Commons Sitting of 23 October 1945

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Housing
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to introduce legislation in the present Session to raise the maximum value of a house for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition (Scotland) Act.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Yes, Sir.
    . Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of grants under the Rural Workers Housing Act were made in Argyll between 1929 and 1939, to persons in respect of dwellings in which they themselves dwell as owners or by feu.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that the proportion is roughly 50 per cent.
    Major McCallum: How do those figures tie up with the statement that this reconditioning was done almost completely for houses tied to farms?
    William Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make a statement on the findings of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on owner-occupied houses and sub-divided houses, respectively, and the desirability of encouraging house building from non-Governmental sources.
    Mr. Buchanan: The Committee's report on the provision of houses for owner-
    1842
    occupation has been received and will be published in due course. Their report on the modernisation of houses, including houses suitable for sub-division, has not yet been submitted. The Government's policy with regard to private enterprise building was fully dealt with in the course of the Debate on 17th October.
    W. Darling: Can the Minister say when he is likely to deal with the first two parts of the Question, in view of the urgency of the housing problem?
    Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Gentleman has been informed that one of the Committees has not yet reported. The other Committee has reported, and I have given instructions that the report is to be printed; as soon as it is printed it will be available to hon. Members.
    Mr. McKie: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I, with great respect, call your attention to the present seating arrangements on this side of the House? We are a very small Opposition—
    Mr. Speaker: Now is not the time to raise that matter.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: What steps does the Minister propose to take to facilitate the purchase of houses in Scotland by their occupiers?
    Mr. Buchanan: I think my hon. Friend had better wait and see the Report.
    Mr. Timmonsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement about the emergency houses in Lanarkshire and particularly Bellshill; and can he also give details of the cost of trying to make these houses habitable.
    Mr. McAllisterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the distress and inconvenience caused to the tenants of emergency houses at Westburn, Cambuslang, what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am aware of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with these emergency houses. Various measures for improvement were undertaken last year at a cost of some £80 per house, and in the spring of this year further measures costing some £227 per house were put in hand. I am assured by

    1843
    my technical officers that when these further repairs have been completed the houses will be rendered reasonably satisfactory. Meantime every effort is being made to speed up the work. I have asked for a full report on the position when the work is finally completed. Claims by the tenants for rebate of rents and compensation for damage to household effects are at present being considered.
    Mr. Timmons: Does the Minister still persist in going ahead with houses which, in the opinion of the experts, can never be habitable?
    Mr. Buchanan: One of my difficulties is to decide between expert and expert. My experts tell me that the houses will be rendered reasonably habitable. I thought I would try to take a balanced view between two sets of experts, and I consulted one or two of the tenants living in the houses. I must say that the balance of the argument, although not strong, is that the houses will be reasonably fit for human habitation.
    Mr. Kirk wood: Are not these houses something that we have inherited from Tory rule?
    Mr. Buchanan: In reply to my hon. Friend, I visited Clydebank on Saturday and there, in very slight conversation, I found that the people, although not happy about them, did not describe them as unfit for habitation.
    Mr. Stephen: Is it intended to initiate a prosecution against the building contractors who are responsible for those houses?
    Mr. Buchanan: I dealt with this question very fully in the Debate the other night and answered criticisms on it. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise the matter again, it would be better to do so on an occasion when it could be debated fully. It is not easy to answer questions on the subject briefly.
    Mr. Timmons: Is the Minister aware that his statement will give some satisfaction to the tenants of these houses who have been subject to intolerable delays by previous administrations, and will he bear in mind the urgency of the compensation question?
    Mr. Buchanan: I agree that these people have been subject to terrible inconvenience and almost intolerable conditions. I think that in the next few weeks I shall be in a position to secure, not a final agreement, but at least a mitigation of the tenants' conditions.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister extend his inquiries in this matter to the city of Aberdeen?
    Mr. Buchanan: The city of Aberdeen, luckily for it, is not affected by these houses.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of applications made to the Glasgow Corporation for houses; the number of houses in course of erection; the number approved; and the number to be erected during each year for the next five years in the Glasgow area.
    Mr. Buchanan: Approximately 70,000 applications for houses have been made to Glasgow Corporation. A total of 1,836 permanent houses have been approved this year and the Corporation have been allocated 2,500 temporary houses. Of these,726 permanent and 155 temporary houses are under construction. The Corporation's programme for the next five years is 5,000 permanent and 1,500 temporary houses during the first year; 7,000 permanent and 1,000 temporaries during the second year, and thereafter 10,000 permanent houses annually. In addition, the Corporation have requisitioned 518 properties, providing accommodation for 654 families.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many large houses are standing furnished but unoccupied in Edinburgh; and to what extent have the Edinburgh Corporation used their powers of requisitioning in helping to provide accommodation for this winter.
    Mr. Buchanan: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, but I am informed that the corporation are making a survey of the unoccupied houses in the city. A total of 45 properties have been requisitioned, including 37 which have been reconstructed to provide 45 separate dwellings for the inadequately housed.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of the extremely bad housing conditions which exist in Leith, will the Minister urge upon the corporation the necessity of taking immediate action to relieve this problem?
    Mr. Buchanan: I cannot interfere with the normal working of the Edinburgh Town Council, but my hon. Friend may take it that nothing will be put in the way of the Council in requisitioning property, provided it is in order to house people who are at present either homeless or inadequately housed.

    Teachers' Salaries (University Graduates)
    John Graham Kerrasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial inducements are contemplated to encourage aspirants to the teaching profession to take a university degree.
    Mr. Buchanan: The National Joint Council to deal with Salaries of Teachers in Scotland, a body representative of education authorities and of the teaching profession, have made recommendations to my right hon. Friend regarding the salaries that should be paid to graduate and to other teachers. These recommendations are embodied in a recently published draft of Regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make, prescribing the salaries to be paid by education authorities to teachers employed by them. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the draft. Before making the Regulations, regard will be had to the representations on the subject that have been received from education authorities and other persons interested.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the Minister send a copy to other Scottish Members also?
    Mr. Buchanan: If any hon. Member wishes to have one, I will see that he gets it.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my hon. Friend send me one?
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir.

    School Attendance Prosecutions
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent, in the case of an education authority which, in the enforcement of school attendance, appoints its own procurator and bears the whole expenses of the prosecution, including payment of court dues, the fines re-
    1846
    coverable in such prosecutions are payable to the Treasury instead of, as in the past, to the authority; and if he proposes to restore the status quo.
    Mr. Buchanan: Under the revised arrangements in the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, all fines imposed in the Sheriff Court are payable to the Exchequer, but under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the Sheriff may direct that the expenses incurred by the prosecutor shall be met in whole or in part out of any such fine. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.
    Mr. McKinlay: In view of the state of Business at the end of the last Parliament when this Measure was being put through, will the hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend and have consultations with the local authorities on the question of the restoration of the status quo?
    Mr. Buchanan: All I can say is that this is now the Act and we have got to administer it. The only question is whether the Act should be altered or not by further amending legislation. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State returns to his duties, I shall be pleased to consult him on the subject.

    Agricultural Land (Utilisation)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is considering for securing the optimum use of agricultural land in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan: In view of the world food shortage it will be necessary to continue for the present the war-time policy of intensive crop production to the fullest extent that is possible with due regard to the productivity of the land, and our labour and other resources. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State are giving active consideration to plans for securing on a long-term basis the best and most efficient use of agricultural land and I hope that it may be possible to make a statement about this before long.

    Gangs, Glasgow (Police Measures)
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an indication as to the methods employed by Glasgow police to put an end to the

    1847
    terror reigning in certain areas by gangs of youths who have been using weapons; and if he will arrange that selected persons shall visit the parents of known leaders and members of gangs known to the police and warn them of the dangers of a continuance of such violent methods.
    Mr. Buchanan: I deplore the recent increase in clashes between rival gangs of lads, all of whom are under 19 years of age. The police, using motor patrols equipped with wireless, have dispersed various gatherings and made many arrests, and the courts have imposed salutary sentences. As regards the second part of the Question, I see grave objection to visits in individual cases, but everything possible will be done to bring home to parents and boys generally the folly of gang membership and leadership.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Member state whether or not the absence of the regular police has had any effect on this matter; and has not the Department received representations for the release from the Forces of ordinary police, and would the hon. Member consider speeding-up the process of demolisations.
    Mr. Buchanan: It so happens that this matter is not quite on my side, but is the concern of my hon. Friend the other Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who happens to be ill. But apart from that, Glasgow, with its terrible tenement dwellings and crowded population is not easy to deal with. The two problems are, lack of numbers in the police force, and also that a good number of the police are now reaching a fair age for police work. I have already raised the matter with the Home Department and we hope before long to start recruitment for the Glasgow Police Force and also to bring back some of the men from the Forces in order to increase it.
    Mr. McAllister: Since my hon. Friend attributes the violence of Glasgow gangs to living in tenement buildings, will he encourage the Glasgow corporation to pursue a policy of decentralisation of population?
    Mr. Buchanan: My hon. Friend raises a wide question and in the meantime I have enough on my hands to get a few houses built.

    Nurses (Salary Scales)
    . Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether in view of the serious position in the nursing services and the need for more recruits to nursing, the Scottish Nurses' Salaries Committee are considering a revision of the salary scales of nurses in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. This matter is being given very serious consideration. The Committee is meeting next week to review the position in the light of the difficulties that are being experienced by hospitals and other employing authorities. Unfortunately, Professor T. M. Taylor has felt obliged to resign from the Chairmanship because of pressure of other work. I am glad, however, to announce that Mr. John Wheatley, Advocate, has placed his services at our disposal as Chairman of the Committee. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to Professor Taylor for his invaluable work.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will my hon. Friend consider, along with the question of salaries, and in order to cope with the very serious problem of nursing, providing greater amenities in the various institutions where the nurses are employed?
    Mr. Buchanan: I will certainly put before the Committee the suggestion which my hon. Friend has made, or any other suggestion any hon. Member makes to deal with this very important section of the community.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Overseas Postings
    Squadron-Leader Gifford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men in release group 26 are still being dispatched overseas to the Middle East; and whether in view of the shortage of transport, he will take steps to prevent, as far as possible, the posting overseas of men who are likely to be released within the next few months.
    The Secretary of State for War Mr. J. J. Lawson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Major Wyatt) on Tuesday last.

    War Graves
    Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to bring home the bodies of British soldiers buried abroad whose relatives wish to have them interred on British soil.
    Mr. Lawson: A full statement on this question was issued to the Press by the Imperial War Graves Commission on 4th October, 1945. I am including a copy of the statement in the Official Report.
    T. Moore: As it is generally expected that a statement of this great importance should be made to this House, and as I have not had access to the statement to which my right hon. Friend has referred, may I ask him if it is the intention of the State to bear the cost in cases where the bodies are being transferred for interment in this country?
    Mr. Lawson: This is a very long statement and I am sorry I cannot read it to the House, but, generally speaking, the policy of the Imperial War Graves Commission is not to allow the removal of any bodies that have been buried in consecrated cemeteries.
    Mr. Marlowe: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we had an announcement referring to some statement by the B.B.C., and to-day we have had an announcement referring to a statement made by some outside authority. Is it in Order for a Member of the Government to make an announcement of a statement which is not available within the archives of this House?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made reference to a statement of the War Graves Commission, and that certainly is in Order.
    Mr. Lawson: I pointed out that I would circulate the statement in the Official Report.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some obscurity about the future treatment of the bodies of prisoners of war who died in Germany or enemy-occupied country, and will he get that matter cleared up?
    Mr. Lawson: I will make inquiries but I am unaware that there is any difference in the policy in that type of case.
    Mr. Lipson: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the phrase "generally speaking"? Does that mean that there are exceptions to the rule laid down by the War Graves Commission?
    Mr. Lawson: Possibly I used too wide a phrase. There are no exceptions.
    Mr. McGovern: Will the Minister get the Services also to consider making payments for the burial of men who have died as a result of wounds and disease contracted during the war?
    Mr. Lawson: I do not know the practice on the matter, but I will give the point my consideration.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the fact that the next-of-kin in every case has received a copy of the statement of the Imperial War Graves Commission?
    Mr. Lawson: I think that that is the policy, but I would not be sure. As an ex-member of that body, I know that they are very considerate in dealing with the next-of-kin of the men who are interred.
    Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire the House to understand that the War Graves Commission itself lays down the policy in matters of this sort? Surely it is a Government decision and not one for the War Graves Commission?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir, the War Graves Commission is only carrying out the policy laid down after a very long Debate in this House.
    Following is the statement:
    The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland and India have decided, as after the 1914–18 war, that the return of bodies of members of His Majesty's Forces buried overseas to their home lands shall not be undertaken nor allowed and have authorised the Imperial War Graves Commission to issue the following statement:
    Since the outbreak of war in 1939 a number of requests have been received from relatives of members of His Majesty's Forces buried overseas that the bodies should be brought back to their

