difficulties with regard to housing?
Mr. Willink: No, Sir.
Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was.
Mr. Willink: Oh no, I said it was to assist housing, which is quite a different matter.
4.0 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Derek Walker-Smith: I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Minister of Works, rather surprisingly, described the first Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. I do not think he will be able to apply that language to an Amendment so manifestly designed to be helpful as the one to which I am now addressing myself. These words are designed to limit the action of the Minister in accordance with what apparently is the intention of the Government so far as it can be seen from the speeches in the Second Reading Debate, but it is because there is some obscurity in those speeches that it is thought that these words should be imported into the Bill. The Minister of Works, in moving the Second reading, while addressing himself to the question of distribution, said:
"It will, however, be necessary to supplement these arrangements by setting up a special distribution organisation."
Then follows a statement that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to go into business
"both in the manufacture and in the distribution of building materials and components in a big way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November,1945; Vol. 416, c. 906.]

1933
Those words, it seems to me, are to some extent qualified by the words of the Minister of Health on the Financial Resolution. He said:
"The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about failure of distribution is entirely irrelevant. Normally speaking, in these circumstances the local contractors will be obtaining their materials through the building merchants "—
That is to say, Major Milner, through the usual channels. In answer to an interjection by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Captain Marples), the Minister said again:
"As a general rule, the building contractor will be getting his materials from a retail builders merchant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1945; Vol. 416? c. 1009–10.]
Twice in that speech the Minister of Health emphasised that in the ordinary way the normal channels of distribution are to be preserved. This Amendment puts into the Bill the intention of preserving those normal channels of distribution where possible and puts into the Bill a Clause to limit Ministerial action to those cases where existing channels of distribution are inadequate for securing an even flow of materials and equipment. It seems to me that this is an Amendment the Government ought to accept, because it puts into language what is apparently their intention.
Mr. Bowles: Can the hon. and gallant Member say where the words used in the Amendment are to be found in the speeches made either by the Minister of Health or by the Minister of Works?
Lieut. - Colonel Walker - Smith: The words in the Amendment are put into the language of a Statute. I did not suggest they were the precise words that were used; they are a more elegant and literary and concise form of the words.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is the hon. and gallant Member's opinion.
Lieut.-Colonel Walker-Smith: That is my opinion, and I hope it will be the opinion of the Committee. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) for the opportunity to show that we have done the Government this trifling service of interpreting their intentions and drafting an Amendment to insert them in the Bill, and I hope that in return for
1934
that trifling service the Minister will accept the Amendment.
Major Niall Macpherson: I support the Amendment. It seems to me there are three reasons why the Government might wish at the present time to set up manufacturing arrangements. The first is to supplement an inadequate supply. The second—which will no doubt be adduced by the right hon. Gentleman—is to supply labour in certain parts of the country where otherwise ordnance factories could not be used. The answer to that point might be, What is to prevent those ordnance factories being disposed of to private enterprise and used in that way? The third reason is what I might call "the question of confidence.", I quote the words of the Minister of Health when he said:
"and we want to make materials ourselves for the purpose of checking the cost of production in private concerns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 1002.]
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a little astonishing that the Members on the Treasury Bench should expect confidence from private enterprise and yet not be prepared to give confidence to private enterprise. I cannot see why in this particular case they should wish to do so, nor can it possibly be to the advantage of anybody to do so. In that they could meet all requirements, except perhaps for temporary and prefabricated houses. That being so, any intrusion of the Ministry into the field, as my right hon. and learned Friend has already said, reduces their output, reduces the spread of their overheads and raises prices. Then along comes the Minister and says, "We must set up factories ourselves in order to check the price." In that case their own prices should, indeed, be lower, if they are intruding into the field and in that way raising the prices that have to be charged by private enterprise, but in fact it is most unlikely that they will be. I should like here again to raise a point which was raised on the Second Reading: how are they going to show that in fact they are making a profit in the same way as private enterprise will have to make a profit on that production?
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to treat this Amendment

1935
seriously. There has been a certain amount of light-heartedness in the Debate so far. [Hon. Members: "From your side."] No, the laughs have come from the hon. Member's side, and I hope he and his friends will take their duties a little more seriously. The builders merchants industry quite rightly have anxiety, and after what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I feel that if the Government cannot accept this Amendment they should at any rate explain very carefully why they cannot. This Amendment seeks to allow builders merchants, where they can function perfectly and with efficiency, to be permitted to do so, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make clear what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government and what lies behind their action. Is it the case that hon. Members on this side are right that the Government wish to injure the builders merchants? I do not hear any dissentient voices opposite as I mention that. Or is it that they only want to supplement them? If that is so, I think the right hon. Gentleman could accept the Amendment without in any way preventing his Bill from working. If he is not able to accept it may we please know the reason, so that builders merchants may know what their future is to be, and whether their fears are groundless or whether they are very real.
Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) suggests that we should not laugh, and at the same time suggests that I should accept an Amendment which cuts away the powers which we are seeking. I am afraid that I cannot live up to his desire that we should be serious all the time when such requests are being made. I was a little surprised, too, at the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment suggesting that he did not like my reference to the previous Amendment as a "wrecking" one, because I am quite certain that he knew that the effect of that Amendment, if it had been carried, would have been to wreck the Bill. I would not put this Amendment in the same category. The first Amendment was intended to sink the boat out of hand. This Amendment is intended to make a little opening just below the water line. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no doubt about
1936
it. That is what it is intended to do. And I am not surprised. I should have been surprised if an Amendment in this form had not been put down by hon. Gentlemen, otherwise I do not think they would have been doing their job. They are asking for assurances in given directions, but in addition they are seeking to make it statutory that there shall be no power to go beyond that. What they are asking the Government to do is to take sufficient power to do certain things only if private enterprise falls down, and they are putting it in such a way that private enterprise must go on for a long time before we can declare that it has fallen down.
Mr. Willink: May I call attention to the terms of the Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman will observe that we desire him to have this power where the existing factory capacity is "estimated to be insufficient "—estimated today, next week, at any time—but not where it is estimated to be sufficient.
Mr. Tomlinson: Again I am afraid that my upbringing does not enable me to enter into these fine points of distinction. It comes to the same thing. When will that point be reached, and how often will the Minister have to determine whether or not existing and projected factory capacity is estimated to be insufficient? An hon. Member opposite suggested that there was sufficient capacity now. My right hon. and learned Friend made the same statement in his Second Reading speech. He read from a letter which had appeared in "The Times" that morning in which it was suggested that the capacity to produce 500,000 houses had been in existence before the war, and followed that up by suggesting that it was still there.
Mr. Bossom: Was it not the equipment for 500,000 houses?
Mr. Tomlinson: It was not a question of equipment. It was suggested that there would be sufficient capacity—will that do?—for 500,000 houses. Therefore, in the terms of this Amendment as interpreted by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there is no necessity for the Government to enter into this field at all.
Mr. Willink: Oh, no.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Tomlinson: I would ask the Committee to consider the logic of the situation. I may be simple, but that is how it appeals to me. Make no mistake about it, we want this power, whether for production or for distribution, in order that we may exercise it, when necessary, to produce the things that are needed to produce the houses. I think it may be said, or could have been said at the beginning of the war, that there was sufficient capacity, if properly organised and used, to produce the munitions that were required. But the Government took powers to enter, in order themselves to produce the munitions that were needed. It was agreed on Second Reading that we should treat this matter as a military operation. I suggest that these powers will be needed, at any rate, in the immediate post war period, if that is to be accomplished. It is for that reason, without going through all the details that might be given as to the need for the use of them, that we want these powers. Moreover, we do not want them cut down, in the way which this Amendment would cut them down, if we are to do the job properly.
Mr. Bossom: One or two of the points just raised seem to suggest a rather extreme situation—
Mr. Tomlinson: We are in an extreme situation.
Mr. Bossom: Whether the Government make things or whether they are made in an individual capacity, there is only going to be the same number of men, whether they work in a new factory or an old one. If they work in an existing factory they can get to work more quickly than if they have to start in a new one to do the same operation. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, he will be helping the country to get houses more quickly; whereas if he starts off to make new places, he will certainly delay the getting of houses. For that reason I hope that he will accept the Amendment.
Mr. Richard Law: With the best will in the world, I find it rather difficult to follow the argument which the right hon. Gentleman used on this Amendment. He said, first, that it cuts right across what the Government were trying to do. He then went on to
1938
say that what the Government were trying to do was to take the necessary powers to get production, whether by Government arrangement or by private enterprise. It is the purpose of this Amendment to give him these necessary powers, and I cannot see why he objects to them, unless he wants powers which are unnecessary for the purpose he has in view. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would explain. The Amendment states, quite categorically, that where the Minister cannot get what he wants by normal methods, then he can use the powers for which he has asked. But he wants to use them even without the occasion, and that is what I find extremely difficult to understand. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, realises, despite his badinage, that we on this side of the Committee are just as interested as he is in the matter of housing. I am sure that he realises that we, too, want to solve this problem, which is the crucial social problem of the day. 1 can assure him that we are not trying to limit his powers by this Amendment, unless he himself wants to use them unnecessarily. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another think about this. If this Amendment does not give him the necessary powers, what is his definition of what is necessary? I think we should know that.
Captain Marples: May I say a few words about the builders merchants? I want to know whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to compete with builders' merchants, or to supplement their services. If he is going to compete with them, I want to point out to the Committee that an inefficient distribution service, sponsored and supported by the Government, could put out of business an existing and very efficient builders merchant. I have had a considerable number of letters, since the Second Reading Debate, on this point. I think that it is admitted in the building trade that builders merchants have in the past, for many reasons—and I stated some of them on Second Reading—given the industry an extremely efficient and smooth flow of materials, and a service which any Government Department would be very sorry to relinquish. They want to know whether they are to be put out of business. If that is the object, I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to say so now. If it is not, if it is proposed merely to supplement them, then

1939
I cannot see any earthly reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
Mr. Charles Williams: I would never dream of accusing the right hon. Gentleman who is replying for the Government of being simple. I have watched him for a long time and listened to his speeches, and I am sure that beneath any apparent simplicity that he may have there is, as a rule, a very definite design. I was interested when he described what he thought was the intention of this Amendment. Naturally there is always a difference of definition as regards the intentions of an Amendment as between one side of the Committee and the other. It seems to me that we are dealing in this Bill with a condition which is serious almost beyond imagination for those who may not have been able to get accommodation, and from whom we receive many letters. I think that we might give each other the credit that our intentions are right, and I am assuming that the Government think they are right in their intentions here—but surely an Amendment of this kind would help the Government and also help in the building of houses?
There are two things to be considered. The first is that building should be speeded up, which is the intention of this Subsection of the Clause. Secondly, there is no reason, I think, for any of us not to wish to help the Government to get houses. I certainly wish to help in that respect. Let us then look at this Amendment, and what it does. As I understand it, it lays down the condition that the Government will have to give the schemes proper consideration. If the Government do not give them proper consideration, and put up schemes in this, that and the other place, may not their own position become very difficult should any of these schemes fail? If the schemes are haphazard, and break down, what will be the effect? The Government will not be able to say," We have considered this carefully," because they will have declared, by refusing this Amendment, that these schemes are not to be considered carefully. That is the only real meaning of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as I can understand it. If these schemes are to progress two things are necessary: One is materials, and the
1940
other is men. If you are going to set up places for manufacturing and distributing these materials without consideration, what is going to be the position of the men? We might, I think, be told. "Are men, without any consideration, to be put into these schemes in this way?" We have not been informed.
It is a difficult position, and it is very closely connected with this Amendment; and we say that the schemes themselves should have proper consideration, and the various factors connected with these schemes should also have consideration, because unless there is some thought about this matter it is going to be quite impossible to develop housing as quickly as we wish. For that reason, I say, that if the Government are not quite prepared this afternoon to accept the many reasonable arguments advanced in favour of the Amendment, consideration might be given to the matter between now and the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman rather inferred that he had not any great legal skill to deal with the actual effect and purport of this Amendment. I am in the same position. I am not a lawyer, and at the moment I do not think there is any lawyer of any great eminence or judgment present—[Interruption.] I am speaking of someone who may not be able to come at the moment to help to explain it to the Government. We want to have this very clear. I see that the Government are looking more cheerful now, and I hope that means that, for once, they are going to accept an Amendment, especially after the very thin case they have been able to put up against this proposal.
Lieut.-Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said the Government wanted these powers so that they would be able to use them if necessary. It seems to me that the whole crux of the point of this Amendment is to attempt to define the importance of the word "necessary." When, in fact, is that necessity going to arise? I know that on several occasions the Government have said that they propose to use all methods—as all Members in this House would want them to do—to produce the houses so urgently needed. If, in fact, they are going to do that it would appear that necessity would only arise when existing methods of production have in fact been

1941
tried and found wanting. That is exactly what this Amendment tries to help us to decide. If the Government arc genuine in their intention only to use these powers when necessity has arisen, they must first have tried all the sources which the Amendment contemplates they shall try. Therefore, I maintain that if the Government have not got some hidden intention of using these powers long before existing methods have been tried to the full, they will accept this Amendment. The word "estimated" is most carefully used in the Amendment. The Amendment does not ask the Government to wait and continue to wait until existing methods have been tried and found wanting, but that if at any moment they are able to anticipate the probable production of existing methods and it can be reasonably shown that existing methods are going to fail, then the powers which they want to get under the Bill, and which this Amendment still allows, will be at their disposal.
Mr. Bowles: It would seem to me that this Amendment is a dangerous one for the Government to consider accepting at all. Should the Amendment as now drafted be accepted by the Government any court would find itself in very great difficulty over the words "factory capacity is estimated." Another complication is: Who is to do the estimating? [An Hon. Member: "The Minister."] It does not say so. During the war, the Home Secretary in the case of Regulation 18b had the complete right, if he were satisfied that a certain situation had arisen, to take certain action and no court would challenge what he did. In this case, we shall have endless litigation in the courts by various interested people anxious to produce materials who will be questioning almost weekly, I should think, the decision of the Minister whether the projected capacity for producing a particular material was sufficient or not.
Secondly, I think we must bear in mind that the Government have already, in Clause 1(1, a), visualised the purchase of building materials from the ordinary sources so long as that is possible. They will purchase building materials through the ordinary channels, providing the ordinary channels are in a position to supply the quantity desired. It is quite clear that so long as there are materials to be purchased they will purchase them in the ordinary way but, if they are not
1942
obtainable, they have power to produce them themselves. Therefore, so long as private enterprise pulls its weight and plays the game there will be no need for intervention, but some of us have reason to think that the Government are wise in taking this power untrammelled and unrestricted by the Amendment, which I think is designed to try to hinder the Government in carrying out their major plans for producing building materials.
4.30 p.m.
Captain Marples: The hon. Member mentioned Clause 1 (1, a) concerning purchase, but he did not say anything about the distribution of those materials.
Mr. Bowles: I was talking about purchasing building materials.
Captain Marples: The hon. Member did not say anything in his argument about distribution.
Mr. Bowles: The same argument applies.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: In spite of the fears which the hon. Member who has just spoken has tried to put into our minds about the legal aspect of the drafting of the Amendment, I cannot understand why the Government insist on standing on their own Clause as it is, because once the weakness in the working of our own proposal has been made apparent, surely they should have been able to tell the Committee why they find it necessary to propose a course of action in carrying out a war operation—those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman—which most of us know is completely contrary to the course of action taken by the Government during the war to carry out what were in fact war operations. The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to do things which were found completely impracticable and most undesirable in regard to the production of war stores. If his Department is given the unlimited and undefined powers which are here in the words of the Bill as drafted, he will only be encouraging infinite delay in the production of the very materials which are most essential to housing.
We all know that, during the interim period of the swing-over from war production to peace production, there are many factories which are not and will not be for some months working to full

1943
capacity in the production of those commodities for which they are best suited—commodities, it may be, which they provided before the war or which they planned to provide after the war when released from the tentacles of Government control. During this interim period they are looking round for other work to do. How far does the right hon. Gentleman propose that he and his Ministry shall delve into the position of those factories and bring them into the possible or potential picture of production before he uses the powers given by the Bill as drafted? I wonder how far he would go. We know perfectly well the sort of thing that would be done. The Department would come along and say it must have some more of whatever it might be—door handles, baths or gas cookers—it would see that there was a great deal of pressure on that particular industry, that other industries were still busy on war stores which were being produced to be destroyed next day; the destroyers must be kept busy; and it would propose a new Government factory to make the things required. That is the sort of thing that might happen. That is the sort of thing that people who are not highly skilled in production work would be likely to do.
What happened during the war? In how many cases was it found necessary during the war to start direct Government factories to produce war stores, and in how many cases was it found far simpler to use existing private enterprises, adapting them and giving them orders to produce? I think that we on this side are perfectly justified in bringing the weakness of the drafting of this Subsection to the notice of the Committee, and in pressing the Minister very hard to reconsider this point. It is not, so far as I am concerned, a party matter, it is not a question of principle as between private enterprise and public enterprise. It is simply that as the Bill is drafted, it gives a free invitation to men of little experience in these matters to make a very bad mess of a very vital job that has got to be done for the people of this country.
Mr. Stokes: It seems to me that the argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is absolutely fallacious. What is he endeavouring to make out? That the Government, because they suddenly find themselves in a position
1944
where they cannot get the goods they require but could get them if they waited a little time, will frivolously embark on the construction of new State factories. He went on to inquire where, during the war, it had been necessary for the Government to establish State factories to produce the necessaries of war. I am surprised at that question. It must be perfectly obvious to anybody who knows anything about the Ministry of Supply that it was absolutely necessary to establish Government factories and that those factories were a great success.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I covered that in this way. I wanted the Committee to be given a fair picture, in which case they would see that only in a very small number of cases was it necessary for the Government to start factories of their own for specialised production. The hon. Gentleman will admit that the overwhelming majority of needs were met without that.
Mr. Stokes: That is precisely the reason why the Government should have the powers, but my hon. Friend says that the Government will use those powers frivolously. I have rarely listened to such nonsense. I agree that if one does not appreciate the capacity of the Government in power for the time being, one might doubt their ability to use those powers. I should certainly think like that if I were on the other side and the Tories were over here. But the fact of the matter is surely this—that no Government will embark on State manufacture if they can in fact get all they want at short notice out of existing productive capacity.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to interrupt again, but the hon. Gentleman has just denied that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench propose to launch out on a vast scheme of industry. Is that really correct? Are we really to understand that? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the needs for building materials and equipment are of the same highly specialised and temporary nature which forced the Government to set up their own factories for war supplies?
Mr. Stokes: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue; it is quite a different matter. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite know anything about the building trade rings. I have had some experience of them, and of all the iniquitous