    1851
    native countries for re-burial. Similar requests were made soon after the war of 1914–18. The Imperial War Graves Commission then gave the most careful consideration to all aspects of the problem and in 1918 they issued an announcement of their policy which in the following years, as the results of their work were seen and understood, won general acceptance throughout the Empire. The Commission feel that a restatement of that policy is desirable now that hostilities are over.
    To-day, as in 1918, the Commission are the servants of the public in all parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and it is their duty to treat with all possible sympathy the desire of the individual relative; but the reasons against any change of their policy appear to them overwhelming. To give effect to even a moderate demand for repatriation would be a task of even greater magnitude than it would have been in 1918; for, though the numbers involved are happily fewer, the graves are far more widely scattered and shipping facilities are practically nonexistent. On the other hand, private repatriation by a few individuals, who could afford the cost, would, be contrary to that equality of treatment which is the underlying principle of the Commission's work and has appealed so strongly to the deepest sentiments of our peoples.
    Once again, France has given a generous lead in providing in perpetuity the land required for our cemeteries in that country, and by a like generosity on the part of other Allied Governments, or by provisions in peace treaties, the last resting places of the Empire's dead in foreign lands will be permanently secured. The cemeteries are being laid out and constructed on the model of those of the last war, and, like them, they will be reverently tended by the Commission's own gardeners and be honoured for all time.
    The Commission have learnt, from intimate contacts with the relatives during the past twenty-five years, that real consolation is derived from the knowledge that the last resting places of their dead are so honoured and made sure

    Dispatch Riders (Speed)
    T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War why military dispatch riders are still permitted to speed along
    1852
    the crowded streets of cities and the country roads since military urgency no longer is a justification.
    Mr. Lawson: All War Office vehicles are required to observe the ordinary speed limits imposed on other road users and, in addition, to keep within certain overriding speed limits on all types of roads.
    T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have listened to that same answer for the last five years; and in view of the tragic statement made by his right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport yesterday as regards the destruction on the road, will he take some steps to try and enforce a limited speed on Army vehicles, and especially motor cycles?.
    Mr. Lawson: I will see what I can do about it, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any hon. Member has any particular case to bring to my notice, I will consider it.

    Rations
    T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether it has yet been decided to equalise the rations of the Forces with those received by the civilian population of this country now that war conditions no longer exist.
    Mr. Lawson: As already announced, it has been decided, in view of the general food shortage and to assist in maintaining the supplies for the civilian population of this country, to make certain reductions in the overseas Services ration, except in the case of S.E.A.C., with effect from 1st November, 1945. The reduction applies to all three Services. For the same reasons, and with effect from the same date, it has since been decided to revise the Forces home ration scale as a temporary measure. The revised scale provides for reduced issues of the more important items at present in short supply, viz., meat, bacon and sugar.
    T. Moore: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that very satisfactory reply, may I ask him to what extent civilian rations will be improved as a. result of this concession on the part of the Forces?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry I cannot answer that question.

    Tuberculosis Treatment
    Dr. Stephen Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the lack of civilian facilities and the higher ratio of medical staff to personnel in the Army as compared with the civilian population, he will now consider extending full treatment to Servicemen who contract tuberculosis.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 16th October.

    Post-War Strength and Conditions
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the future organisation of, and conditions of service in, the Army.
    Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War when he will be in a position to announce the conditions of service for the post-war Army.
    General George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many desirable candidates are being deterred from applying for Regular commissions, owing to the un certainty prevailing as to pay, allowances and conditions of service in the post-war Army; and whether he will cause information on these points to be published at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the replies given on Tuesday last to the hon. Members for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) and Rugby Mr. W. J. Brown).
    Major Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that yesterday's Debate gave no comfort to anybody in these respects, and will he say when he hopes to be in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. Lawson: I am afraid I cannot. All I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that, as he knows and all Service Members know very well, this is a very complicated subject, and I want to be in a position to give a full reply to the House when it is given.
    Earl Winterton: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that no suggestions have been made by the Service chiefs; and is it not notoriously true, that the reason why there has been no decision is because the Government cannot make up their own mind?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir; it is nothing of the kind. The fact is that there has been a good deal done on this subject, and we are working very hard on it, but it is a very complicated subject, and deals not only with officers but also with other ranks. I want to be in a position to make a full statement to the House.
    G. Jeffreys: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of Question No. 75, which asks about many candidates being deterred from applying for commissions owing to uncertainty? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at the end of the last war, this delay was one of the principal causes why we lost a great many desirable officers, who could not wait any longer for the conditions to be laid down?
    Mr. Lawson: I am well aware that there are thousands who would be influenced, in taking commissions, by the conditions which will be laid down, and, therefore, they are not yet taking the commissions, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are going to do better in this matter in this war, than was done on the last occasion.

    Executed Soldiers (Widows' Claims)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for widows of serving soldiers, whose husbands have been executed for committing a criminal offence, to receive the gratuities and post-war credits to which their husbands were entitled prior to committing the offence.
    Mr. Lawson: War gratuity is not admissible in respect of soldiers executed by sentence of a military or civil court. Post-war credit is not subject to this disqualification and would be disposed of as part of the soldier's personal estate. I am, however, looking into this question and will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

    Requisitioned Property, Northern Ireland
    Dr. Littleasked the. Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the pressing nature of the housing problem in Northern Ireland, he will arrange that all houses no longer required for the Army will be derequisitioned at once and release requisitioned houses as they are vacated by the military for civilian occupation.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend consider the early de-requisitioning of these houses, because the problem in Northern Ireland is very serious?
    Mr. Lawson: I must say that the figures I have already given to the hon. Gentleman, show that we are not doing so badly in this matter on the whole.

    Castle Camp, Inverary (Conditions)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the bad living conditions for troops at Castle Camp, Inverary, Argyllshire, Scotland; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Lawson: This is a normal Nissenhutted camp and is in good condition. Apart from the fact that it is situated in a somewhat exposed position, I am not aware that the general conditions are inferior to those existing in many similar camps in the United Kingdom. In view of the natural pressure on my Department to release requisitioned buildings, this camp, like most others, may have to be used for some considerable time.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it rains a great deal in Scotland, and that, on these occasions, the rain pours through the roof of this camp; that there are no shelves or lockers provided for the men, and that separate beds are not provided? Does he regard such conditions as desirable now the war is over?
    Mr. Lawson: All I can say is that Nissen huts are in no sense permanent structures, and, as soon as it becomes possible to release camp accommodation, this type of structure is regarded as among the first to be disposed of.
    Mr. Gallacher: Why does not the War Office put the troops in the castle,
    1856
    which is a lovely place, and let the duke and his family live in the camp?
    Mr. Palmer: Cannot some temporary improvement be made in the conditions of the men at this camp?

    Release Application
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now prepared to recommend the release from the Army of Captain Clokey, details of whose case have already been sent to him and whose release has been requested by the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. Lawson: I have no authority to deal with individual applications for release in Class B. Such applications are made through the sponsoring Department, in this case the Ministry of Health, to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and are passed to my Department for action if approved and within the permitted quota. I have not, so far, received any request from the Ministry of Labour and National Service for release in this case.

    Polish Units (British Cooks)
    G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for War what is the present number of British troops employed on cooking and other similar duties for Polish Forces in this country; how many British troops per 1,000 Poles are so employed; and whether arrangements can now be made for British soldiers to be diverted from work of this kind, in view of the general shortage of labour.
    Mr. Lawson: Polish units in this country are administratively self-contained and no British troops are employed as cooks or on similar duties. Individual Poles who have elected immediate return to Poland have been transferred to transit camps under British Command and control. Even at these camps, however, the Polish repatriates provide men to carry out all their own domestic duties, including cooking. The British cooks and other duty men at the camps are employed in looking after the British permanent staff. The only instances where British troops would be employed on tasks of this nature for Poles are when Polish troops are allotted vacancies to attend British Army courses.
    G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that, in Oxfordshire, in a transit camp for Poles, there are 164 British troops employed for 1,000 Poles, who have nothing to do except wander aimlessly about the countryside?
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir; I am not aware of that.

    Training Area, Imber
    Mr. Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state the intentions of his Department with regard to the return of the civilian population to the village of Imber in Wiltshire.
    Mr. Lawson: With the exception of five properties, including the church, the Imber battle training area, including Imber village, is the property of the War Department. Large sums of public money were spent on acquiring it for military training and it is in fact the only large infantry battle training area owned by the War Department. All the letting agreements in Imber contained a provision enabling the War Department to determine the tenancy if, inter alia, the property was required for naval, military or air force purposes. In other words, all the lettings were subject to the requirements of military training. Notice was duly given. The War Department's tenants, therefore, were not dispossessed by requisition under the Defence Regulations but under a resumption clause which has always formed part of the agreements by which they occupied their farms. The future of Imber village depends upon the type and intensity of the training allotted to the area in the post-war programme and I am not yet in a position to announce any decision on that point.
    Mr. Grimston: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I know of the conditions under which the population were there, but in considering this question will he bear in mind that there is an agricultural interest involved, that there is very good housing in the village, and that quite a considerable number of people are anxious to get back to their homes? Whilst I do not want to prejudice any decision he may reach, I hope he will bear those facts in mind and come to a decision as soon as he can conveniently do so.
    Mr. Lawson: It is for that reason that I have been rather reluctant to arrive at
    1858
    a decision on this matter before I have looked at the question as a whole.

    Civilian Clothing Issue
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making a grant of money or additional civilian clothing to men who came out of the Army before the improved issue of civilian clothing came into operation in October last.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southend-on-Sea (Mr. Channon) on Tuesday last.
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the Minister think it is time that justice was done to the men who gave their services earlier in this war before decent conditions had been obtained for the Service men by pressure from Labour Members?

    Overseas Postings
    Mr. Henry Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War what is the maximum age or demobilisation group beyond which a soldier is not posted for service overseas.
    Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) on 16th October last.

    Burma Star
    Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War how many men who served in the Chindit campaigns in Burma are not eligible for the Burma Star.
    Mr. Lawson: I regret that figures are not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of labour. The verification of claims is continuously going on.
    Major Wyatt: Is it not a fact that some of these men are not eligible for the Burma Star, and does not my right hon. Friend think that some very special exception ought to be made in these cases? Will he undertake to investigate the matter?
    Mr. Lawson: It is very difficult to give a definite decision upon any particular case in regard to this question. I have

    1859
    made very close inquiries, and there is a continual investigation going on with regard to each case, and that is the most I can say to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this was one of the questions that cropped up at his meetings in Burma with the men out there recently—
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that.
    Mr. Driberg: —that he undertook to raise with the Cabinet on his return, and that the men are relying on him to keep his word?
    Mr. Lawson: I am very well aware that there is very strong feeling upon this question and indeed upon all questions affecting Burma.

    Stakehill Military Detention Barracks (Inquiry)
    Major Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received the proceedings of the court of inquiry on the conditions at the Stakehill Military Detention Barracks; and whether he has any statement to make.
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. But I understand that the court of inquiry proceedings on the individual case, which were suspended pending the result of the inquest, have now been completed and are being forwarded to the War Office. As already promised I will make a statement regarding this establishment when my inquiries are fully completed.
    Major Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the relations not only of men who are serving sentences in these detention barracks, but of men in detention barracks all over the country, are extremely concerned about the stories that have been given out that a man committed suicide there recently? Will he treat the matter as one of urgent public importance and make a statement on the whole question of detention barracks as soon as possible?
    Mr. Janner: Pending the result of the enquiry being received, would my right hon. Friend make certain inquiries himself, as they are necessary to allay public anxiety in this respect?
    Mr. Lawson: There is reason for very close investigation into this particular case and I think there will be need for a very comprehensive report. When I get that report the House shall have a statement in any case.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this was purely a Service court of inquiry or whether anyone else was represented on it?
    Mr. Lawson: So far as my memory goes, though I would not say for certain, I think there were other than Service people on this court.
    Mr. Janner: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend intends other alleged difficulties in that camp to be investigated apart from the specific case?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the demobilisation of men in the Radio Security Service at reduced rates of pay and allowances for the period of release leave.
    Mr. Lawson: A number of soldiers were enlisted for or transferred to the Radio Security Service for employment on special duties. During that employment, they were paid by that Service at special consolidated rates of pay in lieu of the normal Army pay and allowances. When such soldiers become due for release under the ordinary Release Scheme, they are returned to Army service for the purposes of release, and they are consequently granted the normal pay and allowances of their rank during release leave. As they have finally ceased to do duty with the Radio Security Service, it is not considered that the special rates of pay applicable to that service should continue. It is the normal practice for special rates granted for the performance of special duties to cease from the beginning of release leave, and there are no grounds for an exception in favour of this particular class of men.
    Captain Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for War if members of the A.E.C. are eligible for release under Class B in order to resume teaching at the request of the Ministry of Education.
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir. As regards the release of teachers generally, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 16th October to a Question by the hon. Member for Henley (G. Fox). The releases are, of course, subject to military requirements, and in view of the importance to the nation of the Army Education Scheme and the need for a sufficiency of Army Educational Corps personnel in this connection it is not in every case possible to spare members of this Corps as Class B releases.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Whilst I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a priority for the Army, would he make it clear to the men themselves, because several have been sent to India in the last three weeks, and they are suffering from a sense of frustration because they think they are eligible under the "B" scheme to be released at home?
    Mr. Lawson: I am sorry to hear that it is not clear to these men, and I will take the necessary steps to see that it is brought to their notice.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these qualified teachers who are being posted to India are in Groups 27 and 28, and are being kept hanging about doing nothing at depots for very long periods of time, awaiting postings to units?
    Mr. Scollan: Is the Minister aware of the great dissatisfaction among the very large number of bona fide teachers who are not being asked for by local education authorities, and who have no means of getting release under Class B?
    Wing-Commander Millington: Is the Minister also aware that there are still in the Army qualified teachers, with up to 10 years' experience as schoolmasters, who are not employed by the A.E.C. or in any capacity a teacher, but are doing scullion jobs?
    Mr. Lawson: I would like positive information of that.

    Personnel, Austria (Air Transport)
    Colonel Errollasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider in consultation with the Secretary of State for Air, the introduction of a daily direct Transport Command air service between Vienna and London to serve British troops
    1862
    in Austria, thus by-passing the present circuitous route via Udine, Naples and Marseilles.
    Mr. Lawson: A twice-weekly R.A.F. Transport Command service to Vienna via Munich was commenced on 14th September, 1945, and has proved adequate for the present demands. All services are constantly under review by the Air Ministry and recommendations are made, wherever necessary, by Air Priorities Joint Staff to the London Air Transport Priorities Board.
    Colonel Erroll: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast majority of Service travellers still have to go by a more Southerly route around Naples on their way from Austria to London, and is not this solely in order to keep the headquarters at Naples in being?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of that.

    Camps (Accommodation)
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for War approximately how many camps and other institutions capable of accommodating 500 men or more he has had at his disposal at any time since the ending of hostilities.
    Mr. Lawson: The information is not readily available in the War Office and will necessitate considerable investigation. Inquiries are being made, and I will inform the hon. and learned Member of the result as soon as possible.

    Cyprus (Disturbances)
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make about the incidents in Cyprus on 4th October when Indian troops were set to fight Cypriot troops; and whether, in view of the effect on Indian and Cypriot public opinion of these bodies of troops being set to fight against each other after fighting together against Fascism in the war, he will take steps to avoid further incidents by remedying the grievances of the Cypriot troops.
    Mr. Lawson: In recent weeks there has been a series of minor disturbances among Cypriot troops awaiting embarkation for foreign service after having had home leave. These demonstrations have been for the expedition of demobilisation and against further service overseas. Incidents have been evoked by these de-

    1863
    monstrations, and full inquiries as to the nature and causes of these incidents are now being made. When the report on these inquiries has been received I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

    Territorial Badges
    Colonel Ponsonbyasked the Secretary of State for War whether officers and men of the Territorial Army, who are so entitled, may resume the wearing of the "T" (Territorial), or "Y" (Yeomanry) badges as before the war.
    Mr. Lawson: No, Sir. It would be premature to authorise the restoration of these badges until more information is available as to the future of the Auxiliary Forces. There are also practical difficulties.
    Colonel Ponsonby: Is the Minister aware that the question of the future of the Territorial Army has nothing to do with this particular case, and that the Territorial Army, before the war, gave up their leisure in order to train themselves for military service?
    Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: Can the Minister tell us the reason for the differentiation between his Department and the Air Ministry? Is he aware that those employed in a part-time temporary capacity before the war were allowed to use the letter "A" on their uniforms during war-time service? Why cannot a similar right be exercised in the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of that fact, but I will note it.
    Wing-Commander Millington: Is not the Minister also aware that it was the practice when I left the Army for Territorial soldiers to remove the "T's" from their shoulders and secrete them under the lapels of their coats, so that it is not a difficult matter to put the "T's" back again?
    Mr. Lawson: That docs not indicate that they want to wear the letter publicly. I should be rather sorry if that was the case.

    DUTCH EAST INDIES AND INDOCHINA (BRITISH CASUALTIES)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War what the total casualties
    1864
    have been, to the latest convenient date, in the recent disturbances following the liberation of French and Dutch territories in the Far East; and how many of these have been in the British Forces involved.
    Mr. Lawson: Complete figures are not available, but the following British and Indian casualties in the recent disturbances were reported up to 14th October, 1945:
    In French Indo-China: 1 British officer and 40 Indian other ranks.
    In Java (all in the Batavia Area): 1 British officer, 1 Viceroy commissioned officer and 1 British other rank.
    Sumatra: None.

    EX-PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES, JAVA
    42. Captain Marplesasked the Secretary of State for War how many British prisoners of war were believed to be in Java at the time of the Japanese capitulation; how many have since been rescued; and whether there is any information available as to the condition of the remainder.
    Mr. Lawson: At the time of their surrender the Japanese reported that all the British prisoners of war in Java were concentrated in Batavia. Reports received from ALFSEA stated that there were 1,389 prisoners of war and civilian internees from the United Kingdom in Java at that time. Reports so far received indicate that in all 1,416 United Kingdom personnel have been evacuated from Java on the first stage of their journey home, and it is now reported that there are no British ex-prisoners of war remaining in Java. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

    PALESTINE (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether, before announcing the Government's decision on Palestinian policy, he will agree to the immediate dispatch of a Parliamentary Commission to investigate the situation on the spot; to make contacts with the principal protagonists; and to report to this House.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would

    1865
    await the statement which will be made in the near future.
    Miss Rathbone: Would it not be more to the point if the right hon. Gentleman took his courage in both hands, and acted on the principles previously enunciated by his party leaders and by the Leader of the present Opposition?
    Earl Winterton: Could the right hon. Gentleman define a little more closely what is meant by, "in the near future"? Does it mean next week, the week after or this time next year?
    The Prime Minister: It will be very soon, but I cannot give an exact date. The Noble Lord will realise that I want to give it at the right moment, and that I am not yet clear as to the exact day.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the utterances of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter have been completely contradictory?
    Mr. Janner: Pending the making of this statement will the right hon. Gentleman see that any broadcast given on the question of Palestine will be carefully vetted so that there shall be no mis-statements similar to those made on Friday evening, which were quite contrary in some respects to the declarations made by various important Ministers in this House?
    The Prime Minister: I have no information about that broadcast; I am not aware that the Government made any broadcast.

    UNITED KINGDOM WAR EFFORT (WHITE PAPER)
    Colonel Ponsonbyasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions for the publication, at such time as he may think desirable, of a supplement to Cmd. 6564, Statistics Relating to the War Effort of the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: I propose to lay before the House shortly a White Paper giving figures showing the strengths of the Armed Forces and Auxiliary Services and the casualties sustained by them during the war. This will cover an aspect of the United Kingdom war effort details of which had to be omitted on grounds of security from the White Paper (Cmd.
    1866
    6564) published last year. In the interval since the publication of that White Paper individual Departments have released a large amount of information supplementing and bringing up-to-date the statistics given in it and, while I do not wish to rule out the possibility of publishing a revised version, it is perhaps doubtful whether there is a sufficient demand to justify this at the present time. I contemplate, however, that at a later date, when all the necessary material has been collected, a volume of statistics relating to the war should be published.

    ATOMIC ENERGY (URANIUM DEPOSITS)
    Mr. Studholmeasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for research into the possibilities of atomic energy, he will cause immediate steps to be taken to open and explore existing known deposits of uranium ore in this country and to search for additional deposits in order to save purchases of this metal from overseas and to be ready to take advantage of any future developments for its industrial use.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. All necessary steps have been taken.
    Mr. Studholme: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the House will have an opportunity of debating this subject?
    The Prime Minister: That is another question.

    BRITISH PERSONNEL, GERMANY (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)
    Lieut.-Colonel Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will amend the present conditions of service for British personnel serving in Germany under the Commission of Control in order that they may be made more attractive to those who would wish to make their career in this most important service and who are at present discouraged from doing so by the uncertainty regarding its future.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Yes, Sir. Improved conditions of service have been settled and will shortly be published. In particular, appointments will be offered

    1867
    for a period of seven years, and compensation will be paid in the event of employment being terminated at an earlier date for reasons of redundancy.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    War Damage Compensation
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship caused by the delay in making payments of war damage value payment claims on houses destroyed by enemy action, he will authorise the interest upon such payments, as provided by the War Damage Acts, to be paid without further delay.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Section 10 (5) of the War Damage Act, 1943, provides that interest on a value payment shall be payable when that payment is discharged. There is no power under the Act to authorise an earlier payment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Minister aware that people who have lost their houses will have to wait for many years, and that a small contribution from him would be welcome?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, but the law does not permit that and we have a lot of amendments to the law to make which are more important than this.
    Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, when dealing with these amendments, the difficulties that arise when a person has mortgaged his house and has to pay a larger interest in respect of the mortgage than that which is allowed under the war damage scheme?
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to keep the matter under review but it is difficult, under the present law, to do what hon. Members wish.
    . Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, where building materials forming part of war damaged houses are looted through delay in granting licences to carry out the necessary first-aid repairs, such loss may be included in war damage claims.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Berryasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to introduce the Bill, promised by his predecessor, Kingsley Wood, dealing with war damage contributions from public utility undertakings.
    Mr. Dalton: Not at present. I am trying to simplify this Bill now that the risk of further war damage has disappeared.

    Service Pay (Income Tax)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the accumulated pay accrued to Service personnel who have been prisoners of war is subjected to Income Tax
    Mr. Dalton: The Service pay of members of the United Kingdom Forces who have been prisoners of war was liable to United Kingdom Income Tax in the same way as the pay of members of those Forces who were serving abroad.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of the hardship which the small man is suffering would the Minister give the matter his consideration?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not know whether, on principle, we can justify giving a tax concession to officers and other ranks who were captured, as against those who were not captured.
    Colonel Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exclude from personal income tax assessments the 56 days' leave pay now being given to all Servicemen on demobilisation, as the inclusion of this pay in an individual's taxable income is a deterrent to his taking up remunerative employment before his leave pay ceases.
    Mr. Dalton: I have no power to do this under the existing law, and I doubt whether the deterrent to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is a factor of great practical importance.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister not make the welcome announcement that he will withdraw the tax from all pay?

    Bank of England
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will now arrange for a list of all stockholders in the Bank of England to be published, stating the amount of each holding and

    1869
    the amount of Government stock which each such stockholder will receive on the proposed nationalisation of the Bank of England;
    (2) whether the accounts of the Bank of England for the last 20 years, upon the basis of which it is proposed that compensation should be assessed on the nationalisation of the Bank of England, can now be published for consideration by this House;
    (3) what proportion of the gross income of the Bank of England, in each of the last 20 years, was attributable to work done or service rendered by the Bank of England for or on behalf of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Dalton: With the permission of the hon. Member I should prefer to deal with these Questions when I move the Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill.
    Mr. Piratin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the House should be presented with the facts I have asked for, and that the whole House would like to have them before the Bank of England Bill is read a Second time? I am sure that not only the whole House but the public generally would like to know who are the stockholders we are going to compensate so handsomely.
    Mr. Dalton: It would cost a lot in printing, because there are more than 17,000 of them.
    Mr. Stokes: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there are any nominee holders in the Bank of England, and will he ascertain whom these nominees represent?
    Mr. Dalton: No. Sir. I think that is of no public interest whatever.

    Pound Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Waldron Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, taking the purchasing power of the £ in 1900 as 100, he will state the corresponding figure at the latest available date; and the figure calculated for the whole field of personal expenditure.
    Mr. Dalton: According to the best calculations available, the figure for September, 1945, is 45. Calculated over the whole field of personal expenditure, the figure for September 1945, would probably be about 40.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Championasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the interests of keeping the rent of permanent houses as low as possible, he will apply the same condition of freedom from Purchase Tax on kitchen furniture fitments to be used in permanent houses as at present applies to temporary houses.
    Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.