1945
rings which ever existed, the rings in the building trade were the worst. I think the Government are perfectly right to take powers, and I myself hope that the amount of ginger provided by the resistance on the other side will bring about a proper realisation in some of the building trades that they must "go to it" and preduce the goods or, if they do not, we on this side of the House will take the necessary steps to provide what the people want—that is, good and sufficient equipment for the houses they need in the shortest possible time.
Major Guy Lloyd: I am afraid than an infinite capacity for suspicion exists in the minds and breasts of hon. Members opposite. I would remind them of the eloquent words of the Foreign Secretary, when he said that one of the best ways of removing suspicion was to put the cards on the table face upwards. I wish they would. For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with this most reasonable Amendment.
Mr. Kirkwood: It comes from the other side.
Major Lloyd: There are none so blind as those who will not see. This is a perfectly reasonable Amendment and, if it were not for the atmosphere of suspicion on the other side, it would be treated with reasonable argument. As it is, all we have had from the right hon. Gentleman are arguments as to whether or not he is simple, how simple he is, whether he is as simple as he looks, or whether he looks more simple than he is. I am not concerned with arguments as to whether he is simple or not, and I do not believe he made any attempt to answer fully the argument put forward by right hon. and hon. Friends on this side.
It has been suggested that the motive behind this Amendment is one of sabotage. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a hole below the water line in order to sink the Bill. Another hon. Member opposite talked about a "most dangerous Amendment," and someone else suggested that it would involve endless litigation. Why this language of exaggeration and superlatives for this ordinary, harmless, reasonable Amendment? What is it? It simply says, Let the Government do what they plan and intend to do, what we have allowed them by passing the Second Reading to do, provided it is really necessary, provided
1946
in fact that existing plants, industries and firms are unable to do it because they have not got the capacity. If existing firms have the capacity, why should the Government want to butt in? Why should they want to take over what is obviously the job of existing firms? Why should they want to intervene in something which has never been the business of government before? That is all that this Amendment says. It says, Go ahead with the powers just so long as the capacity does not exist, but, when the capacity does exist, let the powers fade away. It is a perfectly reasonable Amendment, and I would urge the Government to have done with these suspicions; let them not look as simple as in fact they are, and accept the Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Kirkwood: I have sat throughout this Debate and listened to it with great interest. I have heard the big guns and the little guns on the other side all being turned on the Minister. Why? The Minister is no simpleton, and there has been no case stated that needs to worry him. I have been in this House for almost a quarter of a century, and ever since I came here we have been up against the situation of the Tories trying to keep us from getting on with housing. They are asking whether there is any necessity for all this. Certainly there is a necessity, and has been ever since the last war. We discovered that the weakest link in the capitalist system was the housing problem. Private enterprise demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was impossible for private enterprise to meet the demand for houses. [An Hon. Member: "Before the war?"] Yes, after the last war, with the result that the Government had to intervene. Lord Addison, who was then Dr. Addison, was put in charge. He was the man who instituted the idea that nothing less than a three-apartment house should be built in this country. It required an Act of Parliament to do that.
Private enterprise, which the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) came here to defend, resulted in the majority of the houses for the working class in this country being one-apartment houses. We had to come here and fight in order to get all that changed.

1947
That is the reason that we are two opposites who are facing one another today. Our Front Bench do not need to stand up to what is being said by the Opposition, because hon. Members opposite have made the poorest attempt I have ever heard an Opposition make since I came to this House. The Tories were in power for many years before the war, and they left us with this terrible problem, which we shall face. The citizens of Britain sent us here to do it, and I feel quite satisfied that this Labour Government will deliver the goods. There never was a Labour Government before which made the same attempt—and this Government are really making an attempt. That is why the Opposition are taking up the position they have done to day, because they realise that if this Government stand up to them, as they are now doing, then private enterprise—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is really making a Second Reading speech.
Mr. Kirkwood: I can assure you, Mr. Beaumont, that I do not wish to cross swords with you. I am replying, and HANSARD will prove that I am replying, to speeches that have already been made, covering all the ground I have covered, and I have not covered as much ground as they have done. The Government are putting into action what they promised they would do, and the Opposition has set itself today, and made a poor attempt, to thwart their efforts.
The Minister of Works used a correct phrase when he said that the first Amendment was designed to wreck the Bill. I object if an Amendment?is put forward to wreck the Bill, That is the Opposition's business, but do not let them try to "kid" us that they are not doing so, and that that is not their intention when they say that their aim is to help the Minister. They may "kid" some who have not been here for as long as I have been, but so long as I am sitting here I will draw attention to their subtle moves. We are going to carry this through. We believe that private enterprise has served its day and generation, and we are seeing today another portion of our Socialism, which we shall carry through in this
1948
House of Commons. The Opposition can do their uttermost; we shall do our best to defeat them.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: As it is rapidly approaching tea time for the Government Front Bench, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. I would like to say this in reply to—and I use the term deliberately—my hon. Friend opposite, because we admire his fiery nature, his stout heart and his incredible intellectual bewilderment; all these things which we admire make a composite and lovable whole: Does he think there is anybody on this side of the Committee who does not feel the awful tragedy of the housing problem, and who deliberately wants to sabotage or delay the building of houses? The experience which I have in my constituency is shared by every Member—soldiers with no place to live in, bombed-out people, four or five families in a house, disgraceful and heart-breaking conditions. How dare anybody, even a Scots man on the other sideߞ—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order. What has the speech which the hon. Member is making to do with this Amendment?
The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of Order. What the hon. Member is now getting away with, is what I was stopped from doing.
The Deputy-Chairman: The answer to that is that I allowed the hon. Member some latitude and I propose similarly to allow the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) a certain latitude, and then I shall ask him to remember to speak to the Amendment.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member said he would put a question to me. Shall I be allowed to reply to the question?
The Deputy-Chairman: When I have heard the question, I will give my Ruling.
Mr. Baxter: You are always courteous and patient, Mr. Beaumont, and I thank you. Once we are accused of delaying the building of houses we are entitled to make a reply. The hon. Member for

1949
Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said he had never heard such nonsense in his life in speeches in this House. It is obvious he has never listened to his own speeches.
Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Member read his own articles?
Mr. Baxter: We are discussing speeches at the moment. The hon. Member said that he never heard such nonsense as this, and then said in a voice of thunder, "Do the Opposition imagine that the Government intend to use these powers if they are not necessary?" That is the exact meaning of this Amendment. We want to make certain that the Government do not use these powers unless they are necessary. What does this Amendment say? If we were assured that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works was to remain Minister of Works then we would not mind giving him these immense powers, but there are constant and understandable rumours of a Government reshuffle. Even with a majority like this the Government had better be reshuffled fairly soon. At any rate, we are not certain that the right hon. Gentleman will remain Minister in charge, and there may very well be a successor who would use these powers to a far greater extent than would the right hon. Gentleman.
I protest against the way in which Bills are brought to this House. Again and again we are presented with a Clause, in respect of which the Government say, "Does anybody think we intend to use these powers?" In the Bank of England Bill, which looked very innocuous, a Clause was suddenly proposed which would have enabled the Government to send for information about any private account.
Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to raise the general question of various Bills being brought before the House, when he is supposed to be speaking on an Amendment?
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Further to that point of Orderߞ—
The Deputy-Chairman: Not before I have given my Ruling on the point of Order. I was hoping that the hon. Member was only using this argument as a matter of illustration, and that he did not intend to carry it any further.
Mr. Baxter: To apply my illustrations—and again I think you for your courtesy, Mr. Beaumont—there is a tendency these days to have Clauses and Subsections so drawn that the Opposition have to spend a great deal of time in trying to make them safe for democracy, and from being misused.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order. At what point in the discussion is the hon. Member to begin to develop his argument?
The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order. Interruptions on both sides are prolonging the Debate.
Mr. Baxter: I think that we on this side have made very few interruptions, but I have not been allowed to speak for two minutes without having to give way. I hope that the next point of Order will be a point of Order. What is the purpose of this Clause? To make arrangements for the production and distribution of any such materials or equipment, not if they are necessary, not if their supply by private enterprise is found insufficient. There is a charter for open competition with free enterprise. I am not certain that this Government will not utilise that. I believe we are seeing a show-down struggle between State control of everything and private enterprise. We say that the Government should have the honesty of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who says that private enterprise has had its day, and that they are going to do away with it.
This will cause immense disruption and fear in the building industry, the heart of which is already broken by the treatment of the Government. I should have liked to develop one or two other arguments, but I wish to end with this one. This Clause, in this form, is too blunt, the powers are too great. It implies blackmail, it implies misuse. The Amendment, in the words used by the hon. Member for Ipswich, says that it is not intended to use them unless it is necessary. Let the Government accept the Amendment and say, "We will use these powers if they are necessary; if, in the opinion of the Minister, they are necessary." In refusing to accept the Amendment the Government show no consideration for this Committee, or for the legitimate duties of the Opposition.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Member a question? Has his attention been called to a pronouncement by one of the most eminent building contractors of the country that building enterprise is obstructed by the rings? That is what we are up against.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) has failed, in my submission, signally, to demonstrate in what way the Amendment will cure the position. If I might bring the mind of the Committee back to the subject of the Amendment I do so for the purposeߞ—
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to read his speech?
The Deputy-Chairman: I did not notice that the hon. Member was reading his speech.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: If the hon. Member cares to look at this, he will find it is the Bill to which I am referring.
Mr. Kirkwood: We leave it to hon. Members opposite to read speeches; we make them.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: If hon. Members look at this Clause, they will see that it is for the Minister to get production and distribution. Those are the two objectives of this Clause, production and distribution. In my submission, the Amendment has no relation whatever to that Clause at all, and if one directs one's attention to it, that becomes demonstrable at once. The Amendment, which is to come at the end of paragraph (b) dealing with production and distribution says that that is only to operate
"where existing and projected factory capacity "—
not output, mark you—
"is estimated to be insufficient to produce," etc.
That means that although you may have what is described as "existing and projected factory capacity," it does not necessarily follow that you are going to get output. As a matter of fact, if we take the history of some of these firms and some of these rings, we find that we are not going to get output unless it suits their purpose. Taking the Amendment even on that point, it has absolutely no relationship to the substantive object of this
1952
Clause at all. I invite the right hon. and learned Member who moved it to apply his well-known legal faculty to the language of the Amendment in the light of the purposes and terminology of the Clause. Then take the further words of the Amendment:
"to be insufficient to produce the quantity required at the dates required and where existing channels for distribution are inadequate."
Not where they are refusing to work, mark you, but where the existing channels are inadequate. I cannot see what purpose this Amendment is going to serve except that of having a nuisance value. It has no pertinent application to the main Clause at all. Supposing this Amendment were accepted, what machinery is it proposed to set up to meet this situation. First, you have to decide whether the factory capacity is sufficient, or whether the means of distribution are sufficient. Then, having found that it is insufficient, you call upon the Minister, in the words of the Clause, "to carry out some arrangements." When is he going to carry out the arrangements, and how, if it is to be done on an emergency, or ad hoc basis? In my submission this Amendment is absolutely inconsequential. It has no relation to the purposes of the Clause and would not work, and therefore I ask the Committee to reject it out of hand.
Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Maryle bone): The hon. Member has told the Committee that he sees no good purpose in this Amendment except as having "a nuisance value." I hope in a minute or two to be able to put arguments before the Committee which will show that the hon. Member is erroneous in his supposition. On both sides of the Committee we are anxious to get a move on with the building of houses. If there is one thing which will stop us getting a move on in building houses, it is a state of uncertainty and lack of confidence in the building trade generally. As I see it, this Amendment seeks to remove that uncertainty in the industry. Only in the last few days, I have talked with builders merchants who say that because of this uncertainty, they cannot plan ahead. There are certain developments taking place now for the production of materials advantageous to the building of houses and helpful to the building industry, but those developments are in a state of stagnation. They are frustrated because people do not know where they are. The building merchants

1953
are in a state of uncertainty; they cannot get ahead and plan their sales ahead because they do not know. That is why I say that the Amendment does serve a very valuable purpose in helping to remove some of the uncertainty which now exists.
Mr. Bowles: How would it remove the uncertainty? The builders would be in the same uncertainty under this Amendment.
Sir W. Wakefield: The hon. Member asks how would some of this uncertainty be removed. The answer, surely, is that if the producers, the builders' merchants, get on with the job, provide the goods-and so forth, they know they will be allowed to do the job, but under the present Clause there is no such safeguard. They do not know, and that is the whole substance of our complaint. I do hope the Minister will reconsider this Amendment. It is not meant to be a wrecking Amendment, or a blow under the belt. I hope the Minister will give some certainty to those who are just as anxious as he is to get on with building houses. The amendment is one of substance; it will help to remove uncertainty and recreate that confidence without which I do not think the building of houses will make that progress which we all wish to see.
Mr. Norman Bower: I think the speeches of the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) and Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have made it absolutely clear that the only thing which inspires the Government in their refusal to accept this Amendment is suspicion and hatred of private enterprise and the doctrinaire outlook which they and their supporters adopt towards it—and, of course, they have to think of the attitude of their supporters. The hon. Member for Gloucester, who has just gone out, said that even if the capacity for producing these materials existed, there was no guarantee that the required quantity would be produced, but we know that before the war those concerned were willing to produce enough materials for 350,000 houses in a year, which is about three times the number we can expect in any one year under the method at present being employed. I suggest that the sole desire of the Government, as was said very truly by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, is to interfere with private enterprise in any way they can, to put a spoke
1954
in its wheel and see that it does not get an opportunity to operate effectively and efficiently. If they go on like this we are going to get overlapping and interruption which will falsify all the predictions made by the Minister the other day.
Mr. Manningham- Buller: We have had a fairly extensive and far-reaching Debate on this Amendment. The first Amendment was described, quite unjustifiably, as a wrecking Amendment. This one has been described as putting a small hole in the boat below the water line. But if the Minister goes on putting forward the sort of arguments we have heard and nothing more against reasoned Amendments, he will find, much to his surprise one of these days, that he has struck a mine which has upset the Government. I think that the mine which may upset the Government irretrievably is housing. When an Amendment is moved seeking to define and explain the powers he wants for arranging distribution and production, the Minister says it is a half wrecking Amendment. No reason at all is put for ward in support of his objections; then he goes on to say "make no mistake about it, we want this power." We on this side of the Committee know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members of the Government want every power they can get without putting forward any reason at all for getting it. We would be willing to give the Minister the powers for which he asked, if we had the slightest indication that it is going to result in more houses in less time. But no statement of that sort has been forthcoming and in the course of this Debate it has become apparent that the intention of the Government, judging by the statements of their sup porters, is to use this wide and unlimited power for embarking on the battle of nationalisation, against private enterpriseߞ—
Mr. Stokes: Nonsense.
Mr. Manningham-Buller:—without regard to the provision of homes for the people who want them That is the important point we should keep in mind in considering this Bill and this Amendment.
Why is it that the Government want power to make arrangements for distribution and for production where, ex hypothesi, existing arrangements are adequate, to fulfil an estimated demand? Of course the word "estimated" is in

1955
the Amendment, and obviously means estimated by the Minister, and no one else. He has to be the judge. He told us on Second Reading that he had an expert staff, some of whom were borrowed from the Ministry of Supply, going into what was required and making detailed estimates. He is obviously the man who is able to estimate what capacity now exists and to estimate what is planned. All we on this side say is that where you know you have sufficient factory capacity to produce what you want at the time it is wanted—which is a paraphrase of the wording of this Amendment—and if you are satisfied with that, then use it, and do not take up time now in constructing some Heath Robinson machinery which may not produce any good at all.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Kirkwood: If there was no cause for it, why is it that for years and years before the war we appealed to the Governments to get on with housing, and private enterprise failed miserably?
Mr. Stokes: That is like squeezing lemon on an oyster.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has got the oyster in the wrong place. I am afraid I must have been squeezing some of the lemon. The hon. Gentleman's facts are entirely incorrect. He must have read his history in a most extraordinary place.
Mr. Kirkwood: I did not read it at all. I have lived it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry that he has lived his life so wrongly. He has only to have regard to the figures of what private enterprise did in building before the war to see that his statement is untrue. Now let me go on with my argument on this Amendment, because the hon. Gentleman's interruption has no relation to this Amendment.
Mr. Kirkwood: It has relation to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Neither has it any relation to what I said. Let me come to this Amendment. The point is a simple one, and we ought to have a clear answer. Do the Government intend to use the existing plant and factory capacity? I suggest that in the majority of cases the Government know that exist-
1956
ing factory capacity and plant is sufficient, except in a few instances, to provide what would be required in the way of building materials and components. Do the Government intend to use that, or to set up a completely rival organisation which is bound to cause delay and, in my view, is bound to cause increased costs to those who are going to live in the houses? That is an important point.
Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I am sorry to interrupt, but I am afraid I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think he suggested just now—or if he did not suggest it, I think he will agree—that this Government will stand or fall upon, as much as anything, the success of this housing scheme. Is he going to suggest that we shall not use all the possibilities that are available?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not seeking to suggest anything, except that we should have had from the Government a clear statement on what the Government intend to do, and we ought to have it. We ought to be told what they intend to do, because hon. Members opposite in their speeches have indicated that they intend to use the wide powers contained in this Clause for promoting nationalisation against private enterprise. If they do that, it is an abuse of the intentions of this Bill. I am putting this point in all seriousness to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I want him to say where he stands in this matter. Does he intend to use all the existing, planned and projected capacity, or does he intend to set up a rival organisation? If he intends to use all the capacity that now exists, which was the suggestion put forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, then there can be no reason for his rejection of the first part of this Amendment. With regard to the second part, the same point really arises, and I do suggest that we should not pass from this matter without getting from some member of the Government a reasoned argument in favour of the rejection. The only reasoned argument so far adduced is that, of course, of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I must admit that, while I am sorry the Solicitor-General was not here to say whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Gloucester, I was not very much impressed with his reasoning on the actual wording of the Amendment. Before this

1957
matter goes, if need be, to a Division—and that, of course, will depend on whether we get an answer from a member of the Government on the point—I do ask the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to be clear and detailed in their statements of their intentions under the wide powers at present contained in this Clause.
Mr. Tomlinson: Perhaps it would be taken amiss if I were to refer to simplicity a second time, but I think one needs to develop that simplicity in order to live peaceably in this House. I think that all the intentions to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred were declared in the Bill itself. The Bill is described as:
"A Bill to make financial provision for the purpose of facilitating the production, equipment, repair, alteration and acquisition of houses and other buildings."
That is the purpose of the Bill, and the Clause says:
"Making and carrying out arrangements for the production and distribution of any-such materials or equipment"
as are required for that purpose. All the Amendment does is to safeguard, or seek to safeguard, the existing productive capacity and tie down the Government to a position in which they will not, in any circumstances, develop any new capacity or find any new method of distribution until all the present means have been exhausted.
Mr. Willink: It is nothing of the kind.
Mr. Tomlinson: If it does not do that, what is the object in seeking to tie the Minister's hands? What is the object in seeking to decide in detail what the Minister shall or shall not do, if it is not intended that the Bill should do that? It seems to me that the whole argument boils down to the question, not of what the Minister is going to do, but what he is going to do that private enterprise could do? Private enterprise may not be in a position to give us all the materials we want at a given time and in a given place, even though the capacity in the country were great enough. It may be the duty of the Government to use these powers in order to see to it that the capacity is increased, so that the production of those materials to produce the houses is there.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me a moment? If he looks at the words of the Amendment, he will see:
1958
"Where existing and projected factory capacity is estimated to be insufficient to produce the quantity required at the dates required."
That covers the point which he has just made.
Mr. Tomlinson: No, it does not say anything about the place where they should be required. It may be that the hon. Gentleman suggests that I should alter the Amendment after the Debate has taken place in order to cover all the points that other people are thinking about. The Clause as drafted, in the opinion of the Government, meets the requirements of the Government in order to carry out this work. It is for that reason that it was simply drawn. In this House less than a fortnight ago, I sat on these benches, and for a long time listened to first one and then another hon. Member asking that Bills should be brought to the House in simple language. I cannot think of anything simpler than that to give us the powers to do what we desire to do.
Mr. C. Williams: I have been listening to the arguments on this Debate, and I have been wondering whether I should give full support to this Amendment. When I heard the eloquent speeches in support of the Government from the back benches and below the Gangway, I really thought there might be something to be said against the Amendment. The Amendment might be better if, before the word "capacity," the word "output" were inserted so as to make it quite clear that we did include the capacity for output. Frankly, since I have listened to the second speech of the Minister, I can only say it is quite clear that either the Government and those who prepare their briefs have not understood the Amendment—which merely says that before carrying out these schemes they have to estimate them or think about them—or else, which seems to be more probable from the trend of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, they are deliberately laying it down that, in no circumstances, must a Socialist Government think or consider. I think that is probably why they object to this Amendment, because they will not think about things. They never have done so, and never will do so. Any lawyer of repute would not support them, and the real reason they dislike the Amendment is that all their schemes are put down without any thought or estimation.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 41].

AYES.

[5.29 p.m.

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.

Howard, Hon. A.

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Baxter, A. B.

Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Renton, Maj. D.

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bossom, A. C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ross, Sir R.

Bower, N.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

Sanderson, Sir F.

Braithwaite, LI. Comdr. J. G.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Carson, E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Studholme, H. G.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.

De la Bere, R.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

Marples, Capt. A. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Marsden, Comdr. A.

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

Touche, G. C.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Turton, R. H.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Maude, J. C.

Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

Erroll, Col. F. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)

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

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Nicholson, G.

White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

Gridley, Sir A.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Grimston, R. V.

Nutting, Anthony

Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodb'ge)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

Peto, Brig. C H. M.

Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Pitman, I. J.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Major Mott-Radelyffe and

Commander Agnew.

NOES

Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

Callaghan, James

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Ewart, R.

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Farthing, W. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Chater, D.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Alpass, J. H.

Clitherow, R.

Follick, M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Cluse, W. S.

Foot, M. M.

Austin, H. L.

Cobb, F. A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Awbery, S. S.

Cocks, F. S.

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Ayles, W. H.

Collick, P.

Freeman, P. (Newport).

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Collindridge, F.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Bacon, Miss A.

Collins, V. J.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Baird, Capt. J.

Colman, Miss G. M.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Barstow, P. G.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Gilzean, A.

Bartlett, V.

Cove, W. G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Barton, C.

Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Battley, J. R.

Grossman, R. H. S.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Daggar, G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Belcher, J. W.

Daines, P.

Grey, C. F.

Berry, H.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Grierson, E.

Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Guy, W. H.

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wyoombe)

Bowden, Fig. Off. H. W.

Deer, G.

Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Diamond, J.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Dodds, N. N.

Haworth, J.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Douglas, F. C. R.

Hicks, G.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hobson, C. R.

Brown, George (Belper)

Dumpleton, C. W.

Holman, P.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Dye, S.

Horabin, T. L.

Burden, T. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

House, G.

Burke, W. A.

Edelman, M.

Hoy, J.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

1960

1961

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Stubbs, A. E.

Janner, B.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Swingler, Capt. S.

John, W.

Oldfield, W. H.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

Oliver, G. H.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Paget, R. T.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Keenan, W.

Parker, J.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Key, C. W.

Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T.

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

King, E. M.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Kinley, J.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Kirby, B. V.

Perrins, W.

Thorneycroft, H.

Kirkwood, D.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Thurtle, E.

Lang, G.

Popplewell, E.

Tiffany, S.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Tolley, L.

Levy, B. W.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Pritt, D. N.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Lindgren, G. S.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Randall, H. E.

Walkden, E.

Longden, F.

Ranger, J.

Walker, G. H.

McAdam, W.

Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Mack, J. D

Reeves, J.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

MacKay, J. (Wallsend)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Warbey, W. N.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Rhodes, H.

Watkins, T. E.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

McLeavy, F.

Robens, A.

Weilzman, D.

Macpherson, T. (Remford)

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Marquand, H. A.

Royle, C.

Wigg, Col. G. E. C.

Mathers, G.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Mayhew, Maj C. P

Simmons, C. J.

Wilkins, W. A.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Mikardo, Ian

Skinnard, F. W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

Monslow, W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Montague, F.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Willis, E.

Moody, A. S.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Wilson, J. H.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Yates, V. F.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Sorensen, R. W.

Young Sir R. (Newton)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Sparks, J. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Murray, J. D.

Stamford, W.

Naylor, T. E.

Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Stokes, R. R.

Mr. Pearson and

Mr J. Henderson.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "of," insert:
"and at the request of."
This Amendment will not need so prolonged a Debate as the one which has just been disposed of. The Committee will recall that the third heading under which the proposed functions of the Minister of Works are described is in these terms:
"Carrying out, on behalf of any local authority, work undertaken by the authority,"
in discharge, to put it in broad terms, of its housing functions. In the course of the Second Reading Debate, the Minister of Health uttered two sentences which, when I read them again, do not give me entire satisfaction, although I have no reason to believe that the intention with regard to his action, or the action of the Minister of Works, in replacement of local authority action is other than I personally would wish it to be. What the Minister of Health said was:
"It is not proposed in the Bill, nor is it the intention of the Government in any circumstances under the Bill to set aside the housing functions of any local authority. But
1962
what we do desire is to have powers to reinforce the building strength of any area where it needs to be reinforced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26 Nov., 1945; Vol. 416, c. 999.]
When I see in the Bill, "carrying, out on behalf of any local authority," I read the words as being by no means clear, and by no means as necessarily excluding the Minister of Works from saying: "I will make up my mind as to the needs of the local authority and if the local authority wants to keep me out and says that it can do a particular job itself without my intervention, the Bill will give me power none the less to do that work on its behalf, whether it wants me to do it or not."
We shall shortly come on to discussing the range of operations of the housing work which can properly and usefully be entrusted to a central Government Department. The party of which I am a member has always, since Disraeli, who so described it, been the friend of local government. The housing function I personally regard as essentially local in its general character. I regard it as most

1963
important that we should not have our housing done by a Whitehall Department, except in situations of special emergency and in connection with housing of special characteristics. I saw, during the war, and after the bombing, examples of very considerable friction and dissatisfaction arising because work of the same character was being done by the Minister of Works and the local authority simultaneously. That is not a satisfactory situation, and if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health were free to speak his mind he would not dissent entirely from what I have said.
The Amendment is short and simple, and proposes that it should be made clear that the function being given to the Minister of Works, whatever that function may be—we will come to that on the next Amendment—should not be to act, as the Minister of Health said, in the way of setting aside the housing functions of the local authority. He should not say: "I see the need and the local authority does not see the need. I am going to step in and meet the need on behalf of the local authority." The situation I have described should be avoided. The meaning of the words "on behalf" should be made quite clear by the insertion of the words, "at the request of."
I have a serious apprehension of a bad situation arising if there is supervision of the 1,440 housing authorities—I think that is the number—requiring visitation by many officials of the Ministry of Works, and there should be a lack of tact and resultant friction and so forth. The Minister cannot see all these things himself, and he may find there has been delay, friction and dissatisfaction, except in cases where there has been a real agreement, and the local authority, after reviewing the matter, and very likely after consultation with his officers, has come to the conclusion that it will be wise to ask for his assistance. Where that has taken place, things should go smoothly, but if the Ministry of Works, with the flying squads which have been discussed to some extent and will be discussed further, is to be given a free range to go down and to carry out housing functions of any kind in the area of any local authority, on its behalf though against its will, I feel that we shall be passing an enactment which will do more harm than good.
Mr. Tomlinson: I am in full agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, except that I think the position is clear without inserting the words. The effect of the Amendment would be that where we finance from the Fund housing work that is done for a local authority by the Minister of Works, it should be done only at the request of the local authority. In fact, as matters stand, we could not finance any such work except at the request of the local authority. If the local authority defaults, for instance, the Housing Acts under which we carry out the work, provide that the powers of the local authority may be transferred by Order to the Minister of Health. If the Minister of Health then asks the Minister of Works to carry out the work, it would have to be paid for out of money that was found on his Vote. We should then be doing the work on his behalf, and not on behalf of the local authority. It would not therefore be operated in any case through the Fund under this Bill. It seems to me in these circumstances, the position being such as has been described, that without the insertion of the words, the position is safeguarded.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Willink: I must ask for a clarification of this point. I am not satisfied at the moment with the explanation that has been given, because what I was contemplating and was anxious about was not any position in which there had been a default. There are many default clauses with regard to the action of local authorities, and very seldom are they used and very difficult is it to use them. This Clause, as it stands, is in far wider terms than one would expect it to be if it merely dealt with that sort of situation. As I read this Clause, as it is drafted at present, the fund could be used in housing carried out by a local authority on behalf of the Minister of Works, long before there was any sign of default, merely because there had been a heavy blitz on the town, or something of that sort. The right hon. Gentleman has not the advantage of the advice of either of the Law Officers at the moment, but I hope he will at any rate consider the language and drafting of the Clause, because I understood from his opening remarks that he was entirely in sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment.
Mr. Tomlinson: If I find, on reflection, and also on consultation, that there is

1965
danger of the sort to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, I will undertake to reconsider the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, leave out from "authority," to end of Subsection, and insert:
"of an area which has suffered extensive war damage or in which the local authority has an inadequate staff or insufficient building labour, work undertaken by the authority in connection with the provision of prefabricated housing accommodation for the working classes."
This is an Amendment of a more substantial character. The Minister of Works as I understand the spirit of the Bill—whatever arises on the drafting which we have just been considering—is going to carry out what I might call the housing functions of the local authorities, and we on this side of the Committee agree that, in present circumstances, it is right that he should have certain powers of that kind. The Minister of Health in the course of the Second Reading Debate indicated two main areas within which that supplementation of the power of the local authorities to discharge their heavy burden would take place. He indicated that there were the heavily blitzed areas, where the shortage was so great that there would be a strong case for some supplementation by means of what he described as flying squads. He also pointed to rural areas. There are certain rural areas in which during the war there had been very substantial changes and where there will, we hope, be a continued increase of population. There will also be, until the Local Government Boundary Commission has done its work, a very large number of small rural districts without the resources either of organisation or of local building labour sufficient to meet their needs.
On the other hand, I think anyone who considers the Minister's project of flying squads thoughtfully will realise that there are very substantial difficulties about the policy. I must say that I do not know how they are to be recruited. There were special squads of Ministry of Works engaged on war damage repairing during recent years. They were, I believe, more highly paid than ordinary building operatives. I should like to know, and I think the Committee would like to know,
1966
whether it is the Government's intention to induce or attract men from the building trades into their own special flying squads at extra and additional rates of pay. I think the vast majority of the building industry will want to work at or near their own homes in this post war period. Is it the intention of the Government to build up these flying squads by, direction, for here 1 note that we are not dealing with a period of two years after the end of the German war, which the. Coalition described as a period of national emergency; we are proposing to deal with a period of something more than 5½ years after the end of the German war.
What are the conditions and terms on which these flying, squads are to work? I have no doubt whatever that one of the major causes for high building costs at the moment lies in the special terms with regard to labour, and in particular building labour, which have come into existence by reason of war conditions: subsistence allowances, travelling allowances, uniformity agreements, and all those matters. In this connection I would like to draw attention to the building costs of one cottage which have gone up by120 per cent. as between 1938 and 1945, whereas the costs of the materials needed—and these figures come from the right hon. Gentleman's own lips—have only gone up by 72 per cent. It is the cost of labour which has caused this most embarrassing rise and everybody in this Committee should be determined to do his utmost to bring it down, if the country is to have the houses it wants, either to rent or to own. I repeat that major elements in the rise of prices have been the special terms, building allowances, subsistance allowances, travelling allowances and the like which have had to be paid to building operatives who were working away from their own homes.
Mr. George Porter: In view of the point which has just been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the percentage increase in building costs, and as the percentage increase for building trade workers has been nothing like 70 per cent., is he suggesting that the increase has been caused by malingering on the part of the workers in the industry?
Mr. Willink: I really do not know why the hon. Member should interrupt me on that point. I was not dealing with the

1967
operatives' hourly rates of wages, or anything of that kind. I was quoting to the Committee from figures, which have been given to us from the Government Front Bench, to prove that the major element in the cost of works has been the increased cost of labour. [Interruption.] No, I will not be involved in an argument as to the price of land because that is a question which can be raised at the appropriate moment. We are not now discussing it, but I could make a very good answer with regard to the price of land if it were relevant. To return to the subject, what do the Government really propose with regard to these flying squads? Is a large part of the building industry to be formed into flying squads? If so, what is the additional cost going to be? Every local authority, from my own experience, will consider that it has its own special need for the use of a flying squad. Is there any local authority in the whole country which would not feel itself justified in claiming a flying squad after these six years of shortage; and what authority would not be prepared to argue, and to believe quite honestly, that its own needs were exceptional? But the point that I want to get at is that if these flying squads are to be offered special terms, then every normal building firm will find that its craftsmen and labourers are going to be enticed away by the offer of higher rates of wages, or they may even be directed away by the Government so that they can build up their own flying squads to travel all over the country.
There are real and solid risks in this policy of flying squads if it is carried too far. They could easily give rise to friction and jealousy between one local authority and another, each thinking that its own needs ought to have priority over those of its neighbour. It occurs to my hon. Friends and myself that the real way to deal with the question of these flying squads being used by the local authority, which has suffered the normal shortage, from which the whole country is suffering, as opposed to the exceptional local authority which is in need of very special help, is to make it clear in the Bill. If it is not made clear, exaggerated hopes will be excited in local authorities. It is for that reason that I am prepared to accept the two categories
1968
to which the Minister of Health referred in the Second Reading Debate, that is, the categories of those in need of special assistance. We entirely agree that there will be cities and towns with special war damage where it would be justifiable to introduce flying squads. I think, too, that the rural districts where there is special need and where it is not so easy to get new building firms or where the labour is entirely insufficient, should have special help in the way of labour.
We hope that the Government will not insist on powers of this unlimited width, a width which would entitle the Minister of Works, if he got requests from local authorities, to direct away all the building labour in a neighbourhood. It might be argued that the country has given a mandate for certain types of nationalisation, but I do not know of any mandate for the nationalisation of the building industry. I hope that while accepting the idea which is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, in the use of these flying squads for the interest of the community, we shall have an assurance from him that their use will not conflict with the needs of local labour in the district. In the case of areas which have suffered extensive war damage or where, through no fault of their own the local authority has insufficient organisation or labour to deal with its problem, we should like to see authorities in those instances have all the help that could possibly be given to them. And we should like to see prefabricated houses provided by special technically trained flying squads of the Ministry of Works.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. George Hicks: I would not have intervened in the Debate if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had the courtesy to give way, when I rose a moment or two ago.
Mr. Willink: I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise.
Mr. Hicks: It was on the question of the agreement—of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made rather "heavy weather"—by which building trade workers were transferred from one town to another. It has been a long established arrangement between employers and operatives that, whenever an operative was sent away from home to work for a contractor in another town, he should have his expenses paid. I

1969
take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not regard that as unfair or improper. Whatever the extent of the flying squad may be, I do not know, but I favour the principle of the flying squad. In the Coalition Government we found it extremely useful; it rendered magnificent service in many parts of the country. In many parts of the country where the building personnel has been greatly reduced, and the damage has been heavy, it will be impossible for local people effectively to pull up the arrears, let alone meet the present needs. Therefore, there will be need to despatch men to certain parts of the country. But I am certain the natural desire of building workers will be to live as near their homes as possible now that the war is over and be able to deal with the building work in that way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the question of materials and labour, and it appeared that labour was responsible for the very high cost. The building industry is very heavy at one end, and there are a lot of youths at the other; the ordinary balance in the industry as it was before the war is a very long way out. Young men who would normally be absorbed into the industry, provided they had an opportunity, would help to bring about a more favourable balance and help the economy of the industry generally. There was another point which he did not mention. Who would say that the cost of material has only gone up by 72 per cent.? Materials have to be conveyed from the place of manufacture to the site where they are used, and there is the cost of the transport that is needed. I do not know what additional costs there are on these things. I am certain that they have gone up, rightly and properly, but I do not think they have gone up out of proportion either one way or the other.
Mr. C. Williams: I would not have intervened in this discussion except for the very interesting speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). I was interested to hear the hon. Member, who has the respect of many of us who have known him for a long time, describing the position of the building industry as being over balanced with old people at one end and young people at the other. That is really the true position, but, unfortunately, the whole trouble is that the people who come in between
1970
have been sent elsewhere and we cannot get them back. The hon. Gentleman forgot—I think it was a point he would have liked to have made—to remind the Committee of a very interesting incident which happened within a few hundred yards of this Chamber about six months ago, when it was proved how many bricks could be laid in an hour. It was a very interesting competition. I do not know whether the hon. Member lost his bet, but the number of bricks that can be laid in an hour have a bearing on the cost of building. I am not against flying squads. They have performed a very admirable purpose, but nothing is said about the position of men who want to build but are not allowed to build. I have continually asked the Government to release men from the shipyards, and they sometimes do. If we could speed up the release of building trade workers from the Services, it would enable the building squads to be made much more efficient.
I am waiting, naturally, to hear what the representative of the Government has to say about the Amendment before coming to any rash decision upon it. I am not accustomed to voting in this or that lobby, and I know that many hon. Gentlemen are in the same position. Could not the Government give a few details? The Amendment might do a great deal to help towards solving the building problem. The Government have been very hard on us so far, but I believe that the Amendment is excellent and the Government might do something to encourage us.
Mr. G. Porter: The hon. Member had not made up his own mind a minute ago.
Mr. Williams: I am very reluctant to deal with interruptions. Very often when the two Front Benches agree, the thing is completely wrong from the point of view of the back-bencher. I always dislike being interrupted on these occasions. I ask the Government whether, in the widest interests of building, it would not be advisable to accept the Amendment, or something very near it. It would possibly be an improvement to the Bill as it now stands.
Mr. David Eccles: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) said that flying squads had done very useful work during the war. I