    National Expenditure (Economy)
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to set up a special economy committee similar to the Geddes Committee after the last war.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Certainly not.

    Nationalisation (Capital Cost)
    Mr. Jenningsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he in tends to restrict private investment in order to provide funds for investment in Government loans to pay for the capital cost of nationalisation.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member should not assume that loans of new money will be required to pay for the capital cost of nationalisation. No such loans will be needed, for example, in the case of the Bank of England.

    Service Personnel, Eire (Taxation)
    Mr. McKieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the decision of the Eire Government to tax all allowances paid by Britain to members of His Majesty's Forces from Eire, which decision being retrospective is causing hard ship and inconvenience, he will consider making some form of taxation relief to members of the Forces so affected.
    Mr. Dalton: These allowances are not charged to United Kingdom Income Tax and I cannot, therefore, give tax relief in respect of them.

    Social Services (Expenditure)
    W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual expenditure in 1913 and at the latest available date respectively, on social services.
    Mr. Dalton: For 1942 and 1943 I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 14th December last. Figures for 1913 are not available, but the comparable figure for 1910 was £62,817,000.
    Mr. Jennings: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a Geddes Committee should be set up at once to cut down some of this expenditure?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. It did a great disservice to this country.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that had it not been for the expenditure on social services, the population of this country would have been depleted by now?

    BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the undertaking given by his predecessor, and repeated by himself, that no decision would be taken on Bretton Woods until this House had been consulted, still holds good.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that both Lord Keynes and Lord Halifax understand this?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    LEND-LEASE AND RECIPROCAL AID
    Mr. Norman Smithasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the assessment of the services rendered by America and Britain under Lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease respectively, any monetary valuation has been placed on the facilities extended to the American fighting Forces for the use of the Mulberry harbours, of the Pluto undersea pipeline, and of the fog-dispelling device; and have such valuations been incorporated into the accounts.
    Mr. Dalton: The cost of the Mulberry Harbour which was built for the use of the U.S. Forces will be estimated and included in our Reciprocal Aid records. The costs of developing and producing the
    1872
    Pluto undersea pipeline and the fog-dispelling device have not been included in these records, since they were used jointly by the British and American Forces. Where, however, expenditure in connection with the use of these devices clearly arises out of American requirements, such expenditure is charged as Reciprocal Aid.
    Mr. Norman Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we want more publicity on this matter, particularly for the edification of our American friends, who do not seem to know much about it?
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Mulberry Harbour referred to in his answer is not the one at Arromanches but the one that fell down in a storm and was not in fact used—the one in the American sector?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS)
    Major Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many permanent and temporary civil servants were employed on 30th June and 30th September respectively.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): On 1st July, 1945, the number of established non-industrial civil servants in all Departments (including reserved and agency services in Northern Ireland) was 201,180; the number of whole-time un-established non-industrial staff was 465,801, and of part-timers,96,729. I regret that the corresponding figures for 1st October, 1945, have not yet been returned by the Departments, but I will send the hon. Member the figures when they become available.
    B. Neven-Spenceasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons now employed in the Public Relations and Press departments in every Government Department, with the total cost of this provision.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not immediately available. I will circulate the particulars in the Official Report in due course.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (STRANGERS)
    Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the general convenience of all Members that the Library should be closed to strangers on the days when the House is sitting. If that meets with the approval of the House, I will give instructions to that effect.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, before the House opens in the morning?
    Mr. Speaker: All day.

BANK OF ENGLAND BILL
  STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH
  Mr. Speakerlaid upon the Table, —Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to Order [11 th October], That in the case of the Bank of England Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (SUPPLEMENTARY) (OCTOBER, 1945)
  Statement ordered, "of Changes in Taxation as proposed by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
  Statement presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 12.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
  That they have agreed to—
  Coatbridge and Springburn Elections (Validation) Bill, without Amendment.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL
  Mr. Speaker,in pursuance of Standing Order No. 80 (4), has nominated Mr. Douglas and Colonel Ropner to be additional members of the Chairmen's Panel during this Session.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major Milner in the Chair]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT
  3.18 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Since my predecessor made his Budget statement last April, great changes have occurred. The British people have celebrated first, VE-Day and then, VJ-Day. They have also elected a new Parliament. It is in this changed world that I open to-day a supplementary or interim Budget. This is the third time within the last six years that a Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it necessary to do this. In September, 1939, Lord Simon had to revise his Budget of the previous April to take account of the outbreak of the world war. In July, 1940, after the formation of the all-party Government under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill)—a Government whose name and whose luster will forever shine forth from the pages of our history—following this event, and the immediate sharp impetus this new Government gave to the war effort, the late Kingsley Wood introduced a supplementary Budget, which further stepped up the war-time increase in taxation. I present a supplementary Budget this Autumn, on the morrow of great victories. Yet my task, in some respects, is harder than those of my predecessors
  In the war years, menaced as we were by the most powerful and brutal enemy that this country has ever had to face in all her long history, all sections of the nation played their full part. The burdens borne by the general body of the taxpayers were light indeed compared with burdens of another sort which fell, in battle and in blitz, upon our fighting men on all fronts, by land and sea and
  1876
  air, upon our merchant seamen and upon great numbers of civilians in this country. Yet measured by the standards of pre-war taxation these burdens of war-time taxation were indeed heavy, and they were most patiently and most patriotically borne by all. Now, as we turn the first page of a new chapter, there is a most widespread and natural desire for tax reduction. There is likewise a desire, not less widespread nor less natural, for increased expenditure upon the social services—upon housing, health and education and many other social objects. Over the years immediately ahead, within the five-year lifetime of this Parliament, I hope we shall be able to go far to satisfy both these desires. Towards these ends His Majesty's Government, with the support, I hope, and the encouragement of this House of Commons, will shape their policy and make their five-year plan.
  We are now in a transition period, marked by many special, though I hope transitory, dangers. In particular we must all be resolute against inflation; we must increase the production of peace-time goods as rapidly as possible, and we must be prepared to hold back purchasing power until it is safe to release it, until there are enough goods to buy. It is a contrast from the old pre-war situation. In the old days, in those ignominious years, as many of us deemed them, between the two wars, our purchasing power often fell short of our productive power. Because men had not enough money to buy each other's products, those who made those products were thrown into unemployment, and the products were not made. Deficiency of purchasing power, particularly among the poorest and among those whose needs were greatest, led to deficiency of production, and hence to ever-increasing poverty and unemployment. Those were the days of deflation and defeatism.

  NATIONAL SAVINGS MOVEMENT
  But to-day we have moved on. To-day the situation is in many respects the exact reverse. The danger now is lest too much money should run after too few goods. Hence, if I may here interpolate, the great importance of the National Savings Movement. I would wish to pay my tribute here, not for the first time, to all those who have contributed and are still contributing to the success of the National Savings Movement, to the 600,000 volun-

  1877
  tary workers in that movement all over the country, and to those who have led and organised this movement and inspired it through difficult years. Here I would mention what can only be a few names chosen out of many, among others Lord Kindersley, Lord Alness—who has done so much in Scotland—Lord Mottistone, Harold Mackintosh, Mr. George Gibson, ex-Chairman of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress, and Mr. Harold Parkinson—[Interruption]—and the Noble Viscount, who gave Swanage a chance to show what it could do, even against the grain of aristocratic misguidance
  Having apportioned this well-deserved praise, let me add that by far the best defence against inflation in present conditions is large and continuous saving by all sections of our people. Later, I hope that this need will gradually become less urgent, as production expands and develops. But to-day, and for some years to come, it remains an imperative duty on each of us, whatever the size of our income, whatever our occupation, to save all that we can and lend it to the Government. I would add that price controls are also essential. Strong price controls must be retained and enforced, and, if need be, must be strengthened and extended. Our aim is that purchasing power and productive power should always march in step. Otherwise we shall fall into one or other of the twin evils of deflation or inflation.

  COST OF LIVING
  This leads me to speak for a moment or two about the cost of living. I have decided to hold the present cost of living steady until further notice, even if this means an increase in the necessary Exchequer subsidies. But I would add that I am making inquiries whether we cannot hold the cost of living steady at a lower cost in total subsidies, whether we cannot here and there discover economies in the administration of these subsidies as they are now operated.
  On the main point of holding the cost of living steady, there can be no question—I am sure that my predecessor will agree with this, because he handled this policy for several years—that this policy of keeping down the prices of the basic necessaries of life, which was begun in 1941 and continued until now, has
  1878
  achieved a remarkable measure of success in stabilising the level of costs and prices over a wide range of the ordinary person's current expenditure. This has helped to engender an almost unconscious sense of stability in people's minds, which was no small asset to the country during the strenuous and anxious days of the war. People's minds were not haunted this time, as they were in the last war, with the fear that prices would go sky high out of control, and by the fear that all the articles in their everyday expenditure would go on constantly rising and constantly outstripping the resources of their slender incomes. That fear has been banished by this policy, pursued by the Coalition Government since 1941, and it has been of great advantage to our people, both actually and in its psychological effect upon their minds.

  SUBSIDIES
  There has been very little variation in most prices of the necessaries of life in the last four years. That has been a great boon to all pensioners and to all other persons living upon fixed, and especially upon small fixed money incomes. It should not be under-estimated in current discussion on future policy. These subsidies, operated in the way I am describing, have been and are still a most timely grant-in-aid to every household budget in the land. They might indeed be described as a heavy load of indirect taxation in reverse, because that is what they arc. But this policy has not only kept down the prices of the foodstuffs and the other goods which have been subsidised by the Exchequer. It has also helped to restrain any disproportionate increase in wage rates which, if it had occurred, might have disturbed the whole balance of our economic life, and might have sucked us into the fatal whirlpool of inflation.

  WAGE RATES
  Here I wish to pay a tribute to the steadiness and good sense which the trade unions and their leaders have shown during the war in this regard, and also to the great value of the voluntary joint machinery of wage negotiations and industrial negotiations generally in all the principal industries. Wage rates, as figures show, have climbed steadily all the time, and that has been right; yet there has been no break-away rise, no

  1879
  uncontrolled rise such as we might easily have seen had it not been for this continuing co-operation between the Government—in this case the Coalition Government—and the trade unions, both recognising that the common interest was best served by this joint effort of the two parties to keep prices and wages on an even keel.

  PRICE STABILISATION
  So much for the past. Looking to the near future, in this transitional period I believe that this policy of price stabilisation will be even more important than it has been during the war. In the uncertain conditions which are inevitable during the period of switch-over from war to peace economy, when there will be big shifts of employment from one industry to another, I have decided that we must hold to this policy even more firmly than was contemplated by my predecessor. He announced in his Budget Speech of 1944, and repeated in his Budget Speech last April, that the ceiling of 30 per cent. above pre-war, which had previously been maintained, was to be raised to 35 per cent. above pre-war, and he indicated that he expected a rise towards this higher figure to take place during the present year. This has already happened. During the summer the cost-of-living index rose at one time to 33½per cent. above the pre-war level. It has since fallen, and now stands at about 31 per cent. My intention is that for the next year at least, and until further notice, we should seek to hold the index where it is now, and that we should not allow it to vary from the present level by more than an insignificant amount. Whatever may have been thought right a year ago under the Coalition Government, in this reconversion period we should, in my view, keep a firmer grip than even before on the cost of living.
  I should like to give the Committee a few actual examples of the effect of this policy on particular prices. Bread, now costing 9d. for a 4lb. loaf, would, without subsidy, cost 1s. 1d. Potatoes, now costing 8¼d. for 7lb., would, without subsidy, cost 11d. Eggs, now 2s. dozen [Laughter] would, without subsidy, cost 3s. 6d. Home-killed meat, without subsidy, would rise, on the average, by 4d. a lb. These are illustrations of the way in which prices are being held down
  1880
  by this policy below the prices which otherwise would prevail, with widely distributed social advantage. But having said this, I must emphasise that no-one should under-estimate the cost which this policy will throw upon the national finances. Last year, the cost-of-living subsidies were costing the Exchequer about £200,000,000 a year. This figure has already risen by a formidable amount. It was already running at the rate of £250,000,000 a year before Lend-Lease was terminated.

  LEND-LEASE TERMINATION
  We cannot yet indicate with any precision the increase of cost which we must expect as a result of the termination of Lend-Lease. It will depend, to some extent, on how far and how quickly we can switch our sources of supply to non-dollar markets; but it is already clear that the increase in the cost of subsidies due to this cause alone—the cessation of Lend-Lease—will not be less than £50,000,000 a year. I must ask the Committee, therefore, seriously to face the fact that whereas in earlier years we have been concerned with a figure which was creeping up towards £200,000,000 a year, the figure we must now reckon with is at least £300,000,000 a year; and I must add that the actual figure may prove to be considerably higher, especially if the decision which I have just announced to hold prices substantially at their present level has to be carried out in face of still rising costs.
  So much for the cost of living. I have referred to the sudden ending of Lend-Lease, which has, of course, created for us a serious immediate problem in relation to our balance of trade. As the Committee know, talks have for some time been proceeding at Washington between representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States Governments. Not everything written in the Press on the subject of these talks should be believed. None the less, they have not yet reached even a provisional conclusion, and I do not propose to make any further statement on them to-day, though I should mention them in this context. But I can tell the Committee—and the Committee will desire to know this—that with regard to all the matters under discussion at Washington we are keeping, and shall keep, in close touch

  1881
  with the Dominions and with the Government of India. Meanwhile, pending a settlement at Washington, it is more than ever urgent to stimulate British exports and, on the other side of the balance sheet, to restrict, to the minimum necessary to assure our essential supplies of food and raw materials, imports, especially those which must be paid for with dollars. Whatever the outcome of the Washington talks we must make all possible efforts, the most vigorous efforts, the most imaginative efforts of which private enterprise shall be proved capable, to re-establish as quickly as we can the balance of our external trade. Until this is done we shall not, in truth, be the masters of our own economic and financial destiny. For this reason we must do this great job soon, and recover equilibrium as rapidly as may be.

  INTEREST RATES
  I should like now to deal with two questions of general financial policy. The first is the question of interest rates. In the Debate on the Address on 21st August, I said that I was exploring future possibilities in the field of cheaper money and lower interest rates. I had in mind the possibility of reducing not only the debt charge in the Budget, for that is of great importance, but also the cost of borrowing by industry and by public bodies, including local authorities. There is no sense, or so it seems to me—I hope no high authority will differ from me—in paying more than we must for the loan of money; and I have endeavoured to do my utmost to bring these rates down. I shall say a word in detail in a moment.
  The problem differs accordingly as we are dealing with short-term or long-term borrowing, and I have begun by concentrating my attention and my efforts on the short-term rates. On the present volume of the Floating Debt, composed, as the Committee will realise, of Treasury Bills, Treasury Deposit Receipts and Ways and Means Advances, the annual interest charge to the Exchequer is£66,000,000 a year, or was so running till last Friday. A good deal of this represents interest paid on funds held by Government Departments; but none the less there is a net gain to the public finances from any substantial saving on that interest-charge. I have discussed this question with the Governor of the Bank of England, and he has discussed it with the Chairmen of
  1882
  the Clearing Banks; and, as a result, I am glad to say that, as the Committee will already know, adjustments in short-term interest rates have now been made—they were made last week and have been announced—which have reduced the rate on Treasury Bills from about 1 per cent. to about ½ per cent., and the rate on Treasury Deposit Receipts from 1⅛ per cent. to ⅝ per cent.—a reduction of ½ per cent. in each case. This change, which has been made with the co-operation of the Bank of England and the Clearing Banks, and was announced last Friday, will mean a saving to the Exchequer for interest, on the present volume of Floating Debt, of some £32,000,000 a year out of the total of £66,000,000. In other words, we shall nearly cut the charge in half.
  After this—as I think—hopeful beginning with short-term rates, I shall now turn my attention, in consultation with my advisers, to the possibility of securing lower middle-term and long-term interest rates; but I shall do nothing here to hinder—indeed, on the contrary, I hope that what I am saying now will assist rather than hinder—the success of the National Savings Thanksgiving Weeks which are being held until the end of November in various parts of the country. Our present tap issues will run on during that time; the terms will not be changed. Thereafter, when I feel my hands free, when the Thanksgiving Campaign is over, the terms of lending may become less attractive; and this reflection should dispose any person who is in doubt what to do with his money, with his "liquid resources" as they are sometimes called—speaking in a financial sense, of course—to lend these to the Treasury without imprudent delay.
  It is perhaps unnecessary for me to add that if the Government should at any time decide to reduce the interest on new issues, such reduction would not affect the terms of existing loans made before the date of the change. That applies not only to the market issues—"tap"issues, as we sometimes call them, again speaking in a financial sense—but to Savings Certificates and to Defence Bonds, and also to deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank.

  STOCK EXCHANGE PRICES
  Another question I should like to mention to the Committee is that of minimum prices on the Stock Exchange. These were fixed at the outbreak of the war for

  1883
  all gilt edged stocks, when it was feared that there might be panic selling. The prices were those quoted on 23rd August, 1939. These minima were increased in March, 1940; but they are now, and have, for some time, been quite out of relation with current prices; and after discussing the matter with those concerned, I have come to the conclusion that they no longer serve any useful purpose whatever. They are no help now, even if they ever were, to the policy of cheap money which His Majesty's Government are pursuing. I have, therefore, told the Chairman of the Stock Exchange that I should approve of their abolition and they are being abolished to-day.

  1945–46 FORECAST OF OUT-TURN
  I should like to pass to a few statistical particulars and give the Committee some Budget figures, starting with such forecasts as we can make of the out-turn of the current year, 1945–46. My predecessor's Estimate last April put the total revenue for the year at £3,265,000,000 and expenditure at £5,565,000,000, leaving a deficit, to be covered by borrowing, of £2,300,000,000. The expenditure total included £4,500,000,000 for Votes of Credit, that figure, as my predecessor explained, being, in view of the uncertainties of the situation, a very round and approximate sum. So far as can be foreseen at present, the yield of the various items of revenue will conform roughly to the Estimates. The estimating was well done, as it generally is, by the experts of the Inland Revenue and the Customs. They did their sums and made their imaginative hypotheses very efficiently, and it appears that the yield will conform roughly to the Estimates.

  VOTES OF CREDIT
  On the expenditure side, the main uncertainty lies with the Vote of Credit figure. I have received from the spending Departments estimates which suggest that the total issues out of the Vote of Credit during the year will come to a sum of about £4,500,000,000. There is a probable saving of some £200,000,000 on the Defence and Supply Departments; but this is outweighed by the cost of supplies which were formerly provided under Lend-Lease and which now have to be paid for, and also by credits for the financing of Anglo-French trade, which
  1884
  we must all desire to get moving again, under the Financial Agreement signed last March. These estimates must, of course, be very tentative, because we are only half way through the financial year, and much may change in the next few months. As regards the expenditure of the Service and Supply Departments, we must remember that the faster we demobilise, as is desired on the other side of the House not less than on this—this is an arithmetical point—the more we shall have to pay within this financial year by way of lump sum gratuities and Service credits. I am only making the simple point that the total expenditure chargeable to the Service and Supply Departments will to this extent be temporarily inflated, and quite rightly. But this has a bearing upon the out-turn of the expenditure of this financial year. It is a mere point of accountancy—meaningless symbols, almost; but none the less it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw attention to them.
  There is also a question of interest to war contractors, some of whom may be listening to me now. The closing down of war contracts, due to the sudden outbreak of peace, involves compensation payments to these contractors. These terminal payments also, like the lump sum gratuities to the fighting men, will be large in relation to the current costs saved over the rest of this financial year by reason of reductions in uniformed personnel and the cancellation of contracts. With the co-operation of my colleagues in charge of the Service and Supply Departments, I am doing all I can to hurry down their expenditure as speedily as is possible. But when we judge the total charges made in respect of those Departments, the considerations that I have just mentioned have their place as regards this year.
  Turning to the Civil Supply Services, supplementary votes already granted or to be asked for, will probably mean an excess on the Budget estimates of some £20,000,000 under a variety of heads. In short, to sum the whole thing up, it looks as though the final deficit for 1945–46 will not be very far off the original estimate of my predecessor, balancing the various considerations that I have mentioned one against the other.
  Looking forward to the next financial year, the Committee will not expect me, six months before the normal time, to

  1885
  say much about the prospects. A great deal will depend in 1946–47 upon the size of the Defence expenditure, and this in turn will depend upon decisions of policy which will have to be taken over the next 18 months. They 'have not yet been taken and cannot be taken yet; but, as I have already announced to the Committee in the discussion on the Vote of Credit, after March next the Defence expenditure will be borne once more upon the ordinary Estimates and no longer upon Votes of Credit. After six years' relaxation of Parliamentary and Treasury controls—as was inevitable in time of war, because it was more important to win the war than to save money—the healthy discipline of those controls will be reimposed from the beginning of the next financial year; and I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will co-operate in making these controls a reality.

  CIVIL EXPENDITURE
  Turning to civil expenditure, next year will be the first full year of peace and also the first full year of office of His Majesty's present Government; and, this being so, the Committee may take for granted that next year there will be increased expenditure, both to extend the Social Services, and to carry out a number of other constructive tasks. Family allowances will begin to be paid next year under the Act passed at the end of the period of the late Government, and increased old age pensions and other improved benefits will also begin to be paid under the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance is now preparing. There will also be increased expenditure on housing and on education, both of which have necessarily fallen into great arrears by reason of the war; and there will be expenditure, in another field, on Colonial Development and Welfare. To do all these things and to do them well, as part of a coherent plan, steadily accomplished stage by stage during the life time of this Parliament—such shall be our aim, our pledge, and our pride. We shall do these things.
  Let no one expect—and no sensible person will expect—that we shall be able next year to present a fully balanced Budget. Next year we shall substantially narrow, although we shall not wholly close, the gap between expenditure and revenue. The Committee may recollect
  1886
  that after the last war the Budget was not balanced until the year 1920–21, and even then the surplus was more than accounted for by receipts from the sale of war stores. It was not a genuine surplus. The first genuine surplus did not come after the last war until two years later, 1922–23. If we follow that precedent we shall have our first real surplus in 1949–50. But, of course, we shall see. So far, however, as the general ideas governing this matter are concerned, I would submit to the Committee that, once we are through this transitional and exceptional period of the next few years, we should aim at balancing the Budget, not necessarily each year, but over a period of years, deliberately planning Budget surpluses when trade is firmly good and equally deliberately planning Budget deficits when trade is bad or when it is threatening to go bad; but balancing, over a period, surpluses against deficits.
  From the point of view of the public accounts, an old teacher of mine used to say "there is no special sanctity in the period in which the earth revolves around the sun." In recent years thought on this subject has moved very far from its old orthodox bearings, as indeed was recognised by the late Government and their advisers in the famous White Paper on employment policy issued under the late Government, which, I have no doubt, all Members of the Committee, including the newly elected Members, have carefully read and deeply studied. If not, they should do so. It was a very interesting and well written document, as such documents go.

  LEVEL OF TAXATION
  It is against this general background that I have had to consider the present level of taxation and the extent to which I can offer the taxpayer any relief from his burden. In this connection I must begin by reminding the Committee that, as I announced last August shortly after taking up my present office, no further instalments of the War Damage Contribution will be levied. This recognition that the last V-bomb had fallen, even though claims for war damage might still come in, even though the last claim had not yet been filed, seemed to me to justify, by way of giving a psychological fillip to those concerned, the determination and finality of this series of War Damage Contributions. They have now ceased, and

  1887
  reliefs to an amount of some £40,000,000 a year have, therefore, already been granted to a very large number of taxpayers who were previously paying this contribution.
  But before I proceed to make my principal proposals for the future I will first of all deal with one or two minor matters.
  Hydrocarbon oil is a most important substance for the future of our industry, and the Finance Bill will include provisions to give effect to the recommendations of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Committee, whose report was published as a Command Paper last April, that imported hydrocarbon oils should be free of duty when used as raw materials in chemical synthesis, as it is called, and that an equivalent allowance should be made in respect of oils produced in this country and used for a similar purpose.
  Then, as regards spirits, I propose to move a Resolution, in the terms accepted in April this year, covering the repeal of certain excise allowances on industrial alcohol and exported spirits, which have been granted for many years largely in compensation for certain restrictions, imposed in the interest of the Revenue, upon the operations of distillers. The Finance Bill will contain a provision to modernise the Revenue control of distilleries, and the old restrictions, which war-time experience has proved to be unnecessary, will be swept away. The details of these proposals are explained in a Command Paper published last April, which, of course, is still available. I have also considered certain provisions in the Finance Act, 1942, which were due to expire with the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, that is to say in February, 1946. Section 8 of the 1942 Act which provides for a rebate of duty on heavy hydrocarbon oil used for farm tractors—a most desirable rebate in the interest of agricultural production—will be renewed in this Finance Bill.
  Finally in this group of topics, I intend to continue, until the present severe shortage of liquor is somewhat eased, the abatement of the Liquor Licence Duty provided in Sections 13 and 14 of the 1942 Act. We shall be in time, as regards this matter, if we include a suitable provision in the Finance Bill of next year, and I give notice now to all those concerned, that this will be done.
  Mr. Churchill: What is the cost of this concession?
  Mr. Dalton: A trifle. The major things come later. We are still in the region of de minimis