1971
would remind him of one which came down to my constituency and of which, I am sure, he has a recollection. About 90 men came to convert a hostel on the top of the underground factory at Corsham which had been used for single workers. These 90 men set about changing the huts into married quarters. Lord Portal was then Minister of Works and this was considered an admirable experiment. The flying squad descended upon us, the ordinary builders were taken away to London, and 90 men were left to go on doing their job. I had to intervene because local builders did not like their own men being taken away while the Ministry of Works left 90 men on the job. The 90 men did not finish the job, but the cost of what they had done was found to have been more than the putting up of new houses, although they were only converting. The result of that was that we have not been able to get on with the conversion of houses into married quarters because of this precedent of the appalling cost of the flying squad, which has greatly retarded the temporary housing arrangements which might have been made.
The men who went from the provinces to the bomb damage in London, I suppose, could be called flying squads in their way. The money they earned in London, together with the allowances, which properly they should have for travelling and billeting, has turned out to be much higher than the rates they were earning in the provinces. I am not saying that is a good, or a bad thing, but the result is that the whole of the building workers in the provinces are wondering whether these rates are to continue, and whether they can have them after the war. You can get a man into the building squad by directing him. Suppose he comes out under Class B and you use the powers of direction and tell him to go into the flying squad. If he is directed there he can only have the normal pay. If, on the other hand, you get men into the flying squad by attraction, you must offer them more money than they would get by joining some firm in the neighbourhood of their homes. Whatever we do, the flying squad system must tend to push up the wages in the ordinary building industry. I am not saying if this is a bad or a good thing, but if the Committee desires to bring down the
1972
price of houses we have to be careful of the extent to which we use the system of flying squads. A flying squad man is bound to receive more money from living away from home and, therefore, he might continue in the flying squad. I ask the Government not to recruit men to the flying squads who want to work near their homes if there is work to do; and in what part of the country is there not work for them to do? Let them go and work near their homes. That would be more likely to get the houses put up and more likely to keep the cost down, and so I support the Amendment.
6.15 p.m
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would like to add a word on this matter and to the pressure already put on the Minister to define his intention more clearly. It would be extremely unwise if the impression were known that it was the intention of the Government to use flying squads to a degree which in itself would provide undoubtedly an added element of cost to the finished house and would also add to the obligation of housing the workers who were engaged on the actual building of houses. We have already had instances in some parts of the country of an influx of imported workers, and that has caused a very serious housing shortage. We might easily see that being developed in the realm of building where there were others awaiting houses, and they would be overcrowding the existing houses and the people there would be put to further inconvenience by the introduction of builders from outside the area who had no houses inside the area.
Whatever the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) may say, we are all agreed that the use of the flying squads for general building purposes is bound to add to the ultimate cost of building. The hon. Member is perfectly justified in asking that, where a man is sent away from home, he must draw allowances. It is a very long-established custom in the building industry. But we are concerned here, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said, with the ultimate cost of building. If we are going to develop this use of flying squads to a great degree, the total additional cost to the housing programme will be something which will be very embarrassing. Just now, I used the phrase "for general building purposes." What the hon. Member for East Woolwich might have

1973
said was that the flying squad principle is nothing new in the building industry at all. As a matter of fact, with the specialist type of sub-contractor, the flying squad is a very well-established practice, for plastering, joinery, plumbing and so on. Why was it?
I hope there will be no confusion on this matter, for the right hon. Gentleman may have been misled into thinking that flying squads could be used more widely because of the long established practice of sub-contractors using them in peace time. In war, they were used because they were particularly highly trained and efficient men in specific branches of the building trade industry. In spite of the fact that these men were paid higher rates of pay and were given lodging allowances and allowances for being away from home, by their employer—and it did not need State enterprise to introduce that system—such was their larger degree of efficiency that the job in the end was done more economically. That argument cannot be applied today to general building trade labour. It is quite a different issue today, and I hope that the Minister has not been misled into thinking that flying squad labour in general building can produce the same results in efficiency as were produced in peace time by these specialists and highly skilled men.
Mr. Hicks: The only point that I was making was that there are no extra higher rates of pay for flying squad men. Whatever it is they receive, it is in accordance with the rules agreed between the master builders and themselves in the locality. That is the particular point to remember—that their wages are no higher or lower—and that is provided in one of the regulations, Regulation 56 (A), and in other Regulations which provide that the wages are to be no higher or lower than those mutually agreed between the employers and the men. Whatever extra rates may be paid might have been related to overtime, but there is no question of giving them higher rates than they could get any other way, because it was all done in conformity with building trade practice.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I absolutely appreciate what the hon. Member says, and, if I said anything which implied that I was attacking a higher rate, or suggesting that a higher rate was paid than normally would have been paid, I would like to correct it. The hon. Member, however,
1974
will agree that, if the output of men in a flying squad is the same as the output would be of men who are in the area, obviously the ultimate cost would be greater. That is the great point. The only excuse for using flying squads by sub-contractors, before the war, in which cases they were highly trained specialists used to working in a team, was that they produced work more rapidly and thus the cost was not higher.
There is one other point which I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously indeed. There is no possible doubt, from our experience in this country over the last few months, that the greater element of local labour which can be employed on housing the more interest there is to that labour in getting on with the job. We cannot get away from it; it is a psychological problem. We have all seen difficulties in London and have seen how completely "browned off" men have become in carrying work to a certain stage and being moved to do it all over and over again. I ask the Minister to do nothing that would perpeuate the lack of interest of the workmen in their job or deter men from putting their best work into it. The great difficulty about the flying squad is the temptation imposed on the men by the fact that they never see the job finished. Work in flying squads means that men will only be able to carry their work so far and then they will be moved on to another job, and it is quite certain that that is not the best way to use building labour. A man likes to see the job finished, and, when he can do so, he is inclined to put his best into his work, and the chaps working with him like to carry the job through until they put up the Union Jack through the window. That is an angle of the problem which I would ask the Minister not to forget, and I invite him to consider this Amendment very carefully, and to consider whether, if he refuses this Amendment, he will not give an entirely wrong impression, not only to the local authorities, but to the building trade labour in this country.
Lieut.-Colonel Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has sought to defend the flying squads on the grounds of ߞ—
Mr. G. Porter: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman develops his speech, I

1975
want to ask whether the discussion is in accordance with the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the Amendment, so far as I can see, is only for determining the type of work that shall be done under certain conditions, and only in regard to that point, I suggest, ought any discussion to take place, and all this is entirely out of Order.
The Chairman (Major Milner): Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to leave questions of Order to the Chair.?
Lieut.-Colonel Walker-Smith: I would like to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for East Woolwich. As we know, he speaks with great expert knowledge and great fairness on matters dealing with the building industry. The hon. Member has stated that the wages to be paid for people employed other than in their own localities are governed by agreements entered into by the two sides in the industry, and that this is the pre war practice. That, of course, in essence, is true; but the point which I would like to put to the hon. Member and to the Government is that the employment of operatives outside their areas of living was comparatively rare in pre war days, and that, when they were so employed, it was generally on account of one or other of two reasons—either as technically skilled operatives employed by sub-contractors in the way referred to by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), or as operatives who were part of a nucleus of labour which, as I think the hon. Member will agree, employers attracted around them in private enterprise building before the war. Normally, when a sub-contractor, for instance, in Bristol, got a contract in Hull, he would take with him some of that nucleus of labour; and the men went willingly for the payment obtaining in the area to which they were going, plus such travelling time and other allowances as were prescribed by the agreements entered into by the normal machinery of the industry.
It is in another way that we contemplate that flying squads will be used by the Minister under this Bill. These will be flying squads directed by the Minister. They will not be nuclei of labour attracted round any employer; and so, I submit, the Committee is bound to ask itself what are the inducements which are
1976
going to attract this labour to these flying squads. They can only be one of two inducements. They can be monetary, but the hon. Member for East Woolwich has already answered that point when he said that, under the Regulations, there will be no monetary inducement, because the men will be paid at the normal wages prevailing in the locality. The other inducement is that of direction; and, if it is objected that expenses may be incurred above what is necessary by the payment of extra wages to flying squads, how much more objectionable is it to contemplate that this provision regarding flying squads is going to lead to the perpetuation of the direction of labour in the building industry? I would like the Minister to address himself in his reply to this point. What is the inducement to be applied? If monetary, will he deal with the point which was put by the hon. Member for East Woolwich? And, if it is not, is it to be a principle of direction?
This Clause, as it stands, would allow the Minister to enter the field of traditional building for the housing of the working classes with direct labour, without any restriction either as to the area, or type of houses to be built, or alternative sources of building available. That is to give an "Open Sesame" to State building by direct labour in the field of housing; and I submit that that would be a great mistake. The experience of flying squads to date has been that, in their operations, they are expensive, uneconomical and unattractive to those engaged in them. Flying squads, at their best, are a juggling with the existing resources of labour and a camouflage of the real difficulty, which is the overall shortage of labour. This Clause was not defended on these grounds in the Second Reading Debate. So far as I can see, the particular Subsection with which we are dealing was not referred to by the Minister of Works at all in his speech in introducing this Bill. After criticisms had been made from these Benches of the possible sinister implication of this Clause, the Minister of Health addressed himself to answer those criticisms when he was winding up the Debate. It is true that the Minister of Health said that bulk purchase and direct labour were the principles—
The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is really making a Second Read-

1977
ing speech. He must address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
Lieut.-Colonel Walker-Smith: I apologise if I have transgressed. The point which I was about to make was that very Wide powers are given under this Clause as it stands, and that the Amendment, with which my name is associated, is designed to place upon those powers limitations not inconsistent with the grounds on which the Minister of Health defended the Clause in the Second Reading Debate. If I might very briefly continue that argument, the Minister of Health did defend this Clause on the grounds that it was required for rural areas, blitzed areas and areas with inadequate building labour. I could quote chapter and verse if necessary, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the passage to which I am drawing his attention, in which the Minister did say that the powers were wanted for these limited purposes. There was no question of their being required for the wider purposes to which we take objection under this Clause. Therefore, I say that the limitations imported by this Amendment are limitations which ought to commend themselves to the Government, if the Government agree with what the Minister of Health said when he was winding up the Debate. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, because it simply imposes restrictions which, it is reasonable to assume from the speech of the Minister of Health, he would be willing to accept.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Edward Porter: I have been a member of a local authority for a few years, and I have also been a member of the National Housing Committee organised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. In view of experience of housing questions under local authorities, the probabilities are that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. These are a few of the things we had to experience after the last war. In the town where I live the first council housing scheme was given to the local master builders, and we found ourselves in the unfortunate position that the master builders disagreed among themselves and took their bricklayers away to other jobs where they were able to make a greater profit. At that time we had a Conservative majority on the local council, and
1978
their leader was so disgusted with the state of affairs that he requested us to send a delegation to a town in the South of England. As a result of that it was decided to build houses by direct labour, and the result of that was a saving of £26 per house as compared with the last tender of private enterprise. At the end of the contract the Conservative Party decided that we should have no more schemes of direct labour. But when our next housing scheme got going our building inspectors had to report to us that the work was unsatisfactory and asked for it to be pulled down. It is rather funny that we had to employ building inspectors to see that private enterprise did the job properly.
Captain Marples: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee who pays for the inspector who inspects the houses?
Mr. E. Porter: So far as I am concerned, the local authority.
Captain Marples: May I correct the hon. Member? The fees of the district surveyor are paid by the private enterprise builders.
Mr. E. Porter: Whatever takes place in other parts of the country does not necessarily take place in Lancashire, and every housing authority, to protect the ratepayers, is compelled to appoint not only building inspectors but sanitary inspectors as well. I sincerely hope the Opposition's Amendment will not be pressed, because if it was accepted it would mean that local authorities would be left high and dry. If it is rejected a local authority can call on the Ministry of Works to send a flying squad if required. I happen to have been a trade union official, and my work took me on to most of the building works of all descriptions in Lancashire and the North of England. Since 1918, up to coming into this House, I have been chairman of the workers side of the clay industry and chairman of the Joint Industrial Council concerned with the making of bricks, tiles, etc. I claim to have some knowledge of the building industry, and I can state very definitely that the majority of bricks are made in the North of England. We have seen scamped work which has been a disgrace to the private builders of this country.
The Chairman: I am sorry to have to intervene, but this is not a Debate on the advantages or disadvantages of

1979
direct labour. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment.
Mr. E. Porter: I will conclude by appealing once more to the Minister not to accept this Amendment under any circumstances, if he wants to see houses built as they ought to be built.
Mr. Tomlinson: I had hoped, after I had given an assurance about the last Amendment, that this further Amendment would not have been moved. All the arguments that have been used have been devoted to showing that a Minister of Works who was anxious to do outrageous things might go here and there and do them by means of his flying squads. When I said, when the previous Amendment was withdrawn, that I would make sure that it would be at the request of the local authority, I was definitely referring to this type of work. The question of whether or not we have a mandate to set up flying squads and send them here or there does not arise. I do not think, however, that there is any doubt as to whether the Government's mandate enables them to utilise what they consider to be the best means of obtaining the most houses in the shortest possible time. I do not think anybody would question that. There has been a lot of argument as to whether or not flying squads are the best way of doing it, and we should need to be convinced that it was the best before adopting it.
I would however like to call the attention of the Committee to the purpose of the Bill, because it seems to me that we have been getting away from what it is intended to do. It is to make financial provision for these things. From what has been said it almost appears that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would limit the power of the Minister of Works to carry out this work at the request of the local authority. As a matter of fact the Minister of Works has the power now. He already has authority, at the request of any local authority, to go and build by direct labour, but he would have to recover the cost from the local authority. It seems strange to me, if it is desirable that he should build prefabricated houses, that it should not also be desirable for him to build traditional houses, if the local authority for some reason requests it. Therefore it is simply a question of how financial provision is to be made. I
1980
put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment should really be withdrawn. All these questions relating to flying squads and to the conditions under which people are called upon to work are questions of interest, but they are not of interest so far as this Amendment is concerned. I do not think they have any relation to the Amendment. I should be prepared to argue that it was necessary that special conditions should be set up; nobody believes that men can be moved, or asked to move from one part of the country to another to do a job, without receiving the expenses necessarily incurred by them in moving about and living away from home. The direction of labour does not come into it. Neither is it the intention of the Government to be so foolish as to set up flying squads to do work which others can do. We may be simple, or we may be taken for being simple, but I really think that we ought not to be treated as being quite so simple as would appear from some of the arguments put before the Committee.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: What would be the position, in regard to the direction of labour, of men coming out of the Forces? Could a man coming out of the Forces under Class B be directed to a flying squad?
Mr. Tomlinson: He would be in the same position whether he was sent to a flying squad or directed into another part of the building industry. If he was engaged in the building industry under direction, whether or not he was in a flying squad would have no relevance. In view of what I have already said, that the flying squad will be used at the request of local authorities, I really think the Amendment had better be withdrawn.
Mr. C. Williams: These flying squads have been sprung upon us rather suddenly today; will the Government take every opportunity to get men out of the Forces into the building industry as quickly as possible, apart from that?
Mr. Willink: I have received some slight satisfaction, though very slight from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I took comfort from the fact that he said that the Government would need to be convinced of the need in a particular case. If I could really accept in its fullness as an expression of the Government's intention his remark to the

1981
effect that it was not intended to set up flying squads to do work which someone else could do, I should of course be completely satisfied. The trouble is that we cannot help suspecting that it is the Government's intention in many directions to set up organisations to do work which somebody else can do.
Mr. Tomlinson: I would not like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take satisfaction from something I have not intended. I hope I did not mislead him when I said "something somebody else can do." I meant in a particular area.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Willink: I accept that. I understood that to be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman—that he was telling the Committee that it is not the intention of the Government to set up a flying squad to do work that either the local authority or the local building industry could do in that area. That would be of substantial satisfaction to those on this side of the Committee. However, I am not alone, I think, in feeling that the Minister has given us no information as to the extent to which what is admitted to be an expensive method is to be used, or indeed, as to the way in which that expense is ultimately to be borne. I understand that the more flying squads are used, the greater an uneconomical method will be in use, and the greater the burden falling upon the taxpayer. I feel strongly that we were right to probe this question because, after all, the Minister of Health in the Second Reading Debate told the House that the Bill had been drawn in order that the House might see
"… the way in which we propose to exercise the financial powers already possessed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November,1945; Vol. 46, c. 999.]
So we were examining the manner in which these financial powers are to be used on behalf of local authorities. However, on the assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to set up flying squads to do work that some one else could do in the area in question, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 1 line 22, leave out "forty-seven," and insert "fifty."
1982
On second thoughts—and I think even a Government are right to have second thoughts on a Bill—we felt that 1947 was rather too early and as there should be a date, we are asking for the substitution of 1950 for 1947. The only effects of this which are of real importance are first, that we should not need to come to the House quite so soon for a survey as to whether or not it was necessary to extend the time; and secondly, that if we had not taken the £100 million by 1947 it would be necessary to do so and pay interest on carrying on an unnecessary balance. Since we are just as anxious as the Opposition—who have displayed great anxiety—that this Fund should" not be over-burdened, and that we should not show the losses which have been mentioned, we are anxious not to add to that burden unduly. We suggest, therefore, the substitution of 1950 for 1947 as the date at which no further advances shall be made.
Mr. Willink: This Amendment, though it only proposes to insert one word instead of another, is one of the most astonishing which has been brought forward. At the very least, surely I am entitled to say, never has there been a more conspicuous example of ill-thought-out legislation. The Second Reading of the Bill was taken last Monday, and we were most unduly pressed to take the Committee stage within a week, as a matter of very great importance, but so short a time as seven days ago the Government thought that two years was sufficient for the duration of this Bill. And not one single reference was there then to any thought in the mind of His Majesty's Government that the proper period was not that included in the Bill, on the back of which were the names of no fewer than five Ministers of the Crown. Yet for some reason—and the two reasons given are as follow: first, that two years was a bit too early; secondly, that It would be desirable not to be forced to come to the House quite so soon—this Amendment is introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.
I find it impossible to see any justification for this change at this moment. Why should the Government not come to the House as soon as they proposed to come to it seven days ago? Why should the House be put off and not know what the position is under these accounts until five