  MOTOR VEHICLES
  Motor vehicles have been the subject of long Debate and much conflicting expression of forcible opinion. Last April, my predecessor announced the conclusion that he had reached as the result of a long and thorough examination of the Motor Vehicle Duty; but, in view of the need, as it was considered, to accelerate the General Election, a place was not found for the necessary Clauses in the Finance Bill. The subject has therefore remained open for debate and decision until now. I am keen to settle the matter.
  I have received many representations, and a good deal of conflicting advice but the arguments reduce themselves to two or three clear issues.
  First, it is claimed by some that the total weight of taxation on motor vehicles, however assessed, should be reduced. I cannot agree to this at present. There are many other claims for tax relief which I must put in front of this one. I must, therefore, restrict myself to alternatives which raise about the same sum of money as at present, for motor taxation in the aggregate.
  The issue then arises of the distribution of the taxation as between the vehicle and its fuel. Here there is naturally a great clash of views. One method will pay one person and another arrangement will pay another. Users of different classes of vehicles would be very differently affected by any shift of taxation of this kind. Any significant shift of duty from the licence to the fuel would, in particular, be substantially to the disadvantage of those making heavy use of the roads, a class whom, in the general interest, I should not wish to discourage. It is true that there might be an extension of drawbacks for particular classes of user, but extension of drawbacks for particular classes is, administratively, very troublesome. It absorbs a lot of man-power and woman-power which could better be employed on some other job, and it would also, I fear, benefit the black market at the expense of the Exchequer.
  As regards the private vehicle, it is argued by some that a substantial transfer of duty from the licence to the fuel would lead to greater freedom of design, to bigger cars on the roads here at home, and to home production which would be a better base on which to build up an export trade. These arguments are put with great persistence and eloquence; but I doubt, and so do many motor manufacturers, whether there is really very much in this line of thought. I have therefore reached the conclusion that I must leave the distribution of taxation as between the Licence Duty and the fuel substantially where it is. But this leaves open a further question of importance—how shall the Licence Duty be assessed, on the assumption that there is no shift between the vehicle and the fuel and on the assumption that the total revenue which is to be received remains substantially the same?
  For goods vehicles, omnibuses and coaches, I am proposing to make a certain modification of the arrangements. I propose to introduce steps of a quarter of a ton and of a single seat respectively. The details will be found in the White Paper.
  As regards private cars there is, I think, general agreement that the present method of calculating horse-power according to cylinder bore should go. No one defends it. The cylinder bore, like other bores, has no friends. It is generally agreed that the tax, in. future, should be based upon the cubic capacity of the cylinders. A rate of duty of £1 per 100 cubic centimetres is, I am told, a rough equivalent of the 25s. per horse-power as at present. What remains to be determined is the number of steps in the scale of duty. I have found this very difficult to decide, as did my predecessor. The balance of argument is very level. Some argue for small steps, on the ground that this involves less disturbance of the manufacturers' freedom of design, and also that we should make as little change as possible in the present scheme of graduation. On the other hand there is the argument, for wider steps, that they would lead to fewer models being produced, better runs of production and lower costs. On these points the motor manufacturers are much divided.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport and I have carefully considered the matter, and we have felt
  1890
  bound to take reasonable account of the views expressed by the majority of the manufacturers, in favour of the small steps. The resolution which I shall table, and which will furnish the basis of discussion, provides, therefore, for small steps of 100 cubic centimetres, subject, as at present, to a minimum; but I shall be prepared to listen attentively, with at least a half-open mind, to any argument in favour of wider steps. We will take our final decision in the Committee, in the light of the balance of arguments adduced. The Committee will observe that, except on this last point—on which I think my predecessor was substantially convinced in favour of small steps; I frankly admit that my mind is not made up—I have reached broadly the same conclusions as he did on the subject of motor taxation. But I have stated the case at some length because I have given a good deal of thought myself to it at the Treasury. I do appreciate its importance to the motor industry and the importance of the motor industry to the country. The change in the case of goods vehicles, omnibuses and coaches will have effect on 1st January next. That on private vehicles will apply only to vehicles first registered after an appointed day, which we will make in due course.

  PURCHASE TAX
  I have also been asked to take the Purchase Tax off cars sold in this country. I regret that I cannot do this now, nor can I hold out any hopes—I am told that the trade want a definite statement, and I will give it—of doing it for some time to come. Here again, there are many other claims for remission of Purchase Tax which I must put in front of this. The motor industry, and would-be purchasers of private cars in this country, should therefore proceed on the assumption that the Purchase Tax on cars will stay.
  I hope the motor industry is going to export a lot more than it sells at home. There is to-day a sellers' market for cars, as for other British exports, in many different parts of the world and I hope that the motor industry will fully exploit it. This is a time for exporters not only to renew contacts with old markets but to find their way into new ones and there is, of course, no Purchase

  1891
  Tax on cars which manufacturers export. To this extent therefore, the export trade is stimulated, as it should be.

  INLAND REVENUE
  Now I desire to turn to the general field of the Inland Revenue. In addition to the legislation needed to give effect to certain proposals which I will mention in a moment, the Finance Bill will contain other proposals which are a legacy from the first Finance Bill of this year; and the Resolutions which I shall table have been framed accordingly. Some of these are important. For example, one relates to the Legislation necessary to ratify the Double Taxation Agreement, which has been made between this country and the United States.
  I will now, if I may, reveal to the Committee a number of changes which I propose to make in the Income Tax and in the Surtax. None of these, however, will take effect before the next Financial year, and for this reason I must mention here a point of procedure.

  INCOME TAX CHANGES
  The existing practice of the House is that Income Tax and Surtax, being annual taxes, are founded on Resolutions passed in this Committee at the beginning of the year to which they apply. I must therefore ask the Committee to pass a Resolution, which will be tabled in the next day or two, authorising me to include in the coming Finance Bill the changes which I am now going to indicate, and which will take effect as from April next. They will be announced now, so that all concerned will realise, as I think it is advantageous and in the general interest, that they should, the plan according to which we are working.
  I propose first to stop, at the end of this financial year, the creation of new post war credits for Income Tax payers. Second, I propose to raise some of the Income Tax allowances. Third, I propose to reduce the Standard Rate of tax; and, fourth, I propose to increase the Surtax.
  The Income Tax post war credit dates from 1941. Part of each year's Income Tax has been treated, in effect, as a forced loan from the taxpayer—a very brutal operation! The total amount of post war credits accumulated up to the end of last
  1892
  March was some £575,000,000. It is estimated that the present year will add another £225,000,000 to this, and make a round total, up to the end of next March, of £800,000,000. I propose that no new post war credits should thereafter be created, that is, after the end of this financial year, at the end of next March. The repayment of the credits already created, either in whole or in part, cannot as yet be safely undertaken, until the supply of goods is increased and the risk of inflation is correspondingly diminished or lifted. So much for the Post War Credit.
  I propose, in the second place, an increase in the personal allowances to individuals. The institution of the Post War Credit coincided in 1941 with a reduction of those allowances and it would, therefore, seem natural to make some comparable increase in them now that no new Post War Credits are to be created after the end of this financial year. But, quite apart from this, I am anxious to increase these allowances on merits, regardless of the post-war credit arrangement as one of the first acts of tax relief for which I shall be responsible. The Income Tax has pressed hardly in the last few years upon many people with small incomes, whether small earnings or small rentier incomes, many of whom never paid the tax before. There is plenty of evidence to show that it has depressed morale, reduced incentive, and has, in the aggregate, diminished production. To this extent it has been a bad tax, which must be judged, in the field I am now speaking of, as, on balance, undesirable in relation to its effect upon productive activity.

  PERSONAL ALLOWANCES
  I therefore propose, as from the beginning of the next financial year, to raise the personal allowance for single persons from £80 to £110 a year, and for married couples from £140 to £180 a year, and to raise the exemption limit from £110 to £120 a year. This will bring all these allowances back, not merely to where they stood in 1941, when the post-war credits were instituted, but to the pre-war level, and it will wholly relieve from Income Tax at least 2,000,000 persons who are now liable. It will also, of course, partly relieve, through increasing their tax-free margin, all those who remain liable.
  Following this increase in allowances, in the case of earned incomes—investment incomes would show a rather lower figure—no single person next year will have to pay Income Tax unless his income exceeds £2 7s. a week. No married couple without children will pay Income Tax next year unless their income exceeds £3 17s. a week; no married couple with one child unless their income exceeds £4 18s. a week; no married couple with three children unless their income exceeds £7 1s. a week; and no married couple with five children unless their income exceeds £9 3s. a week.
  Mr. Churchill: Can the right lion. Gentleman say how much the allowances will cost?
  Mr. Dalton: The remission of this group of allowances will cost in round figures £160,000,000 in a full year, subject to certain abatements which I will indicate in a moment. That is the gross cost.

  STANDARD RATE OF TAX
  I turn to the standard rate of Income Tax. I have reached the conclusion that 10s. in the £, falling as it does, subject of course to the allowances I have been speaking of, on all Income Tax payers from the richest to the poorest, is too high a rate to be carried over into peace time. I propose, therefore, as from the beginning of next financial year, the first complete year of peace, to reduce the standard rate by 1s., from10s. to 9s. in the £ But if I were to do this and no more, I should be treating the larger Income Tax payers too favourably, relatively to the smaller, since a reduction in the standard rate of one-tenth, which is what I propose, would relieve every Income Tax payer of one-tenth of his present liability. This would mean much larger reliefs for the big man than for the small.
  Therefore, I propose two further changes. First, I propose a new graduation of the standard rate designed to make a further reduction of tax on the lower level of taxable income. At present the first £165 of taxable income pays 6s. 6d. in the £, which is about two-thirds of the standard rate. The rest pays 10s. I propose that in future the first £50 shall pay only at one-third of the standard rate, and the next £75 at only two-thirds of the standard rate. This means that next year
  1894
  the first £50 of taxable income after allowances have been deducted, will pay at 3s. in the £, the next £75 of taxable income will pay at 6s. in the £, and the remainder will pay at 9s. in the £.
  Finally, I propose to raise the Surtax scale, so as to recover from the richer taxpayers the part of the standard rate relief, which otherwise would give them too much compared with the rest of the community. One of our great achievements on the Home Front during the war, with the aid of a series of war Budgets, has been a notable advance towards economic and social equality. Everybody has recognised that in war time this was right. If it was right for war time, it is not wrong for peace. We must not give ground now, when the men who won the war are coming home. On the contrary, we must make a further advance towards greater equality.
  The Surtax is levied on a rising scale on successive slices of income above £2,000 a year, starting at a rate of 2s. in the £ applying to the first £500 slice, and reaching a maximum rate of 9s. 6d. which is charged on all income in excess of £20,000 a year.
  Mr. Churchill: Could we have the cost of the remissions in Income Tax?

  SURTAX
  Mr. Dalton: I will come to that. I would like to take it later when I have completed the cycle of changes. The present scale of Surtax is very ragged and uneven, and I have taken this opportunity to smooth it out and make it better looking, as well as to give it a certain elevation, from £2,500 onwards, to a new maximum rate of 10s. 6d., as against the present 9s. 6d., on all incomes in excess of £20,000. The details of this new scale will be found in the Financial Statement which will be available in the Vote Office when I have finished. The Committee will observe, if they study the figures, that the new scale in effect takes back, on slices of income in excess of £12,000 a year, the whole of the relief given by the shilling fall in the standard rate. On slices of income above £2,500,3d. out of the 1s. is taken back; on slices above £5,000 a year, a further 3d., making 6d., is taken back; on slices above £6,000, a further 3d., making 9d.; and on slices above £12,000 the full 1s. is taken back. Be-

  1895
  tween £6,000 and £15,000 the increases are irregular, owing to the irregularity of the present scale
  There are some 125,000 Surtax payers, of whom nearly 100,000 have incomes of £5,000 a year or less. The remaining 25,000 have incomes of £5,000 a year or more. My proposal substantially affects only the bigger people, who are relatively few in number, and, it would not be denied, have an exceptional capacity to pay. This increase of the Surtax scale is linked with the reduction in the standard rate, and so will come into force in the charge for the year 1946–7. The Surtax is an instalment of the Income Tax collected in the year following the year for which it is charged. Surtax falling to be collected in 1946–7 will be the Surtax charged for 1945–6. The increased Surtax which I propose for 1946–7 will be collected in 1947–8. As regards the Surtax for 1945–6, for which the standard rate of Income Tax is still 10s., the existing scale of Surtax continues unincreased.
  The total effect of this series of changes in Income Tax and Surtax is shown in the tables in great detail in the Financial Statement. In these Tables the present rates of tax for a number of specimen incomes are compared with the rates proposed. It will be seen, from a study of the Tables of effective rates of tax, that my proposals operate to steepen the slope of graduation. The rates on the lower incomes are reduced more than those on the middle incomes, while rates on the highest incomes are reduced least of all. In other words my proposals make the tax more sharply progressive than before.

  EFFECT OF CHANGES ON REVENUE
  The effect on the revenue is as follows. The changes in the Income Tax, as distinct from the Surtax, will result in an annual loss of revenue of £322,000,000 gross, as against the annual avoidance of a future liability for new post-war credits amounting to £225,000,000 a year. Of this loss, the lifting of the personal allowances will be responsible for £160,000,000 a year gross. The standard rate reduction will be responsible for £120,000,000 a year gross, and the change in the graduation of the standard rate for £42,000,000 gross. If you subtract the avoidance of liability on account of the creation of new post-war credits amounting to £225,000,000, from the annual
  1896
  loss of revenue which I have indicated of £322,000,000, it leaves an effective loss of revenue of £97,000,000.
  But the new Surtax scale will bring in some £7,000,000 a year extra and, therefore, the effective loss on Income Tax and Surtax together is reduced to £90,000,000. These figures of loss and gain of revenue have been struck at present levels of income, but I hope the encouragement given by these general reliefs from tax will lead to intensified production—particularly by Surtax payers—and, therefore, to more abundant revenue. The changes in the Income Tax, both as regards allowances and standard rates will come into force for the year 1946/7 beginning 6th April next. The coding of all the taxpayers coming under P.A.Y.E. will be reviewed in the coming months so as to ensure that their P.A.Y.E. deductions next year will accord with the new allowances. Employers will have the new Tax Tables in good time before the first pay day of next year.

  APPOINTED DAY
  There is another Income Tax matter which I might conveniently mention here, as it is of special interest, I think, to industry. I propose that the "appointed day" for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1945, and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1944, shall be fixed at 6th April next. This is legislation introduced by my predecessor which provides for allowances for Income Tax purposes in respect of various kinds of capital expenditure by productive industry, including—most important—expenditure upon research, which we wish to encourage. We have not had enough of it and we want to have more. This scheme of allowances was agreed in the latter part of the last Parliament with a view to helping industrial re-equipment. I am sure there will be general agreement that this should be brought into operation without delay, and I have therefore fixed the appointed day for 6th April next.

  CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
  I have one final word on Income Tax. The reduction of the standard rate by 1s. benefits companies as well as individuals; but I hope that the resulting increase in the net profits of companies will be spent on new and up-to-date plant and will not go straight into the shareholders' pockets. We cannot afford that now. In the national interest, capital development

  1897
  must stand in front of high dividends, particularly in the critical next years when we have to convert and modernise at high speed so large a part of our industrial outfit, much of which is badly out-moded. Also, we must get cracking on exports without hesitation or delay. These provisions are designed to facilitate and accelerate that effort, and I hope full advantage will be taken of them by those who will be entitled to claim the allowances. I am sure that all the boldest and most far-sighted industrial leaders will entirely agree that this is an urgent matter, and that we shall have their full co-operation. I must, however, watch carefully how these first tax reliefs are used by those who receive them, in regard to dividend policy and so on; and I must be guided to some extent in my future consideration of further changes of taxation by the response of industry and of taxpayers generally to this first step down wards from the high levels of war time taxation.
  Wavell Wakefield: Can the Chancellor say anything about E.P.T.?

  EXCESS PROFITS TAX
  Mr. Dalton: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, that was my next topic. This tax, E.P.T., at the rate of 100 per cent., is the perfect tax for a short war, but as the war period lengthens, and still more as we enter upon the post-war period, it becomes less and less satisfactory in its general character and incidence. They rate of standard profit in relation to which the excess for taxation purposes is calculated is based on a certain year, and as the date of that standard profit recedes, the tax becomes less and less equitable as between different businesses, and in particular, falls with increasing and unjust severity, as the years go by, upon businesses with a low standard. Moreover, once the standard profit has been earned, this tax encourages extravagant and wasteful outlay, and even downright dishonesty, since if this expenditure were not incurred it would be the Treasury and not the owners of the business who would take the money. Under those conditions this tax works against incentive and against efficiency.
  These considerations apply particularly to E.P.T. at 100 per cent., but they apply in some marked degree to this type of tax
  1898
  even at lower rates; and I have carefully considered whether I could not now repeal the E.P.T. altogether and substitute for it a new tax on profits which would bring in substantially, it not precisely, equal revenue. I have considered in particular whether it would not be better to substitute for E.P.T. a flat-rate tax on all profits, irrespective of whether or not they were in excess of the profits of some standard year. Such a tax has considerable attractions at first sight, but is open to objections—some of them serious—one of which is that if such a tax were levied at a rate high enough to bring in nearly as much revenue as the E.P.T. for which it would be substituted, it would fall very heavily on businesses which are not now subject to E.P.T. at all but could not for that reason be exempted from the new substitute tax. I have therefore decided to retain E.P.T. for the present, but to reduce the rate as from the 1st January next to 60 per cent. The present rate is nominally 100 per cent., but is in reality 80 per cent., since a refund of 20 per cent. of all the tax paid has been provided for in previous Finance Acts. It is in fact a tax of 80 per cent. that we are dealing with, and I propose to reduce it to 60 per cent. I shall however continue to study the possibility between now and next April of alternatives to the Excess Profits Tax. Meanwhile, I am leaving the National Defence Contribution unchanged.
  The Committee will, I am sure, appreciate that E.P.T. is a deduction for Income Tax purposes and therefore—this is a very encouraging thought to any Chancellor of the Exchequer—against any loss of Revenue due to lowering the rate of E.P.T. there is a gain of roughly one-half of this amount under the head of Income Tax. For every £ of E.P.T. revenue relinquished by lowering the rate of tax,9s. will come back in increased Income Tax receipts, and a bit more in Surtax.
  It is nevertheless difficult to estimate with precision the cost to the Revenue of reducing the rate to 60 per cent. For the current year the 100 per cent. E.P.T. and the National Defence Contribution were estimated by my predecessor—and I judge the estimate to be fulfilling itself with considerable exactitude—to yield on war levels profits of £500,000,000, of which about £475,000,000 was E.P.T. and the

  1899
  rest National Defence Contribution. One-fifth of this £475,000,000 ranks for refund, so that the net yield, at war levels, of the 80 per cent, rate is about £380,000,000. That is at full war levels of profit in connection with war production. The change-over to peace-time conditions, which is now being accomplished, will mean a loss of Revenue from E.P.T. in any case, because the large war contracts, which have been one of the chief sources of excess profits hitherto, are, of course, tailing off, while expenditure on reconversion falls, under the present law, to be deducted in the calculation of excess profits. The best estimate I can make, with the aid of my advisers, is that the continuance of the 80 per cent. rate of E.P.T. would produce about £250,000,000. On that basis, the reduction of the rate to 60per cent., taken by itself, costs something of the order of £60,000,000, and since about half of this reappears in Income Tax under the fortunate arrangement I have already referred to, the net cost to the Exchequer is of the order of £30,000,000 a year. The reduction in the rate that I propose will not materially affect E.P.T. yield in the coming year, since the tax charged for any year is not assessed and collected until the following year. Therefore, the yield of E.P.T. during 1946–1947 will largely consist of tax chargeable at the war rate for the present year, and not at the 60 per cent. rate chargeable for next year. We shall therefore have no immediate sharp fall in receipts from this tax.

  REFUNDS
  The reduction of the rate to 60 per cent., as from 1st January next, enables me to set in motion the repayment of the 20 per cent. refund under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1941. I intend to speed up this repayment as much as I can. The total amount of these refunds, due for the life-time of the 100 per cent. rate, is about £450,000,000. But these refunds also, being repayments of E.P.T., are liable to Income Tax, so that the net refund from the Exchequer will not be much more than half this sum.
  It is provided under the relevant Sections of the Finance Acts, 1941 and 1942, that these refunds are to be paid at such date as Parliament may determine, and subject to such conditions as Parliament may fix. Arrangements will be necessary
  1900
  to ensure that they are used for the purposes for which they were intended, namely for the development and re-equipment of industry and are not—and here I quote the words of a Section of an Act of Parliament passed under the Coalition Government:
  "distributed for the benefit of shareholders, whether by the payment of dividends, by the issue of bonus shares or debentures, or by any other means whatsoever."
  That was the language of the Coalition Government in war-time. We accept it now, and we are going to give it back to them. The machinery to police this arrangement may not be altogether simple, but it is being worked out; and I propose that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be empowered to make interim payments, pending a final settlement of E.P.T. liabilities. The Finance Bill will contain conditions which will govern the payment to ensure that the money is not misused. It must be ploughed back into the business and not scattered to the winds of heaven. These refunds will provide a net sum of about £250,000,000, which should be spent over the next few years in re-equipping British industry and in installing new machines for old—in many industries a necessary and long overdue process.

  DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
  I now turn to the so-called "deficiency payments" under the present law. The law provides that any concern which has paid any Excess Profits Tax in any year is entitled to reclaim this from the Treasury, in whole or in part, if in any subsequent year its profits fall below the standard, thus showing a deficiency. A similar provision operating in the years after the last war greatly reduced the net yield of the Excess Profits Duty of that time, and, indeed, in some years more than offset the yield of the Duty to the Treasury. The Excess Profits Duty, in certain years after the last war, showed a minus yield to the Treasury; the deficiency payments more than ate up the payments due under the assessment. This is not a procedure which should be repeated. It might even pay a concern deliberately to sell at a loss in order to be able to undercut its competitors by attracting a deficiency payment, under this provision of the law, from public funds. I, therefore, propose to set a term to these deficiency payments and to provide that

  1901
  nothing more shall be payable under this head in respect of any accounting period after 31st December, 1946.

  PURCHASE TAX
  The Committee will have observed that all the principal taxation changes which I have mentioned so far will not come into force until next year. But there is one relief which I propose should take effect forthwith, and this lies in the field of the Purchase Tax. I propose to abolish the Purchase Tax completely over a certain range of articles of special importance in connection with the housing programme. I propose to free from the tax a list of articles—it is not a long list in the aggregate—which perhaps I might read to the Committee: coal and coke stoves, grates and fireplaces; gas and electric tires; radiators and convectors; oil heaters; coal and coke ranges; gas, electric and oil stoves; boiling rings, grillers and hot plates; independent domestic boilers; geysers, immersion heaters and similar water heaters; wash boilers and coppers, and finally, for summer time, refrigerators. All these articles are now taxed at 33⅓ per cent, of their wholesale value. [Interruption.] Did some hon. Member mention furniture? I must carry my hon. Friend's memory back to the brave days of the Coalition Government, when I was President of the Board of Trade and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (J. Anderson) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we arranged between us to clear utility furniture from the Purchase Tax altogether. No other furniture may legally be made even now. Therefore, there is no need for me to intervene on furniture in this connection. [An Hon. Member: "There is no furniture."] There is just a little. In regard to the list of articles which I enumerated, I shall propose a Resolution to enable the new exemption to come into operation, as regards goods delivered by registered traders, from to-morrow. I estimate that this abatement of the Purchase Tax will entail a loss of about £1,000,000 in the current financial year and £10,000,000 in 1946–47. All these articles are price controlled goods under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts and the remission of tax will, therefore, be passed on to the purchaser, with legal sanction behind it.