1983
years from now? One of the most conspicuous points with. regard to this is that, of course, by this Amendment the Government would postpone the termination of this account until after the next General Election, which seems a curious proposition, and my hon. Friends and myself are bound to take the view that perhaps there was discussion between the Minister of Health and his colleagues on his suggestion that the acute housing shortage would be finished in about two years, which he gave as his vague estimate in a Debate within the last three weeks. I think it must have been suggested to him, "You have not made many promises, but that was rather a rash one. It is going to be more like five years before, under your programme, we see much progress." So on this Bill, and I suppose on many others, we shall see a similar indication of a slowing up of the programme and a legacy to another Parliament to see what is the result of this curious unlimited company—as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) described it, The Minister has given no reasons at all for this very sweeping change in the whole scope of the Bill, which he described as something which was needed in order that the Government might not report to the House as early as, a week ago, they proposed.
Mrs. Castle: As the only person, I believe, who, during the Second Reading Debate on the Bill, referred to this question of the period during which advances could be made by the Treasury to the Minister of Works for the purposes of this Bill, I want to thank the Government for having listened to the advice I tendered to them then. I was concerned, when I saw the time limit fixed in the Bill, by the fact that it was obvious that the Government were not giving themselves time, not giving themselves elbow room, to get this Fund on to a self-financing basis. Now the idea, I understand, behind the proposition put forward was not that the activities visualised under this Bill would not be necessary after September, 1947, but that by that time the Fund might have got on to a basis on which, owing to the flow of income from the local authorities, advances would no longer be necessary. But the Fund would continue. Now the purpose of the Bill, as we have been discussing it tonight, is twofold: first, to finance the production
1984
of permanent, prefabricated houses; secondly, to finance the production and bulk purchase of the components for all types of permanent houses.
Accepting these purposes—as we on this side of the Committee do accept them, and we do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept them—it is quite obvious that you will not in two years have reached a situation in which your expansion will have ended and it will be possible to say that you can dispense with advances from the Treasury to finance the work you are trying to do. Take, for example, the permanent, prefabricated houses. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, have made it quite clear that they will encourage to the utmost experiments in prefabrication in the interests of the housing drive that we intend to embark upon. These experiments have not yet reached a very advanced stage, and I think their predecessors must accept some responsibility for that fact. I want to say this, that the private firms in this country and private individuals in this country who believe in prefabrication and its possibilities—who believe that its potentialities can be developed with encouragement, far further than they have yet been developed—will not thank hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for trying to limit the amount of financial encouragement which the Government can give under this Bill to these experiments. I believe that by September, 1947, we shall only just have begun to reach fruition in the experimental technical work that must be done in the prefabrication of permanent homes, and it would be disastrous if those experiments were to be held up in any degree by the fact that a limit had been placed on the time during which advances could be made by the Treasury to the Minister of Works.
I am also very much concerned with the second purpose of this Bill—one which I believe to be of vital importance—namely, the bulk purchase and the production by the Government, where necessary, of the components of permanent traditional homes. Now our production of permanent housing is going to go on during the next few years at an accelerated rate. Month by month we shall see production exceeding the previous month's total, and therefore the outgoings on the purchasing of components is likely each month to

1985
exceed that of the previous month, and we shall need to have a little in hand in order that this encouragement can be given. I personally believe, and I know that local authorities in this country believe, that the intervention by the Government in the bulk purchase of the fitments of permanent traditional brick houses can play a vital part in bringing down building costs, and in speeding up the rate of production, and they are looking to my right hon. Friends to give them a dramatic lead in this direction. But as our permanent housing reaches its peak, we shall need to have enough finance behind the Government to enable them to engage upon this work.
Therefore, I welcome very much the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. I had an Amendment of my own down upon the Order Paper, which I do not move because this Amendment substantially meets the point that I was trying to make. I urge that if we really have faith in the purposes of this Bill—and we on this side of the Committee stand behind it four-square—then we accept this Amendment advanced to? night as an example of a Government quite courageously and quite justly having intelligent second thoughts.
Mr. E. P. Smith: I am sorry to disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) in regard to this Amendment. I cannot help feeling that he is not perhaps seized of the really practical side of the issue. I should have thought it was becoming increasingly obvious to all members of this Committee—and, indeed, to most of the country—that the number of houses which are to be built by the end of September, 1947, will not be sufficient to absorb anything like the £100 million for which this Bill provides. Now, if I might take the case of my own village, we very badly need Council houses there. Seven or eight months ago the land was bought by the local authority. It was surveyed and approved by the various and numerous Ministries concerned, and we were promised by our representative on the local authority that there would be 20 houses erected by 31st December of this year. So far, not one brick has been laid, not one turf has been lifted. The field is there, the approval is there, and that is all that is there. I am very sorry that
1986
the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is not moving her Amendment, because from a practical point of view I think it would be far better not to limit this to 1950, but allow it to stretch to infinity. She has called upon the right hon. Gentleman to give a dramatic lead, but I fancy he will end up by supplying a quiet curtain. She has faith in the purpose of this Bill. So have we all. We have all great faith in its purpose, but we lack faith in its achievement; and it is for that reason, and purely practically, that I support this Amendment, because I think otherwise the Government will get themselves into a position of frustration and ridicule, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises.
7.0 p.m.
Sir Arnold Gridley: If I understood the Minister of Works rightly he said one reason why this Amendment was required was because the Government did not want to have to come to this House for authority.
Mr. Tomlinson: For legislation.
Sir A. Gridley: I should have thought this was the proper place to come for authority. I presume the right hon. Gentleman and others sitting with him on the Government front bench are entitled to call themselves statesmen. I think wise statesmanship should have encouraged the Government on previous occasions, as on this, to make a concession to the Opposition, which they could safely do, by agreeing to a limited period of two years, in the full confidence that if they continued to justify the confidence of the country they could safely come back to Parliament in two years time and ask for an extension of these powers. Only a few days ago, when we were discussing the Finance Bill, it was necessary to point out that the Government did not propose to allow industrialists more than just one year in which to complete the very extensive change-over—in many cases—from war to normal peace conditions, and that while any losses they might incur during that 12 months would be borne by the E.P.T. cushion that would not be the case thereafter. Why should they concede to those who are in such difficulties a period of one year only, and then come arid ask to be given carte blanche for a period of five years for themselves, when, if they had any confidence in their scheme, they could

1987
rest assured they would find no difficulties facing them if they came back to ask for a further extension after two years? There has been more than one instance in which the Government might well have given way without any loss of face and with real statesmanship. It does pay sometimes to make a concession to the Opposition, when by so doing the Government really lose nothing. I urge the Government to give consideration to what I have said, and see whether they cannot meet us.
Mr. Maude: May I in two or three minutes put as clearly as I can the point that is bewildering me and, I venture to say, will be bewildering those of us on both sides who have recently entered Parliament. I confess that it is depressing, to put it at its lowest, to think back, in spite of what we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, to the drafting of this Bill. You think of the numbers of eminent assistants that are in the Ministry, you think of the right hon. Gentleman, you think of the great mistake that was made, apparently, by not asking the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) for her advice at at earlier stage—because if she is right it seems to me that what she said had an electric effect on the right hon. Gentleman. With all the paraphernalia of the Department martialled behind them the Government decided, for some very good reasons no doubt—they must have been good reasons—on the year 1947.It must have been most carefully selected. Then why this change within so short a period? The "new boys" on both sides of the Committee know that these things go through very quickly. These Bills are prepared, we see them, and here we are, in about a fortnight's time, trying to deal with these matters. What is it that has happened, that is what I long to know, since the Bill was drafted to cause the Government to make the year not1948 or 1949 but 1950? Why does it go to 1950? I beg the right hon. Gentleman to believe that there are many of us who attend faithfully and patiently to all that he says and all that his supporters say, but we come here expecting to have matters explained to us and why is it that suddenly this particular Amendment should come along without, in substance, any real explanation such as would satisfy anybody? An hon. Member can only say, "I was in the House tonight when
1988
the Government altered the date from 1947 to 1950 and the only reason given was that they thought, for some reason that is not given, that it would be wiser to put the, date at 1950." I call in aid the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, who clearly is not entirely satisfied, although she has not given reasons why she is not. She says the action of the Government has met her to some extent.
Mrs. Castle: Substantially.
Mr. Maude: Substantially the Government have met her desire. That is fascinating, because if you look at her Amendment the years seem to pass into infinity. There was no sign of any end of the thing at all, but now the year 1950 substantially satisfies her. Whether 1949 would have satisfied her—who knows? She has never told us. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take all of us into his confidence, his own supporters as well. It may be that they are in the secret, that they do know the reasons. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Then it may be that they are tired and do not want to know the reasons, but we do long to know why it is. Something has happened. One cannot help feeling that unless some good answer is given to satisfy us, Members on all sides may reflect in a day or two that perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) was right, and that this Amendment has got some not too attractive political reason behind it.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I do wish the right hon. Gentleman would really treat the Amendments which have been put down with serious consideration, and also the arguments which have been put against them, because we on this side of the Committee feel very strongly about them. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this: On the Second Reading of the Bill many Members would have been prepared to accept for a limited period certain proposals, which they did not like. If, on the Committee stage, the period is not only increased but more than doubled, it seems to me—I do not wish to imply any unpleasant or sinister motive to the Government—that it is a way of stifling opposition to bring in some Amendment which would have been very seriously challenged if it had been in the Bill on the Second Reading. That could go on ad infinitum. What is to pre-

1989
vent a substantial Amendment being moved by one of the noble colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman in another place, which might very well add still further arguments to those which would have already been contested strongly on the Second Reading of the Bill.
For that reason, I think that the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion would add to the smoothness of the passage of this Bill if he could see his way to meeting to some extent the arguments put for-ward from this side of the Committee. I feel that Members of Parliament, of whatever party they may be, would not regard it as a sign of weakness for the Government to come back in two years time to the House of Commons to justify their action, and ask for further confidence. The only thing which will prevent that would be if—and I think it is a justifiable argument—some people thought that the Government introduced this because they feared that in two years time the whole thing would be in a mess, and that they would not get a Vote of Confidence. For that reason I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will really consider the serious arguments put forward my Members on this side of the Committee.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: I feel that this Amendment is a very unfortunate one from the Government's point of view. In addition to the reasons already put forward, if we look at the sum provided under the Bill the total amount shall not at any time exceed £100 million. Under the Bill, as it stands, there has been a limit up to 1947. That is extended in the Amendment to 1950, and I should have thought it would have been a greater stimulant to the building of houses, and all concerned with the provision of houses, if this were to remain at 1947 instead of being extended to 1950 as the Amendment proposes. Apart from the unfortunate fact of introducing an Amendment of this sort after a Second Reading Debate—and I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken about that—it encourages, by extending to 1950, a more lax view and a sense of less urgency about the building of houses than would have been the case had the date been left at 1947.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) says that she, and other hon.
1990
Members opposite, stand behind this Bill four square. There was one point that the hon. Lady mentioned, which I do not think was dealt with at all, either in the introduction of the Bill or the final speech of the Minister of Health. I think she did those on this side of the Committee an injustice when she said that we were trying to limit the amount of financial encouragement that could be given. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy her, if she will listen to me, that this is not the case at all. Let us get quite clear what the position is: under the Bill, the Government can borrow up to September, 1947, £100 million. They cannot borrow any sum as the Bill now stands after that date; but they can get all their £100 million by that date. The Bill does not provide that the £100 million shall cease to be used by or operated by the Minister of Works after that date. If you look at Clause 2 (4) you will sec:
"The Fund shall be closed at such a time after the end of September, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, as the Treasury may direct. …"
7.15 p.m.
So that means that the £100 million they borrow by September, 1947, can go on being used after that date, just as long as the right hon. Gentleman can get the Treasury's consent. It is not right in my view to say that our position to this Amendment is in any way seeking to limit the amount of financial encouragement that can be given. It is nothing of the sort. There is no Amendment before the Committee to increase the sum of £100 million. What the Government are now doing—let us appreciate the fact of what they are doing, and what the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn thinks they should do—is to take power to extend the borrowing period. The hon. Lady who stands four square behind the Government has, apparently, not the same confidence in the Government's prowess as the Minister of Health, who recently said that the back of the problem would be broken within two years, or words to that effect. Now the Minister of Works is saying that he must have up to 1950 to be able to borrow this £100 million. He says in effect, "It will not suffice for me to take all that money by 1947. You must give me further powers of overdrawing or borrowing. I must be able to borrow up to 1950." The hon. Lady is supported by

1991
the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith), who cannot support the Amendment, I think, for much the same reason as the hon. Lady, that she has no confidence in the Government being able to solve the housing problem in two or five years.
Mrs. Castle: If you increase the term of borrowing you increase the amount that can be borrowed, because it says in the Bill that the total amount shall not at any time exceed £100 million, but that is renewableߞ—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The total sum that can be borrowed is £100 million—the maximum overdraft is £100 million.
Mrs. Castle: At any time, not in all, but at any given time. Therefore, if you are extending the period to1950 you can, in fact, increase the amount you borrow.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not agree with the hon. Lady in her interpretation of that Clause of the Bill at all. As I read the Bill, the £100 million is the maximum that can be borrowed. I am confirmed in that view by what the right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading Debate. On that occasion he said:
"If it is found that the limit of £100 million is too low or that further advances after September, 1947, are required, the Government will have to come to Parliament and a convenient opportunity will be presented for reviewing the operations which have taken place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 908.]
Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman, only a week later, thinks that two years time, if this Fund is not sufficient, will not be a convenient opportunity of reviewing its operations before Parliament? I think he said they would not need to come to the House so soon. I can say with some confidence that we should very much welcome an account of the operation of this Fund in two years time and, perhaps, before that, because we do not want to see any dilatoriness in the conduct of these affairs. I hope the Government will not fall down on the pledges they have given to cure the housing problem in so short a period as two years, but we have not the confidence in them which some hon. Members opposite have, nor, perhaps, have we the same
1992
lack of confidence as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn who wants an unlimited period of time for borrowing this money and carrying on the programme.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to think this over again. With the majority he has behind him, he must be suffering from some degree of cold feet if he thinks that in two years time, if he has not achieved his object, he will not be able to get the further finance for his programme. Why is he so pessimistic about his chances in two years time? It may be said that he is more sensitive to criticism from the Benches behind him, than to criticism coming from this side. I appreciate that, even when the argument is not dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in winding up the Debate, but I suggest that, however attractive these arguments can be at first sight, they should be carefully examined by the right hon. Gentleman and he should be careful not to deprive Parliament—if he believes in democracy—ofan opportunity of considering his conduct and the conduct of his Ministry in regard to this fund, and also of considering whether it is right that there should be a further extension given after 1947.
Mr. E. P. Smith: On a point of Order, Can we be told whether, in this Bill, we are discussing one block of £100,000,000 or is theߞ—
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of Order. He is addressing a question to the Minister.
Mr. E. P. Smith: If I may put the question to the Minister, can we be told whether the sum under discussion is one clean block of £100,000,000, or whether, as has been suggested by the Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) it is £10,000,000 multiplied by x?
Mr. Tomlinson: It is one block; whether it is clean or not, I do not know.
Question put, "That the word forty-seven stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 256.
Question, 'That the word' fifty 'stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sir W. Wakefield: Before we leave this Clause could the Minister explain whether he is proposing to make adequate arrangements so that the millions of houses which are to be erected under the Government housing programme will have really up to date scientific and efficient coal burning apparatus? In all parts of the Committee it will be agreed that at present there is a grave and unnecessary waste of fuel. I believe it has been reliably estimated that some 70 per cent.—
The Chairman: The question of fuel certainly cannot be raised on this Clause.
Sir W. Wakefield: In this Clause there is reference to "equipment for buildings." I am seeking to ask the Minister what steps the Government are to take to
1996
ensure that efficient grates will be supplied for the equipment of the millions of houses that are to go up. The point is that the Coal Utilisation Research Association and the Fuel Research Station have investigated this project very thoroughly to get efficient grates. They may cost more than the cheap, useless, inefficient grate. There may be a greater initial cost, but the saving of fuel may be very great and I want to know what plans—
The Chairman: I am sorry but the matter which the hon. Member is raising is not in Order. This is a money Clause and is far away from the point he is raising.
Sir W. Wakefield: If I had been allowed to develop my case, the whole purpose of it would have been to ask if the Minister is to give a subsidy or to give financial assistance for the provision of these efficient grates, or not. It may well be that these efficient grates will cost more initially, but by using them a great saving in fuel may take place. It may well be

1997
that a lot of the toil and sweat of the miners in getting up coal will not be sent into the sky, and that there will be less smoke about as a result of spending this money under this Bill.
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue that line of argument. The question of fuel saving or smoke abatement does not arise on this Clause, and the hon. Member cannot pursue the point further.
Sir W. Wakefield: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but I have carefully studied this Clause. It seemed to me that this Clause dealt with the purchase of building materials and the payment for them, and I had thought that in raising this point here I was in Order. I do not know on what other part of the Bill I could raise it. I thought it was a proper and important matter and in the national interest.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Major Milner, to Clause 1 (b) under which the Minister can use this finance for
"making and carrying out arrangements for the production and distribution of any such materials or equipment;"
that is, building materials? If you look at "building materials" as defined in Clause 9, it is a very wide term indeed. Under those terms is not my hon. Friend entitled to ask whether any part of this finance which the Minister is allowed to use for making arrangements for the production of various building materials is not to be used for research to secure the most efficient type of grate?
Sir W. Wakefield: Further to that point of Order. We have had statements from the Lord President of the Council and others that the fullest possible use is to be made by the Government of science and research. I am seeking an explanation as to whether full advantage will be taken of the results and science and research under this Bill? That is the point I wish to have explained.
The Chairman: The question put by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on fuel and burning grates is far too remote from this Clause. The question of bricks has nothing to do with grates.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely it is very difficult to draw the line between bricks and grates, particularly when we are dealing with all kinds of houses, traditional and prefabricated. Without being too persistent may I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) is in Order in asking whether finance to be used in regard to the production of materials for houses, is going to be used for research into and production of the most efficient type of grate. Surely it would be in Order—although I do not want to suggest anyone in the Committee should ask about it—that chimney pots might be discussed.
Sir W. Wakefield: In modern grates the building of bricks and the kind of draught required for economic burning are considered and bricks are used in the design of grates in a modern house. I will not take up the time of the Committeeߞ
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is a most important national consideration, whether they are going to pay 20 per cent. less for fuel. Surely we do not want them to pay more than they need. I want to ask the Minister whether he will pay attention to making it more efficient.
Mr. Tomlinson: Inasmuch as the Ministry of Works have been encouraging this sort of inquiry and assisting to the extent that is possible in all our dealings as far as materials are concerned, we will take into consideration the type of materials the hon. Member has mentioned
Colonel Clarke: I know the Minister's Department has gone into this matter of doing research, and it is a fact that some of the modern grates require substantial alterations in the ordinary layout of the buildings. I want to know whether the Ministry is taking steps to see that new houses are designed so as to be able to take these modern grates. I believe one of the models his Department recommended is called a "space heater." They require special adaptation.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(The Building Materials and Housing Fund.)
Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31 leave out "forty-seven," and insert "fifty."
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to
move, in page 2, leave out line 41 and insert:
"a manner as to show separately the amounts advanced to the Minister under this Act and the date of the advances; the receipts of the Minister in connection with the performance of each of the functions specified in section one of this Act; the amounts paid into the fund by the Minister of Health and the dates of such payments; the amounts paid out of the fund by way of principal and the amounts so paid by way of interest; the amount paid out to the Minister in payment of expenses incurred in performing each of the functions specified in section one of this Act in such form as the Treasury may direct; a statement showing the profit or loss made by the Minister in carrying out each of the functions specified in section one of this Act; and a statement in such manner and form as the Treasury may direct showing the financial position of the fund."
Under this Bill the only obligation, so far as the preparation of an account is concerned, of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is to prepare an account of receipts into, and payments out of, the Fund in such a form and manner "as the Treasury may direct." Those words are so wide that I apprehend that the sort of account one sees stuck up in the village post office saying what has been paid in and out would suffice to meet the Statute. It would not suffice for our purpose, and that is why we have put down this Amendment to indicate the things we think the account should show. We think that the accounts should be prepared in such a manner as to show separately the amounts advanced to the Minister under the Act and the date of the advancement. Now that the operation of this Fund has been extended until 1950, it becomes even more important that we should know year by year the extent of the amount advanced by the Treasury and the time when it has been" advanced.
Then we ask that we should be told of the receipts of the Minister in connection with the performance of each of the functions specified in the first Clause of the Bill; that is to say, we want to know
2000
what he has received from the sale of building materials and of permanent equipment for building. We want to know what he has received under paragraph (b) and, in particular, what he has received from local authorities for carrying out their functions under the Housing Act of 1936. We suggest that those receipts should be shown in such a form as to be easily identifiable because, if that information is not given, it will not be easy to compare the cost of the work of local authorities being done by direct labour, by local contractors, and toy the Ministry of Works. We go on to ask that there should be inserted
"the amounts paid into the Fund by the Minister of Health and the dates of such payments; "
Those payments will be made, the Committee will recollect, under Clause 3 of the Bill. There is nothing in Clause 3 to limit the total amount of the subsidy that the Minister of Health can give to the Minister of Works in respect of permanent prefabricated houses, nor is there anything in the Bill to limit the amount of subsidy that can be given per house. One of the things which it is important we should know is the extent of the burden which is annually placed on the taxpayer by this unlimited subsidy being given by the Ministry of Health, and that can only be revealed if a specific entry is made in the account which shows how much the Ministry of Health has paid into it to balance the account.
Then we go to the expenditure side. We want to be told in this account the amounts paid out of the Fund by way of principal and interest. We surely ought to see how the repayment is getting on and, also, to know from time to time what are the rates that the Treasury is charging by way of interest. I ought to draw the attention of the Committee to a typing error in the sixth line; instead of
"the amount paid out to the Minister in payment of expenses incurred in performing such of the functions specified in Section 1 of this Act."
it should be:
"the amount paid in to the Minister in payment of expenses incurred in performing such of the functions specified in Section 1 of this Act."
If we get that information—and I think that not only this side of the Committee, but all sides of the Committee desire to have it, and the public will desire to know

2001
—then we shall be able to judge to some extent of the efficiency or inefficiency of the Government in big business. We ask in addition, for a form of account showing receipts and expenditure. We should have a profit and loss account with regard to the exercise of each one of the Minister's functions and also a general statement showing in any manner and form the Treasury may direct, the financial position of the Fund.
In fact, what we are asking for is no more and no less than that which any limited company has to provide annually—a statement of receipts and expenditure, a profit and loss account and a balance sheet. I hope the Minister will be able to concede our claims and agree to this Amendment, if not, perhaps, in the form In which it is, at least in substance, because, knowing him as I do, I feel sure that he will not be reluctant annually to inform Parliament exactly how this Fund is being worked, and with what results.
Captain Marples: I think both sides of the Committee agree with this Bill in principle. There was no division on Second Reading, but this afternoon I am afraid the subject has become rather political. I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) is not here, because, in my opinion, it is a technical and not a political Bill. It is most important that hon. Members opposite should realise that. I am quite serious when I say that, because this afternoon there has been a tendency to get into a battle politically, and I think that is the wrong way to treat this Bill. In any case, the words I suggest to the Committee are practical and not political. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works, talking about matters connected with the Fund on the Second Reading Debate, said:
"This is clearly right in order that a proper picture may be presented o£ the financial results of the operations of the Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,1945; Vol. 416, c. 908.]
I think we are all agreed on that. Later on, the Minister of Health, whom I am very glad to see in his place, said:
"We are carrying on a practical business operation and we insist on having the same elasticity as business men-claim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 1003.]
I think all sides of the Committee are agreed that the Government are going
2002
into business. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members opposite agree. Therefore, let us compare that position with a limited company which is in business now. A limited company has to prepare a balance sheet, a trading and profit and loss account. I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) because he said that all we were asking the Government to do was to let us have the same accounts as a limited company has to produce. A limited company has to produce a balance sheet showing the assets and liabilities at a given date, and a trading and profit and loss account, or an income and expenditure account, for the period, whereas all we are asking them to do here is to provide a simple receipt and payment account which is not quite the same thing.
Mr. Diamond: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed that the words "profit or loss" appear in the Amendment?
Captain Marples: Yes, and "a statement." It does not necessarily mean that we shall have an income and expenditure account on that Amendment. The point is that in a limited company the accounts are audited by an auditor who attends to the vouchers and looks after the wages, and then gives a certificate. Those accounts are discussed at the annual general meeting and any shareholder can raise an objection. They have to have a meeting every 12 months, and they present their accounts. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works produce precisely the same account.
We have also heard a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the City, and I gather that they are not quite in agreement with the morals of the City in the past. I do not know whether I am right in saying that, but I think there has been some criticism of the City. Let us see for a moment what the City do when they have a promotion of any sort. When they have a promotion they produce, first of all, in the prospectus a valuation of the assets, which is signed by an independent valuer. That is something which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to do on the Bank of England Bill. But in the City

2003
—wicked City, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite—they have to do that when they have a flotation or a promotion. They also have to produce their profits over a period of years, again duly certified, and a statement in the certificate showing how the profit has been arrived at. The Government are the promoters of this particular Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is the chairman and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is the managing director. That is shown by the great attention which the Minister of Works gave to these Debates which have taken place—a fact which I myself have very much appreciated. The shareholders are the taxpayers; I am afraid they have not very much option in it. In the City they get an option, and they do not subscribe if they do not want to. We on this side treat the shareholders as taxpayers, and I suppose on the opposite side they are treated as voters.
The point is that if the City with its bad record, according to hon. Members opposite, is in a position to insist on these provisions, we can at least insist on the same conditions in this Bill. It provides an instrument which can do a great deal of good in the building industry if properly applied. I quite agree with hon. Members opposite, if it is properly applied. If it is not properly applied, it can absolutely ruin the building trade. All we want in this Amendment is to see whether or not the Government are running it efficiently. It is not a political issue; it is purely a business issue. Let us see a full profit and loss account, a balance sheet and a quarterly statement of what goes on; that is all we ask for. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is a little shy in bringing forward these figures. He is a little shy in producing his housing figures. Surely he can be a little bolder with the actual financial provisions.
I come to what was my pet theme on the Second Reading of the Bill. I said there that a large contractor was an organiser and a financier rather than a craftsman. The success of business depends upon a time and progress schedule being carried out, and for that a contractor has to organise his two prime factors of labour and material. If he has labour under his direct control and he can order it to any point that he so desires, if the
2004
Minister of Works carries out the distribution his material will be left entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Works. If the Ministry of Works falls down on that distribution, and suppose, for example, there are 50 builders waiting for materials who do not arrive and the Ministry of Works has contracted to supply the material, it will mean something like £250 in a week having to be paid out by way of wages. I want to know—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me—whether the figure of £250 would be included. It appears to me, as far as I can make out, that the local authority will pay the final bill for the building, and if there is a claim against the Ministry of Works it will be included in the figure. Therefore, if the Ministry of Works are inefficient distributors, causing loss of wages which means loss of houses, it will not be shown in the accounts in any way. If the Minister of Works assumes responsibility for distributing materials, under this Bill he must obviously at the same time assume the responsibility for any breakdown in that distribution. I think that all sides of the Committee will be agreed upon that statement.
8.0 p.m.
I want to make the concrete suggestion that we should ensure that this account is a true account. If a contractor has any claim against a distributor for materials not arriving at the right time—and he will have one if the Ministry of Works have to supply the materials—the claim should not be charged to the local authority, but to this Fund. I want to see in the Bill the actual administrative machinery, and the efficiency or otherwise of the two right hon. Gentlemen in front of me now. We do not ask for anything more. With the Government's huge majority they can get anything through, but I think we are entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentlemen are efficient or not. That is all we are asking. There are other ways of finding out. I was reminded by an hon. Member that we can find out by Question and answer, but I think that the Questions and answers that have been addressed to the Minister of Works have not been satisfactory. [Hon. Members: "The Questions?"] I should have said said that the answers have not been at all satisfactory. I have several times tried to get out of the Minister of Works information regarding costs, and so has

2005
my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom). I have a great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, but I submit with very great respect that some of the answers he has given have misled the House.
Mr. Tomlinson: Why did the hon. and gallant Member not challenge them at the time?
Captain Marples: I could not challenge them at the time because I did not have the actual facts and figures, which I have obtained from another source since. On 20th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone asked the Minister of Works whether he would give a list of materials or equipment in short supply that are—
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): On a point of Order. Will you be good enough, Mr. Beaumont, to tell the Committee whether the point now being raised by the hon. and gallant Member is in Order? We are discussing a specific Amendment which is on the Order Paper, but the hon. and gallant Member is now referring to a Question which he put to the Minister of Works some time ago about the supply of materials. Is it in Order to discuss that matter now?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Further to that point of Order. May I put this argument to you, in order to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend is in Order? The amount of information, or the lack of it, which is elicited by Questions surely strengthens the argument that we should have an account of the nature we desire.
Mr. Bevan: Is it in Order for hon. Members, in support of a proposition, to call into question the amount of information which is given at Question Time?
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I was waiting to see what the Question was to which the hon. and gallant Member was referring. In any case, I suggest it is quite impossible on this Amendment for the Debate to range over so wide a field.
Captain Marples: What I was doing was not so much calling attention to the insufficiency of the information as to the accuracy of the information.
The Deputy-Chairman: I could not allow that point to be raised.
Captain Marples: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman said "Tut, tut." All I am seeking to find out is the exact financial position, and the efficiency or the inefficiency of the right hon. Gentlemen in action and not in rhetoric. It is fairly easy to talk about building, but it is a technical problem requiring a technical mind behind it. Those technical minds are sadly lacking at the moment. [Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. Members should laugh, because it is very serious that this country should have a company promoted, in some of the directors of which I have no confidence, taking £10,000,000 of the country's money, and the first time they come to the House, seven days after the promotion of the company, they say: "We have made a mistake. We want to add three years to our original two."
The Deputy-Chairman: That is not in Order on this Amendment.
Captain Marples: I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont, and I apologise, but this is a very technical problem. If we are not very careful the accounts for which we are asking will not be produced, and the country will never know whether the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are efficient or not.
Captain Gammans: I think that the Minister is under an obligation either to accept the Amendment or to give the Committee adequate explanations why he does not accept it. As the Clause stands, it reads to me like the prospectus of a bucket shop. This company is not prepared to submit its accounts to a proper audit. If any individual were to go before the public and say, "I want to borrow £10,000,000 but I am not going to tell you how I spend it, except that one of my subordinates in my own accounts department will lay down the form in which the accounts are to be presented," the man who tried to offer that would eventually go to gaol, and quite rightly too. Here we are dealing with public money, very large sums of public money. I do not understand any hon. Gentleman opposite, if they have this implicit faith—I was going a bit further, to say "childish faith "—in the efficacy of State trading, not being willing to start off properly. Let them lay all their accounts before the country and before the House of Commons. If the thing is good, all right, it is provable by figures,

2007
and it is provable only by figures and not by rhetoric in Hyde Park. If they can show by actual figures laid before the House that their adventures in making bath tubs and the other things they propose to make are successful, they will receive the approbation not only of this House but the country, and they will deserve it.
Why are they so shy? Why can they not come to us and to the country and say: "We are going to borrow £100 million and we are going to produce our accounts only in the form that the Treasury may direct"? The onus is on the Government either to accept the Amendment or to tell the Committee definitely why they cannot. If they were dealing with their own money as individuals they could produce such accounts as they liked, but when they are dealing with other people's money, and especially with the money of the people who put them into the House of Commons, they ought to be more meticulous as to the way in which they render an account of their stewardship. If they are satisfied that they will make a success of it, that is all the more reason why they should submit accounts in detail. If they are not prepared to do so, the country and this House are justified in drawing from their refusal the worst possible conclusion, which is that the right hon. Gentlemen know that they are going to lose money and believe that by hiding that prospect under certain phrases they can disguise it from the country.
Mr. Tomlinson: The last two speeches gave me the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen were asking not so much for information as conveying to the Government the intimation: '' We do not trust you and we do not trust the individuals who will be responsible for this matter. Therefore, the only way in which you can present accounts is in the detailed way that we suggest." Anything other than that is to be taken as meaning that we are going to be dishonest. I resent the suggestion.
Captain Marples Captain Marples rose—
Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had some experience in the House for a fairly long period to my knowledge—
Captain Gammans Captain Gammans rose—
Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know to what I am going to take exception. I am taking exception to the suggestion that despite the Treasury regulations which are laid down the Ministry will deal with accounts in the careless way he has hinted.
Captain Gammans: I do not want to make any imputation against the right hon. Gentleman personally. My imputation is against the inefficiency which I think will arise from these operations. Any right hon. Gentleman, in fact, any Government ought to be all the more meticulous in the safeguards which they put on the use of other people's money.
Mr. Tomlinson: I am quite prepared to accept that last restriction, but I did not hear any such reference in the fairly long speech casting doubt upon the regulations insisted upon when financial arrangements are being made. The accounts which will be presented to Parliament under the Bill will be somewhat in the nature of a cash account. On the receipt side will be shown the balance in hand at the beginning of the year, issues from the Consolidated Fund, payments by the Health Department, sales of building structures as well as building materials with the repayment by local authorities for work carried out on their behalf. On the payment side it would probably show under separate headings such items as repayment to the Consolidated Fund, interest on advances from the Consolidated Fund, purchases of building materials, equipment and complete structures, capital expenditure, work done on behalf of local authorities, distribution and transport costs and departmental expenses, and the balance of the Fund at the end of the year.
Mr. Bossom: Will these accounts show the extra charges caused by inefficiency or failure to deliver, because in this particular matter they can be very serious?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Do I understand that all these various matters will be shown item by item in this account?
Mr. Tomlinson: I do not expect that every item will have to be put down. What I expect will be done will be as is done in the companies which are always being held up to us as examples. Possibly there will be put down an expenditure on miscellaneous items but whether there

2009
will be any objection to that I do not know. The important point is that it is not the intention of the Government nor their desire to hide anything. What we do object to, and what I personally object to, is that on this particular item or on that particular item with which the Ministry of Works is involved hon. Members opposite seek to set up a new standard of accountancy for this Parliament. In addition to what I have said about the cash account I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Treasury have certain powers under Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1921. This Section reads as follows, and I wish to read it because I want Members to understand that we on this bench know that it is there:
"There shall be prepared in each financial year, in such form and by such Government Departments as the Treasury may from time to time direct or approve, statements of account showing the income and expenditure of any shipbuilding, manufacturing trading or commercial services conducted by the Department together with such balance sheets and statements of profit and loss and particulars of costs as the Treasury may require. All such accounts shall be transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and presented to Parliament on or before the date specified in that behalf in the first schedule of this Act. All such accounts as aforesaid shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on behalf of the House of Commons and in his examination he shall have regard to any programme of works shipbuilding or manufacture which may have been laid before Parliament and shall certify and report on them to the House of Commons."
Those are the Treasury instructions that are laid down. It will be seen that the Treasury have power to prescribe the preparation of and laying before Parliament of commercial accounts in the case of commercial operations carried out by Government Departments. We are assured by the Treasury that no exception will be made on our account. We, too, shall have, as we ought, to toe the line. As a matter of fact it has been the general practice of the Treasury so to instruct with regard to accounts and those instructions will be carried out under this Bill.
8.15 p.m.
These accounts will probably contain a trading account, a profit and loss account and a balance sheet in normal commercial form. What more hon. Members opposite want I do not know. Everything that is asked for, or, at any rate, almost everything in the Amendment, will in
2010
fact be covered either by the account to be prepared under the Bill or by the commercial accounts to be prepared under the 1921Act. The accounts, however, will not show the date of advances and payments by the Health Departments, nor has it been made clear why these dates should be shown. It is obvious that they will come within a fairly narrow period and it does not seem to me why any specific date on which the payments were made should matter so far as the accounts were concerned. The advances may be made at fairly frequent intervals and at short notice. There was a point I made with regard to 1950 of which nobody seems to take any notice, but I object to having money in the Fund which is paying interest to the Treasury when, by extending the date a little, the Treasury can hold it for us, and it is there when we go for it. There seems to be no reason why, when the operations of the fund as a whole will be shown clearly in the annual accounts, the specific dates of the advances should be required to be entered in that account.
With regard to advances from the Health departments I do not see that the information which is demanded can be at all useful. The Amendment also asks for a statement showing the profit and loss in carrying out each of the funds specified under section 1of the Act. Not only are a balance sheet and a profit and loss account wanted, but the hon. Members opposite want three balance sheets and three profit and loss accounts. I have never heard it suggested that any company should carry out such a practice, nor anything like the practice which is suggested in the Amendment. I have never heard it suggested that a company should show the profit and loss made on each particular item. It always seemed to me all right so long as it came out all right in the end. I feel, therefore, that in asking for these details in three separate accounts, so far as the Ministry is concerned, the Amendment is asking for something which is not required in any other kind of accounting. Why you worry so much about this particular item I cannot understand.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This Amendment raises a very important question and this is really the first opportunity that we have had of discussing the method of accounting which is to be con-

2011
ducted by the Government in respect of their new nationalised business activities. What is done here will no doubt constitute a precedent for what will be done elsewhere. Let us, therefore, see clearly what is going to be done. The right hon. Gentleman went a long way but he scattered all his assurances—if they were intended to be assurances—with the application of the word "probably." Why should we not know now without any "probably"? Why should we not know definitely? The Treasury is a Department of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman rather spoke as if the Treasury was something separate and aloof, with which he, as a Cabinet Minister, had no concern. The Cabinet rules the Treasury, and he is a Cabinet Minister. There fore, he cannot represent that the Treasury is something independent of himself. He speaks for the Treasury at that Box. Why, therefore, should we have the phrase, "The Treasury will probably do this" or "The Treasury will probably do that "? Have not the right hon. Gentlemen opposite made up their minds what is to be done? If the right hon. Gentleman likes, we will postpone this matter until the Report Stage in order to give him another week. Perhaps he will change his mind again in the course of next week, as he has done in the course of the last week, but do let us have something definite. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us definitely, with no probabilities, whether we are going to have a proper commercial balance sheet, and profit and loss account? If he will tell us that, it will be a very notable settlement or agreement for the future.
I do not want to go into details as to how these things are to be met. We want, as a minimum, the type of publicity of accounts which an ordinary public company gives. The Government ought to set an example here. There has been a good deal of criticism that public company law is not as adequate as it should be with regard to accounts. Therefore, let the Government set the example. Let them give not only what the companies Act requires, but a little more. If we are told—we have not been told yet—that the Government are to do that, then our point in putting down the Amendment is gained. It was not in order to establish a meticulous method of drawing up a balance sheet; our con-
2012
cern is to get a principle settled, and if the right hon. Gentleman will settle it for us, then, so much the better. We do not want to leave it that these documents will be as the Treasury may require, because we ought to know now what the Treasury are going to require.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that we were going to be hard on him in asking that there should be separate statements of account with regard to the three different activities under Clause I namely, the purchasing of building materials, the making and carrying out of arrangements for contractors, and the acting on behalf of local authorities. These are, in fact, separate, though no doubt unrelated businesses, and I think, following out what I said a few moments ago, the Government ought to go a little further than the ordinary requirements, and we ought to have separate statements with regard to these three separate activities. We ought to have something in the nature of a profit and loss account so that we may see the extent of the activities under each of those heads during the period, and the financial result. We do not want capital and income payments mixed up, as they could be, as the Bill stands. All the Bill requires is a global sum on one side, capital and income receipts, and a global sum on the other side, capital and income payments. That is all the Bill says, and all that the 1921Act says is, "You shall add to them as much or as little as the Treasury chooses to specify." That is all we have at the moment—global sums in the Bill and "trust the Treasury" outside the Bill, that is all. Therefore, if we can get a specific undertaking on the lines indicated, our purpose here is served.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has already given to the Committee an undertaking in very much more detail than is required by any public company or is obliged to be obeyed by any public company. I am bound to say that I am astonished at the impudence of hon. Members opposite. It was said on Second Reading that we are deliberately putting ourselves under constraint in this Bill, and especially in this Clause to which the Amendment relates, under far more discipline, far more rigid than the last Government submitted themselves to. The right hon. and learned Member was a

2013
Member of the last Government. Did he ever require the late Minister of Works to make any report to the House of Commons in detail?
Mr. J. S. C. Reid Mr. J. S. C. Reid rose—
Mr. Bevan: The fact of the matter is that hon. Members opposite have been having rather too good a time. We have never heard from the late Government any statement of the expenditure that they made on any of the accounts concerning prefabricated houses until the present Government published the statement. The last Government concealed, hid them from the country and it was necessary for the present Government to produce a White Paper showing the incompetent extravagance of the last Government. Hon. Members opposite hoped that it would be left to the Public Accounts Committee a year or two hence to discover their commercial incompetence." We suggested, and my right hon. Friend has givenߞ—
Mr. Willink: The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the last Government.
Mr. Bevan: I am talking about the last Government.
Mr. Willink: So was I. [Interruption.]
Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members are trying to have it both ways. I say to hon. Members apposite that the whole evening has been devoted not to a critical examination of what we have been discussing, but all the time, through a whole long drawn out wasting of time. Let me say to hon. Members opposite—and I said this on Second Reading—that in this matter we are committing ourselves to far more precise and particular information for the guidance of the House of Commons in the way that we are going to use these powers than that to which any other Government have committed themselves. Hon. Members opposite have not yet disclosed what was spent by the late Minister of Works on those steel houses—over £2,000,000 wasted. No information has yet been given to the Committee, or to the House, on the matter. No further development has taken place. The money, as far as they are concerned, has been thrown away.
8.30 p.m.
Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that it does not lie in their mouths to talk
2014
about commercial probity. They ought to be silent about it, or we shall exhume some other putrifying corpses. The fact is that at any time, as hon. Members opposite know very well, this information can be obtained. On the Vote of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, hon. Members opposite could put down Amendments if they wished. The fact of the matter is that the Treasury conducts its business, as hon. Members opposite know very well, far more scrupulously than any private company, and far more information is given by the Treasury than is given by public companies, with a far more itemised examination of accounts. I am astonished that hon. Members opposite, and particularly the right hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me at the Ministry of Health, should dare to suggest that any procedure in which the Treasury is involved might have the result of concealing from the House of Commons information about public moneys which the House of Commons should receive. The fact is that hon. Members opposite are engaged in trying to discover defects in the Bill which do not exist, and I suggest to them that they should wait until the actual accounts are placed before Parliament, and not press this matter too far, otherwise we should be obliged to make disclosures of a character very much different to those which they seek.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman made some complaint about wasting time. I have not noticed just how many minutes he consumed, but he has not said a single word relevant to this Amendment. [Interruption.] I asked the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question, which he could have dealt with, had he so chosen, in two sentences, or even one. [An Hon. Member: "Why waste more time? "] Because I have not got the answer to my question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether we could take it that the things, which the Minister of Works said would probably be done, would, in fact, be done, and I said that if we got an assurance that these things would, in fact, be done—and not probably—that would satisfy us. I certainly thought that, when the Minister of Health got up, he was going to deal with that point, but, as usual, he was so carried away with his own eloquence that he forgot all about it. Is he, or is he not, going to answer the point? I

2015
warn the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is not going to answer, we shall most certainly go into the Division lobby—[Interruption.] All right, there is plenty of time. It certainly means that we cannot rely on getting the information. Unless an assurance is given now, we cannot rely on getting one scrap more than the Government are bound to give under the Bill as it stands, and the Bill as it stands can be implemented by two global figures—total income and total outgoing. Is the Minister, or is he not, going to say that the details which his right hon. Friend said would probably be given will be given? There is a very simple question, which can be answered "Yes" or "No." Let us have "Yes" or "No" and not a lot of rhetoric.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to say one or two words about what the Minister of Health has said, and, particularly, his references to my right hon. and learned Friend who was formerly Minister and with whom I was associated for a little time. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the impudence of those on this side of the Committee—and I admit that I would give credit to him as an expert on that subject—may I ask if it is not the case that a great deal, if not the majority, of this expenditure on temporary houses, and the commitments in respect of it, was, in fact, undertaken during the period of the Coalition Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works was a member? I would add one further plea. The Minister of Health has raised his usual smoke screen about this matter. He seems to think that by abuse and offensiveness—

Division No. 43]

AYES

[8.39 p.m.

Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)

Blackburn, A. R.

Collindridge, F.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Bottomley, A. G.

Collins, V. J.

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Allen, Scholefield (Crews)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Alpass, J. H.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (Lpl, Exch'ge)

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Corvedale, Viscount

Attewell, H. C.

Brooks, T.J. (Rothwell)

Cove, W. G.

Austin, H. L.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Daggar, G.

Ayles, W. H.

Burden, T. W.

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Burke, W. A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Bacon, Miss A.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Balfour, A.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Barstow, P. G.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Barton, C.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Battley, J. R.

Champion, A. J.

Deer, G.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Chater, D.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Belcher, J. W.

Clitherow, R.

Diamond, J.

Benson, G.

Cluse, W. S.

Dodds, N. N.

Berry, H.

Cobb, F. A.

Douglas, F. C. R.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Cocks, F. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Binns, J.

Collick, P.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has given more material for a broadcast this afternoon by trying to cast a complete cloud over this point.
The point is this. It is not what has happened in the past—to which the right hon. Gentleman confined his observations—but what is going to happen in future. We are entitled, when this Government are trying this big experiment with a Fund which they are going to operate, to ask for information on details, and I was glad to hear what the Minister of Works said. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman because I wanted to get it right, but I will give way to him if I am wrong, or if he will confirm this—that, in these accounts, the list of items, which he read out, will be shown. Of course, there may bean entry for "miscellaneous," and a few odd things like that, but, with regard to the other items which he mentioned and which he says the Treasury can require, I am going to ask Will he give an assurance that he will reconsider this matter between now and Report stage, because, when the Government are undertaking a business of this sort, it surely should not be left to the discretion of the Treasury whether that information is provided, not only to Members of this House, but also to the public. With that point the Minister did not condescend to deal at all. I ask the Minister of Works, even now, if he will give an assurance to reconsider the matter before the Report stage.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 102.

Dumpleton, C. W,

Longden, F.

Simmons, C. J.

Dye, S.

McAdam, W.

Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McEntee, V. La T.

Skinnard, F. W.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mack, J. D.

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McLeavy, F.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Farthing, W. J.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Follick, M.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Solley, L. J.

Foot, M. M.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Sorensen, R. W.

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mayhew, Maj. C. P.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Messer, F.

Sparks, J. A.

Freeman, P. (Newport)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Stamford, W.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Mikardo, Ian

Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mitchiton, Maj. G. R.

Strauss, G. R.

Gibson, C. W.

Monslow, W.

Stubbs, A. E.

Gilzean, A.

Montague, F.

Swingler, Capt. S.

Goodrich, H. E.

Moody, A. S.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Gordon-Walker, P. G.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Grenfell, D. R.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Grey, C. F.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Grierson, E.

Murray, J. D.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Naylor, T. E.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Thorneycroft, H.

Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Tiffany, S.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Tolley, L.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E, (Brentford)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hardy, E. A.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Turner-Samuels, M.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

O'Brien, T.

Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.

Haworth, J.

Oldfield, W. H.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Oliver, G. H.

Viant, S. P.

Hederson, J. (Ardwick)

Paget, R. T.

Walkden, E.

Hewitson, Captain M.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Walker, G. H.

Hicks, G.

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Hobson, C. R.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Watkins, T. E.

Holman, P.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Horabin, T. L.

Pearson, A.

Weitzman, D.

House, G.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Hoy, J.

Perrins, W.

Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Popplewell, E.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pritt, D. N.

Wigg, G. E. C.

Janner, B.

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkes, Maj. L.

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Randall, H. E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Ranger, J.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Jones, Mai. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

Keenan, W.

Reeves, J.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Kenyon, C.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Key, C. W.

Rhodes, H.

Williamson, T.

King, E. M.

Richards, R.

Willis, E.

Kinley, J.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Kirkwood, D.

Robens, A.

Wilson, J. H.

Lang, G.

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

Woodburn, A.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Yates, V. F.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Leslie, J. R.

Sargood, R.

Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Zilliacus, K.

Levy, B. W.

Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lindgren, G. S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Mr. Mathers and

Shurmer, P.

Captain Blenkinsop.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Conant, Mai. R. J E.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Aitken, Hon. M.

Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Allen, Li.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

Amory, Ll.-Col. D. H.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. P.

Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Baldwin, A. E.

Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

Beanie, F. (Cathcart)

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Hurd, A.

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C)

Bossom, A. C.

Eccles, D. M.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Bower, N.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Keeling, E. H.

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

Erroll, Col. F. J.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T.

Foster, J. G. (Morthwich)

Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Gammans, Capt. L. O.

Linstead, H. N.

Carson, E.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Gridley, Sir A.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Grimston, R. V.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

2018

2019

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Orr-Ewing, I. L,

Sutcliffe, H.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Mackeson, LI. Col. H. R.

Pitman, I. J.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Touche, G. C.

Marples, Capt. A. E.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Turton, R. H.

Marshall, Comdr. O. (Bodmin)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Renton, Maj. D.

Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

Maude, J. C.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

Mellor, Sir J.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

Moti-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W-

Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

Nicholson, G.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Nield, B.

Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

"Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nutting, Anthony

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray & Nairn)

Sir Arthur Young and

Mr. Studholme.

Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, leave out "November," and insert "June."
I gather from the appearance of the Government Front Bench that the Government benches are not going to have the stimulation of the Minister of Health, but that instead we shall have the courtesy of the Minister of Works in dealing with this Amendment. I think the Committee probably appreciate that the Bill places an obligation upon the Minister of Works to prepare accounts of receipts into, and payments out of, the Fund, but the accounts which he prepares in this way need never see the light of day or even be seen by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and certainly not be seen by Parliament, until some very late date after the accounts have been prepared.
My hon. Friends and I find it difficult to discover any reason why, with regard to this Fund—in marked contrast with the affairs of most commercial undertakings—it is necessary to have from 5th April to 30th November to make up the accounts. We think that it should be perfectly possible, if the business is being carried on efficiently, for an account of operations and transactions up to 5th April to be prepared by 30th June. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is so, and so, on what is a short Amendment, I shall say no more at the moment.
Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not agree. This is the date which is recognised. One would imagine, judging from what has taken place tonight, that this was the first time the Government had ever entered into any trading of any sort or kind, that we were embarking on an uncharted sea, and that hon. Members opposite were particularly anxious that we should have all the safeguards they
2020
desire. As a matter of fact, November is accepted as the date for the presentation and the appropriation of accounts of Departments. Again I ask, why do hon. Members always pick on us?
Mr. C. Williams: I really sympathise with the Government. I feel that the Front Opposition Bench are, for once, not quite as right as they might be, because I know they are optimists on that Bench. They thought the Government would do these things quickly, but they are much slower than anyone had thought, and really hon. Members ought not to try to hustle them in this way. I doubt whether they will be efficient, and it would be unfair to expect this Government to move quicker. I think on this occasion they might fairly keep November, although naturally I notice that they have given no argument or reason why they should, apart from their own incompetence.
Mr. Richard Law: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works is so sensitive that he cannot give a reasoned reply to an Amendment that was certainly intended to be reasonable. I am afraid that he is so conscious of the ill manners of his colleague, who is not now on the bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—that he feels, unless he adopts somewhat the same terms, he will be exposing his colleague to the Committee and the country. Now the right hon. Gentleman asks, why are we always picking on the Government in these matters? I would say to him, if he has so much confidence in the effectiveness of this Measure, why are he and his colleagues, on every occasion so very unwilling to give the House of Commons the fullest possible information about it? I suggest to the Committee that the only reason why the Government make such difficulties in giving full

2021
information on this accountancy problem is that they have not confidence that the accounts will show up very well, and they want to gloss them over. [Hon. Members: "Shame."] That is the only reason I can think of. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not again take the line that we are impugning his personal honour, because we are not, but the right hon. Gentleman must realise—and hon. Members opposite must realise—that we on these benches, rightly or wrongly, do not believe that the methods of this Bill—direct purchase, and so on—will be any thing like as efficient as they profess to believe them to be. If the right hon. Gentlemanߞ—
Hon. Members: Order.
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am sorry to interrupt the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but lie is getting extremely wide.
Mr. Alpass: He has been away a bit.
Mr. Law: I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont. I heard your Ruling—if I am wide, I will try to come back to the point—but I missed the gem from the other side. The real point of this Amendment is that we cannot see why, if the Government are going in for trading and business in the big way in which the right hon. Gentleman said they were on Second Reading, and they believe that business will be very successful, they are not willing and, indeed, eager, to give the House of Commons the earliest opportunity of judging how successful they have been, instead of leaving it for five or six months for us to find out. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who has not met us very much, might on this occasion meet us on this request.
Lieut.-Colonel Dower: This is the second time that this question of speed and urgency has been resisted by the Government Front Bench. I think we are entitled to ask why. We have heard arguments put forward as to why the financial provisions of this Bill should be extended from two to five years, and now we find the Government resisting the reasonable Amendment of my right hon. Friend that they should submit accounts within three months, instead of taking six months over them. I would most humbly suggest that if as the right hon.
2022
Gentleman says the Government are going in for State trading, they will have to go into State trading on the grounds of efficiency. Then I would say, let them start off and produce their accounts as any business firm would. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the test that would be applied to private enterprise is to produce accounts in three months. If hon. Members on the other side think they can base their claims on ideologies without actually producing the goods, they are quite mistaken. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to accept the Amendment to prove to the Committee that he means to conduct State trading on an efficient basis.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Willink: I am most anxious that there should not be an unnecessary Division on this point, but I do wish to make the position clear to the right hon. Gentleman. No argument whatever that I know of has been advanced to support the view that the preparation of these accounts would take eight months instead of three as I suggest—except one, and that it is that it has never been done before. I do not know whether that is accurate or not. Is that the only argument against the non-production of accounts and transactions which are quite simple in their nature though they may be extensive? Is the Minister of Works saying that his Department will not be able to prepare these accounts in less than eight months—[An Hon. Member: "Eight months? "] Yes, from 5th of April to 30th November? Is he denying that it would be possible to do this by 30th June, or is he merely basing himself upon a precedent of which I have not heard? If there is no other argument except this precedent, I should find it difficult to withdraw this Amendment. I want to give him another opportunity to put up some argument of some kind.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. James Wilson): If I may I will answer, in order to save my right hon. Friend's voice. He has been answering questions for a very long time. I think that the Minister has already answered the point effectively and I am surprised that an answer is asked for again. It has been made clear that on all similar occasions 30th November has been regarded as quite satisfactory. The

2023
question has never been raised-before with previous Governments, so far as I am aware, and I am very much surprised to hear this point raised from the other side of the Committee. I am a little interested in figures, and on going to the Ministry of Works I asked for figures which are of very great importance in this connection, the figures of such things as the production of raw materials, but there were none available which were less than four or five months old, although we wanted much more recent figures. In view of that I think the detailed figures which are being asked for—figures which in the case of any public company would be regarded almost as indecent exposure—will take

Division No. 44]

AYES.

[9.04 p.m.

Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Adamson, Mrs. J. L.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Deer, G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Alpass, J. H.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Diamond, J.

Keenan, W.

Attewell, H. C.

Dodds, N. N.

Kenyon, C.

Austin, H. L.

Douglas, F. C. R.

King, E. M.

Awbery, S. S.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Kirkwood, D.

Ayles, W. H.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lang, G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Dye, S.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Balfour, A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Barstow, P. G.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Leslie, J. R.

Barton, C.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Lever, FI. Off. U. H.

Battley, J. R.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Levy, B. W.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Belcher, J. W.

Farthing, W. J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Bellenger, F. J.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Longden, F.

Benson, G.

Follick, M.

McAdam, W.

Berry, H.

Foot, M. M.

McEntee, V. La T

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Mack, J. D.

Binns, J.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Blackburn, A. R.

Freeman, P. (Newport)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Bottomley, A. G.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

McLeavy, F.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Gibson, C. W.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)

Gilzean, A.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Gooch, E. G.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwefl)

Goodrich, H. E.

Mathers, G.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Messer, F.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Burden, T. W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Mikardo, Ian

' Burke, W. A.

Grey, C. F.

Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Grierson, E.

Monslow, W.

Byers, Lt.-Col. F.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Uanelly)

Montague, F.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)

Moody, A. S.

Champion, A- J.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Chater, D. '

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Clitherow, R.

Hardy, E. A.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Cluse, W. S.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Cobb, F. A.

Haworth, J.

Murray, J. D.

Cocks, F. S.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Neal, H. (Clayorou)

Coldrick, W.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Collick, P.

Hewitson, Captain M.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Collindridge, F.

Hicks, G.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Collins, V. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Colman, Miss G. M.

Holman, P.

O'Brien, T.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

Horabin, T. L.

Oldfield, W. H.

Corvedale, Viscount

House, G.

Oliver, G. H.

Cove, W. G.

Hoy, J.

Paget, R. T.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Daggar, G.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A'

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Janner, B.

Peart, Capt. T. F.

very much longer to prepare than the figures which previous Governments were unable to provide on matters of very considerable importance. We are continually being pressed—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is always on this point—to reduce the staffs of Government Departments. It will be quite impossible to produce information of this detailed character in a matter of two or three months if we are to carry on what is, after all, the very much more urgent job of providing the materials and getting on with the building of the houses.
Question put, "That the word 'November' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 104.

Perrins, W.

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Walker, G. H.

Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Popplewell, E.

Smith, T. (Normanton)

Watkins, T. E.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Solley, L. J.

Weitzman, D.

Pritt, D. N.

Sorensen, R. W.

Wells, P. L. (Favarsham)

Proctor, W. T.

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Sparks, J. A.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W)

Randall, H. E.

Stamford, W.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Ranger, J.

Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)

Wigg, Col. G. E. C.

Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.

Strachey, J.

Wilkes, Maj L.

Reeves, J.

Strauss, G. R

Wilkins, W. A.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Stubbs, A. E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Rhodes, H.

Swingler, Capt. S.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Richards, R.

Symonds, Maj. A. L.

Williams, Rt., Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Robens, A.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Willis, E.

Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)

Thomas, 1. O. (Wrekin)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Wilson, J. H.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Woodburn, A.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Thorneycroft, H.

Wyatt, Maj. W.

Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.

Tiffany, S.

Yates, V. F.

Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)

Tolley, L.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Shurmer, P.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.

Simmons, C. J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Zilliacus, K.

Skeffington-Lodge, Lt. T. C.

Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.

Skinnard, F. W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)

Viant, S. P.

Mr. Pearson and

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Walkden, E.

Capt. Blenkinsop.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Harvey, Air-Cmdr. A. V.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Aitken, Hon. M.

Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Pitman, 1. J.

Allen, LI.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hurd, A.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Beattie, F. (Cathcart)

Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Renton, Maj. D.

Bossom, A. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bower, N.

Law, Rt. Hon. Ft. K.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Shepherd, S. (Newark)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Linstead, H. N.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Carson, E.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.

Conant, Maj. R. J E.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Studholme, H. G.

Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.

Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.

Sutcliffe, H.

Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P.

Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.

Marples, Capt. A. E.

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Marsden, Comdr. A.

Touche, G. C.

Drayson, Capt. G. B.

Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)

Turton, R. H.

Eccles, D. M.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Maude, J. C.

Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.

Erroll, Col. F. J.'

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Mellor, Sir J.

Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

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

White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)

Gammans, Capt. L. D.

Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glossop, C. W. H.

Nicholson, G.

Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)

Gridley, Sir A.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

Grimston, R. V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nutting, Anthony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Sir Arthur Young and

Major Mott-Radclyffe.

Mr. Mathers (Treasurer of the Household): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH ARMY (DRILLS AND ROUTINES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]
9.14 p.m.
Mr. Mikardo: It is with some diffidence that I raise this evening, the matter of unnecessary drills and routines in the Army because, in some respects, I am among the least qualified to do so. [Hon. Members: "Hear hear."] I should have much preferred—and so, indeed, would the hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheer—that it had been raised by any one of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen in all parts of the House who have had a long, wide and distinguished experience in the Service, rather than by one like myself—and this will give hon. Gentlemen opposite another opportunity to cheer—whose only uniformed experience was in the Home Guard in which, as the result of several years blind devotion to duty and unquestioning obedience to my officers, I rose to the rank of private. I make bold to raise this matter because I have had a great deal of experience of men at work in other fields and in-other organisations, and of their reactions to different types of work and instructions. It is my view, which the cheering hon. Gentlemen opposite may not share, that the reaction of a citizen to work and instructions is the same whether he happens to be in uniform or not.
It being a Quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]
Mr. Mikardo: I raise this question because some weeks ago I directed a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in which I asked about this matter, and he gave me a reply which I thought was somewhat evasive, and, indeed, disingenuous. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he proposed to take any steps with regard to men who were awaiting demobilisation to ensure that the remaining time they had to spend in the Service was not needlessly taken up with useless drills and routines. To this my right hon. Friend began by replying that he did not understand what I was getting at. I would like to suggest to him with
2028
the deep respect I feel towards him, that if he wants to know about unnecessary drills and routines in the Army, and if he will go into the nearest public bar in which four or five soldiers happen to be foregathered, he will find out very quickly what I was getting at, and will do so in short sharp words of one or two syllables, which will probably include the word "spit," the word "polish," the word "parade" and the word "fatigue." My right hon. Friend went on to say in his reply that he was concerned with tasks involving the maintenance of cleanliness in and around barracks, the clearing of battle areas, and necessary tasks of a similar nature. I am sure he realised that the point I was making was not at all concerned with tasks of that sort.
Those Members who have had the experience I have had of talking to Army audiences and of engaging in casual conversation with soldiers in trains and elsewhere, will know there is a widespread and deep resentment in the Army about fatigues, drills and parades which are not at all concerned with the maintenance of cleanliness in and around barracks, the clearing of battle areas, and tasks of that nature. In my experience soldiers, like other men, do not object, or, at any rate, do not object very fiercely, to any tasks, however distasteful, so long as they are useful, or at least appear to be useful. I would underline those last few words "useful or appear to be useful. "Lawyers tell us that it is not enough that justice should be done; it must also appear to be done. In the same way it is necessary that when men get orders they should appear to them, as well as be, sensible and intelligent orders.
People do not work well—and this is true, I am sure, of the Services as well as of factories and elsewhere—for people are thinking beings and do not stop thinking when they put on uniforms—unless they are told not merely what to do, but, unless the reason is self-evident, why they are to do it. I understand that some of our most successful field commanders in the late war ascribe their success, at least in part, to the fact that they have abandoned the Crimea War tradition:
"Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do or die,"
and instead have tried to make their plans and ideas intelligible to the men in their command. This is a highly desirable thing, but one feels that this

2029
break with tradition has not penetrated to officers and non-commissioned officers at lower levels. One feels that there are many people in responsible positions in the Army who have not understood the changes implicit in the fact that our soldiers are no longer drawn from the limited and restricted class from which they were formerly drawn, and that they are now a cross-section of the whole population who do not put their thinking caps off when they put their Army caps on. But in case—and it may well be so—it is still not understood what point I am making, I would like to quote from three letters I have had from constituents. The first is from a letter from a constituent in C.M.F. who asks, referring to the Secretary of State for War:
"Would he claim that lour hours a day on elementary rifle and foot drill provides valuable instruction and occupation? This happens every day to men who have been in the army five or six years. This happens to men who are going out on release the following day."
Here is a further letter I have had from another constituent in C.M.F. who seems to be peeved, and so should I be in his place, at the fact that he has not only to apply blanco to his kit but to pay for it out of his own pocket and to pay for it in a manner which appears to be irregular:
"I have this day on orders of the CO. been to the Q.M. stores and paid 10 lire for a quarter-pint of white blanco. We have to provide our own containers and orders are that all belts and anklets will be dressed with this preparation bought from the stores. Having served in the Army almost six years, of which four have been spent abroad, I am at a loss as to why this procedure has been adopted and I wonder if you can find out for me if there are any orders whereby a C.O. of the unit is authorised to have loose money paid over the counter for which, I might add, a receipt was refused."
I am inclined to share my constituent's astonishment at this procedure, which appears to me in more than one respect to be highly irregular. I could quote many other examples which have come into my hands, examples in which I have fully discounted any exaggeration and any drills and routines which appear to be necessary, but there is a residuum which appeared inexplicable, or at last which were not explained to the men concerned. I would quote just one more from a constituent in a unit on the Baltic coast:
"Parade at 8.15 a.m. and 9.15 a.m. Nothing to do, so it is pick up papers, clean windows every day because of the spray, and
2030
above all, keep the beach clean and tidy such as picking up wood and seaweed. Beach cleaning, picking up leaves, etc., 12 p.m.; the R.S.M. inspected the beach and saw a piece of seaweed and threatened to put the chap on a charge for not doing his duty. I suppose he did not have the mentality to know that waves bring it in and also that the leaves do not stop falling even for the Eleventh Armoured Division."
Major Guy Lloyd Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern) rose—
Mr. Mikardo: This graphic and amazing picture of British soldiers on an alien strand struggling in vain with the forces of nature represented by falling Autumn leaves and oncoming tides, makes one wonder if the officer concerned was not a lineal descendant of King Canute who sat on the beach and bade the waves go back.
I have tried hard not to overstate this case—indeed if my object were purely a critical one instead of trying to alleviate the lot of some of our soldiers I could have put it very much more strongly. What I am asking is not that there should be any relaxation of duties necessary, for discipline, order and cleanliness, but that we should start treating workers in uniform in the way we are treating workers not in uniform, as sensible human beings. In particular, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister who is going to reply to the case of men awaiting demobilisation. Those men who spent the first months of their service in training most of which must have been arduous and repetitive, and which I am sure they welcomed because they knew it would stand them in good stead, as indeed it has done. But it is a different thing when you have a man who, for the last few months or few weeks or even few days of his service is learning jobs which he knows are of no use to him at the time and will be of no use to him when he is demobilised. Making him do that sort of thing does nothing but add to his impatience with which he is waiting to be demobilised. The Minister may say that the progress of orderly demobilisation makes it inevitable that there should be some idle time and that it may be necessary to occupy the men while they are waiting for the Educational and Training Scheme to get under way, or even for such periods as are not covered by the Educational and Training Scheme, but I hope the War Office are not going to contend that any employment, useful or otherwise, is better than having men idle. That sort

2031
of doctrine may make sense when applied to children, though even there I doubt whether child psychologists would agree, but it does not make sense when applied to grown and sensible men.
It is highly desirable that the time of these men should be occupied with training schemes, lectures, informal discussions, sports, recreations and amusements of all sorts, but even outside all that and the time that they spend on their normal and necessary duties, there will often be a residuum of time, and I suggest that it is in the best interests of the men and of their morale that where there is such time they should be given some discretion in how to spend it instead of being put on to fatigues, parades and obviously useless tasks which to them represent no more than digging ditches and filling them in again. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War undertook that long and arduous journey to the South-East Asia Command, he showed that he has a real sense of the value of the, personal and human approach to our soldiers and their problems. I am hoping that he will go further and will try, as one of the revolutions which this Government are going to carry out, to instil into the Army a new and intelligent approach to the psychological reactions of the men, and a new spirit as a result of which they are treated not as numbers but as human beings.
9.28 p.m.
Major Guy Lloyd: I have no wish to detain the House for more than a moment or two, because we are anxious to hear the reply of the Minister, whom we are very pleased to see back in his seat. As the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) would not let me interrupt for a moment, I cannot help making the remark that I would have asked him to answer. It seems to me that what he has been saying is an admirable example of the fact that vast numbers of our Servicemen are, in fact, in a state of camouflaged unemployment. It is because they have nothing to do that something has to be found for them to do. I do not doubt that here and there a unit is unwise in what it finds the men to do, but I have never heard a stronger or more eloquently expressed indictment of the lack of gumption and drive in our demobilisation schemes. It is nice to find somebody with such a vast experience of what the Services are doing today, which
2032
bears out so completely the point of view which this side of the House have been putting for so long.
9.30 p.m.
Lieutenant Herbert Hughes (Wolver-hampton, West): I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). I have suffered from precisely the kind of thing which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has described, at the time when there was no question of demobilisation at all. I speak as one who has had perhaps equal experience of life in the ranks of His Majesty's Army as hon. Members who sit opposite. I well remember my first few weeks experience in the Army when there was no question of demobilisation. I was put to work, in Army time, cutting lawns, not with lawn mowers and not with shears, but with an open penknift. I remember a similar experience of a friend of mine whose first duty on joining His Majesty's Forces was to remove pieces of paper covering blacking tins in order to polish the tops of blacking tins for the weekly parade. It is no use hon. Members trying to get away with the pretence that this is new, and arises out of delayed demobilisation. Hon. Members who have served in the Forces know that this kind of thing has gone on for a good deal of time.
I would in particular draw the Minister's attention to the experience of prisoners of war with long service in His Majesty's Forces, who, after coming back to this country and spending their requisite period of leave, are taken back into His Majesty's Forces and put through the most elementary routine of rifle drill and spit and polish by N.C.Os. many years their junior in age and in Army experience. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading in saying that the citizens who are in our Forces today are not fed up with military life for no reason. If they can be given work to do for which they can see the justification they accept it in an admirable spirit, but it is all this nonsense introduced by many of the old type of Army officer, simply because they will not take the trouble to give their men constructive work in education, that has caused so much of the "browned-off ness"—to use an Army term—in the Service. Any Member who has served knows what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading is referring to. I would correct him on

2033
one point. If he went to the local pub he would not hear "spit" or "polish"; he would hear one single word which would much more graphically describe what he meant.
9.33 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): Both the Secretary of State for War and I have served in the ranks in our time. We are fully aware that from time immemorial—in fact, I think, Shakespeare even referred to it in some of his writings—the soldier has not liked fatigues. He does not like spit and polish, and I cannot say I liked those two very necessary parts of Army life any more than does the modern soldier. The point of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) was not directed so much against spit and polish, as against excessive spit and polish, and there I am in agreement with him. When I was in the ranks I always felt that I wanted to be a smart soldier. I believe that any soldier who is a good soldier, wants, and especially the soldier who has done years of fighting, when he has finished the fighting and has come out of the trenches, to smarten himself up.
Therefore, I am not in disagreement with those commanding officers who insist on as high a standard of smartness among their troops as possible. Of course, it is idle for me to deny that commanding officers vary just as much as Members of Parliament, and I should not be at all surprised if some of them were not so good in man management as others. That would possibly account for the fact that in some units, isolated I think, and by no means general in the Army, there is not so much attention paid to thinking out desirable exercises and training as there is in others. Certain units, very small in number say, in the orders of the day, "Give 'em a route march," or "Put 'em on the square." At the War Office we do not defend that sort of thing. I can assure my hon. Friend that if he has cases such as he has specified today of excessive drill, and elementary drill in particular for soldiers who are trained, we will look into those cases.
At the War Office we are constantly urging that the commanding officers, especially in times like these when we know that the men have only got one thought, and that is to get home, should vary the training of the men as much as they possibly can. Indeed, we at the
2034
War Office have done quite a lot of which we hear so little. It is much easier to throw into prominence such letters as, these in which my hon. Friend has taken such a delight than the hundreds which we are receiving thanking us for the educational facilities that we are putting at the disposal of the troops nowadays, and the pre-vocational training such as many of them are getting. I speak from my own experience because I have recently visited B.A.O.R. and have seen the men at work there. I can assure the House that B.A.O.R. had plenty to do besides fatigue and elementary training, and I saw some of our men working in the general workshops undergoing training for their return to civil life, training in building, light engineering and even in art designing and I know how grateful the men are for these facilities. As they say, the more they can get the more they welcome it. We are doing as much as we possibly can to afford these facilities to the troops.
My hon. Friend spoke of what is known as spit and polish. I have my own ideas and have said quite a lot about spit and polish. I think a good deal of spit and polish, as such, entirely unnecessary. For instance, I have not hesitated to say when I was in a less responsible position than I am now, that I see no reason why there should be so much metalwork in the soldier's equipment. The fact is that even in these days of battle dress, when the metal part of the uniform has been reduced as much as possible, there still is the webbing equipment which has to be polished, although we know only too well that the whole art of war is to camouflage as much as possible. The Rifle Regiments do not have to clean their buttons because they are black. The Navy has lacquered buttons and so has the American Army. I am not hiding any feelings when I say that I hope the time will come when even our Army can do away with a considerable amount of spit and polish, but, make no mistake about it, we shall always insist on a high standard of smartness as long as we have soldiers. That and the elementary training they have had conduce to some of the finest exploits that our soldiers have performed in battle. The soldier understands his job, especially the modern soldier who is much more educated than his forbear of 50 years ago, and, in addition, he knows the reason for many of the elementary exercises he has had to perform.

2035
With regard to the charge to the soldier for his spit and polish, I wonder if my hon. Friend knows that the soldier gets 5½d. a week towards the maintenance of his kit and towards the purchase of his polish kit. I feel, and I have said so many times in the past, that spit and polish should be a free issue. When my right hon. Friend has got the time to spare to attend to what after all are the small things in the Army—and he has so many big things to consider at present—I hope that it will be possible to make this a free issue. If this is done, then perhaps we shall see a little less variation than we see at the present moment in the colour of the spit and polish. You can now see some equipment in which the blanco is nearly white, some which is a very high canary colour, and some which is green. As in these matters I believe in uniformity I would be in favour of making this a free issue. Nevertheless, the soldier gets 5½d. at the present time, so it is not true to say that the cost of all his "spit and polish" comes out of his own pocket. As to the specific cases to which my hon. Friend referred, if I thought the British Army was engaged in cleaning beaches and picking up pieces of seaweed, I should have either to alter it or to resign my position at the War Office, for that would be making a laughing stock of the British Army.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: It has been said by an hon. Member that he was engaged in cutting grass with a penknife. There is a specific instance, and I challenge the hon. Member to give particulars to the Financial Secretary to the War Office so that he can look into the case. I do not believe it possible.
Mr. Bellenger: All I can say in that respect is, that if there are any cases like this, which seem to me to be fantastic, but which I am prepared to take from my hon. Friends, the least that they can do is to give me an opportunity of investigating them.
Lieutenant Hughes: I am willing to give all details to the Minister, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for the hon. Member opposite to impute falsehoods in regard to my speech.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was not imputing falsehoods but asking for details.
Mr. Bellenger: It seems to be stretching the point a little, but, if my hon. Friend could give me evidence of that, I will certainly look into it. I can assure him that it is not by any means general in the Army, although the House might be interested to know that, when I joined up in 1914—it was in the early days of the rush of many young men to volunteer for their King and country—for my first two or three weeks I ate my food with my fingers and a pair of pocket scissors. But that is a long time ago. We hope that today the instance which my hon. Friend has given is a rarity. I would only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) that, unfortunately, he has not given us an opportunity of investigating those individual cases which he has mentioned tonight, but if he wishes them to be investigated, we will certainly do so.
I can assure him that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are concerned with making the Army as attractive as we possibly can to those who have to serve in it, in war or in peace. We are now engaged in drawing up our plans so as to make the Army a career well worth while for any educated man. We believe that when we announce this plan, as we will shortly, we shall be able to attract well-educated recruits to the Army who will not think it beneath them to join the Army and make it a career. I can only say to my hon. Friend that we are very much concerned to see that this browning-off period, which we know only too well, is alleviated as much as possible. We are taking the necessary steps, as many hon. Members know, to put that fully into effect, and we have already received many grateful thanks from soldiers who have benefited by it.
Brigadier Low: Will the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) let us know now, or as soon as possible, which is the unit against whom the charges have been made tonight of fatigues on the beach? I belong to a small deputation from this House who have recently been among the units who might be on the Baltic and did not find any such spirit among those men.
It being a quarter to Ten o'Clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.