  TAX REMISSION: INFLATION DANGER
  I fear I have addressed the Committee at great length, and I must apologise for taking so large an amount of time. But I would like to make one or two general observations in conclusion. I have gone slow, deliberately and of set purpose. I have gone slow in tax remissions for the moment, quite deliberately, because there is an inflationary risk in any reduction of taxation, either now or in the near future. Every reduction of taxation sets free purchasing power to run about the world and chase scarce goods. It is a danger. That is why, except for these concessions of Purchase Tax, I have postponed the operation of all my principal tax remissions until the beginning of next year. Next April we shall all see the picture much more clearly than any of us can see it now, including the best crystal gazers of to-day. We shall be able to see it with the naked eye next April. We shall then be able to see the progress that has been made with reconversion and shall be able to judge the prospects of trade and production, revenue and expenditure. I may then be able, next April, to make some further proposals to the Committee regarding changes, of one sort or another, in taxation.
  Meanwhile, I have selected for announcement now such tax remissions, to operate next year, as will, in my judgment, give the greatest incentive to the greatest number. That has been my purpose. If I have judged rightly in this, the inflationary risk involved in these tax remissions is at its lowest, and it is worth taking for the sake of giving increased stimulus to economic activity generally. Intensified production and a greater abundance of goods is our best counter to inflation. It is also essential, as I have already urged, that all expenditure which has no national or social justification should be stubbornly forced down; and also that saving out of income by all sections of our people should flow on in full tide of unabated endeavour. This is an interim Budget, framed within three months of this Government's taking office. It is the first of a series which, I hope, will clearly exhibit an ever-developing and expanding plan, for a fuller national life, as we move forward together, Session by Session, through what I hope and believe will be an historic Parliament.
  The Chairman: The Committee will recollect that on previous occasions it has been the practice for the Chairman to read the Budget Resolutions in full. That has been rather a lengthy process. On this occasion, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enough to agree to my request that copies of these Resolutions might be available in the Vote Office, and hon. Members can now obtain them there. This will enable me, with the permission of the Committee, to take the Resolutions quite shortly. I hope this course will meet with the approval of the Committee and be of general convenience.

  1. SPIRITS (EXCISE).
  Resolved:
  "That no allowance shall be paid—

  (a) under Section three of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, in respect of plain British spirits exported from or used in, or spirits in the nature of spirits of wine exported from or used or deposited in, a customs or excise warehouse; or

  (b) under Section six of the Finance Act, 1.895, in respect of spirits used for methylation which are removed from a place of methylation and exported; or

  (c) under Section one of the Revenue Act, 1906, in respect of spirits (including methylic alcohol) used by an authorised methylator or received by any person for use in any art or manufacture under Section eight of the Finance Act, 1902; or

  (d) under Section three of the Revenue Act, 1906, in respect of spirits of wine exported direct from the premises of a person licensed to rectify or compound spirits;

  and Sub-section (5) of Section forty-six of the Spirits Act, 1880 (which provides for an allowance for wastage of spirits in a distiller's spirit store) shall cease to have effect, and provision shall be made by regulations of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in lieu of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section sixty-six of the Spirits Act, 1880 (which relates to deficiencies occurring in warehouse)."
  2. MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES (CHARGE OF EXCISE DUTY BY REFERENCE TO CYLINDER CAPACITY INSTEAD OF HORSE-POWER).
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (a) the duty of excise in respect of a mechanically propelled vehicle, being a vehicle which derives its motive power wholly from an internal combustion engine worked by a cylinder or cylinders and which is chargeable with such duty under paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, by reference to its horse-power, shall, in the case of such a vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920, for the first time on or after such date as
  1904
  may be fixed by order of the Treasury, be charged by reference to the cylinder capacity of the vehicle, calculated in accordance with regulations made by the Minister of War Transport, instead of by reference to its horse-power;

  (b) for the purposes of this Resolution a unit of cylinder capacity shall be one hundred cubic centimetres;

  (c) the duty to be charged in respect of such a vehicle so registered shall be charged at a rate for each unit or part of a unit of cylinder capacity equal to four-fifths of the rate fixed by the said paragraph 6 for each unit or part of a unit of horse-power, so however that, in a case in which duty so charged would be less than duty charged at the rate fixed by the said paragraph 6 for a vehicle not exceeding six horse-power, the rate of the duty in respect of the vehicle shall be the last-mentioned rate;

  (d) it is expedient to extend references to horse-power in the Finance Act, 1920, and other enactments so as to include references to cylinder capacity."

  3. PURCHASE TAX
  Resolved:
  "That, as from the twenty-fourth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-five, purchase tax shall cease to be chargeable in respect of goods of the classes specified in the Table set out at the end of this Resolution, subject to any subsequent order under Section twenty of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940.

  TABLE
  1. Domestic cooking, space heating and water heating appliances of the following descriptions, namely:—

  stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces;

  boiling rings, grillers and hot-plates;

  radiators and con vectors;

  instantaneous water heaters, immersion water heaters and storage water heaters; wash boilers and wash coppers.

  2. Parts of such stoves, grates, ranges and fireplaces as aforesaid.
  3. Domestic refrigerators."

  4. HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1945–46.
  Resolved:
  "That income tax for the year 1945–46 shall be charged at rates exceeding the standard rate in the case of individuals whose total incomes exceed two thousand pounds, and those rates shall be rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate for that year by the amounts specified in the second column of the table in Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940."

  5. TAX FREE PAYMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That Section twenty-five of the Finance Act, 1941 (which contains provisions as to certain tax-free annuities, etc., applicable only when the standard rate is ten shillings in the

  1905
  pound) shall be applied, with modifications, to all years for which the standard rate of income tax exceeds five shillings and sixpence in the pound."

  6. APPOINTED DAY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
  Resolved:
  "That the appointed day for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1945, and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1944, shall be the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six."

  7. INCOME TAX ON EXCESS PROFITS TAX REFUNDS
  Resolved:
  "That income tax for the year 1946–47 shall be charged on the full amount of all sums repaid, at whatever date, under Section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1941 (which provides for the repayment after the war of certain excess profits tax), and those sums shall be treated as income for all the purposes of the Income Tax Acts."

  8. CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH REDUNDANCY SCHEMES
  Resolved:
  "That, subject to the provisions of any Act of the present Session making further provision in connection with finance—

  (a) sums received under schemes certified by the Board of Trade under Section twenty- five of the Finance Act, 1935, or under schemes for the elimination or reduction of redundant works, machinery or plant, or for other similar purposes, to which effect is given by or under any Act (whether passed before or after the passing of this Resolution) shall be treated for the purposes of income tax as if they were trading receipts;

  (b) where any sums so received are not so treated, contributions paid under the scheme shall, to a corresponding extent, not be allowed to be deducted in computing profits;

  (c) where a contribution paid under any such scheme as aforesaid is allowed to be deducted in computing profits and the whole or part thereof is subsequently repaid, the deduction of the contributionor of so much thereof as is repaid shall be deemed to be an unauthorised deduction; and

  (d) where a certificate granted with respect to a scheme under the said Section is cancelled or a scheme to which effect is given as aforesaid comes to an end, any funds held for the purposes of the scheme shall be chargeable to income tax."

  9. RELIEF FROM DOUBLE TAXATION
  Resolved:
  "That—

  (a) where any agreement has been made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of any other territory which makes provision for granting relief in cases where the same income is chargeable to United Kingdom
  1906
  income tax and to the income tax payable under the laws of that territory, charges to tax may be made to give effect to any provision included in the agreement or otherwise in connection with the agreement, and, where the agreement is between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of a territory which is a Dominion as defined by section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1920, that section shall cease to have effect in relation to income tax of that Dominion except so far as the agreement otherwise provides;

  (b) in all cases to which the said section twenty-seven applies, the tax deductible from dividends under Rule20 of the General Rules shall be tax at the full standard rate, and any relief given under the said section twenty-seven in respect of any profits or gains represented by the dividends shall be taken into account in determining what repayments of tax are to be made to, or charges to tax made on, the persons entitled to the dividends."

  10. EXCEPTIONAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES.
  Resolved:
  "That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to exceptional depreciation allowances, as respects all years of assessment affected by those provisions."

  11. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR MAKING ASSESSMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES.
  Resolved:
  "That assessments to income tax may be made at any time, if required in consequence of—

  (a) any alteration of the amount which falls to be taken into account in respect of excess profits tax or the national defence contribution in computing the liability of any person to income tax; or

  (b) any determination as to whether any allowance is receivable by any person in respect of exceptional depreciation of buildings, machinery or plant, or as to the amount of any such allowance."

  12. ESTATE DUTY (AGREEMENTS FOR RELIEF FROM DOUBLE DUTY)
  Resolved:
  "That where any agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of any other territory makes provision for granting relief from double taxation in relation to estate duty payable under the laws of the United Kingdom and any duty of a similar character payable under the laws of that territory—

  (a) effect shall be given to any provision included in the agreement relating to the place where any property is to be treated as bring situated for estate duty purposes; and

  1907

  (b) the relief to be given under the agreement shall be in lieu of any relief under subsection (4) of section seven of the Finance Act, 1894, or under section twenty of that Act, as extended by or under any other enactment."

  13. EXCESS PROFITS TAX
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the extent and incidence of excess profits tax (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments of the law relating—

  (a) to the computation of profits;

  (b) to the time within which assessments to excess profits tax may be made;

  (c) to relief from double taxation;

  (d) to relief in respect of deficiencies of profits; and

  (e) to repayments of tax under section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1941."—[Mr. Dalton]

  Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. We have not got the Paper and do not quite follow what is going on. If we could have the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing is going through that is not formal, and that if, by any chance, anything got through it would be put right, we would be content that this process should continue
  The Chairman: Perhaps I might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the only difference between this procedure and the procedure on former occasions is that I am not reading the Resolutions in full. They are purely formal, and as usual I propose to leave open the last Resolution, on which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to speak.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  14. NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION
  Resolved:
  "That the extent and incidence of the national defence contribution (for past and future chargeable accounting periods) shall be varied so as to give effect to amendments of the law relating—

  (a) to the computation of profits;

  (b) to the time within which assessments to the national defence contribution may be made; and

  (c) to relief from double taxation."

  15. AMENDMENT OF LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."—[Mr. Dalton.]
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: I do not intend this afternoon to do much more than offer my compliments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his bland, mild and temperate survey of the dark, tumultuous, tortured financial scene. His statement was upon the level to which we have been accustomed on Budget occasions, and those of his predecessors who are here specially join in offering him congratulations on the manner in which he has acquitted himself on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman gave a great deal of innocent pleasure on all sides of the Committee by his description of the ingenious series of nets and barbed wire entanglements on which every farthing of profit was caught before it reached the pockets of the Income Tax payers and after that almost every farthing of income was caught by subsequent processes. This gave rise to a great deal of harmless joy, but whether, in the long run, the process will be one wholly giving rise to hilarity can only be seen as our economic and financial future unfolds. I was much interested in the juggle between the remission of the shilling standard rate, the regrading of the application of that rate to Income Tax and the additional burden thrown on the Surtax. It seems on the whole that not very much has happened as far as the medium and higher rates are concerned. There is a total remission of £97,000,000 and £7,000,000 are recovered on the Surtax, making a net total, as I make it, of £90,000,000.
  Mr. Dalton: Quite right.
  Mr. Churchill: I will speak in a moment about the increases on the personal allowances, but, as far as all this business of the Surtax and the higher rates of Income Tax is concerned, hon. Gentlemen opposite must not be drawn into exaggerated hopes. They are no longer, as we stood in the days of the Lloyd George Budget, at the first frontier of a large and fertile territory. The entire area has been swept through, harvested and gleaned, and gleaned again and again, and we stand on the far side of what is now a thoroughly scrubbed field. It is an astonishing fact—which my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor has mentioned to me—that, if you took all the incomes in this country above £2,000, every penny of it, if you took the whole of that into

  1909
  the Exchequer, keeping the existing rates of Income Tax and Surtax going, the profit to the Exchequer would be £60,000,000, and that figure of £60,000,000 has to be considered in relation—that is a remarkable statement—to a Budget which has at present to be balanced in March next in the neighbourhood of £5,400,000,000. It has to be balanced at that rate. It must also be judged in relation to schemes of social betterment and reform which run into not £60,000,000 or £600,000,000, but, in many cases, into thousands of millions of expenditure in the long run. Therefore, the great glee which is manifested is rather of a shallow nature and those who feel it running through their veins should prepare themselves for the fact that that is probably the only satisfaction which they will get out of the business.
  I must say that I am very glad that the personal allowances have been restored. During my tenure of the Exchequer, which lasted for five Budgets, there was, I think, not one in which I did not improve the position of the small Income Tax payer, by marriage allowances, by children's allowances, increase of personal allowances, and further differentiation in favour of earned as against unearned income and so forth. All those slowly built-up efforts were swept away in the great tide of the war, but it is very right that as the tides of war recede, these should be the first rocks to be uncovered. It is a very satisfactory way of spending £160,000,000, which I gather is to be the cost.
  Mr. Dalton: That is the gross cost, without deducting anything for post-war credits.
  Mr. Churchill: Exactly—£160,000,000 gross, roped in with the other items, making a net sacrifice by the Exchequer of £90,000,000. It would be a very great omission on my part if I did not take this opportunity to return most humble, dutiful and grateful thanks for the announcement which has been made that compulsory insurance premiums against further damage by enemy bombs, are not going to be collected. It gives one confidence to feel that one lives in a land where there is so much broadminded tolerance shown by the executive Government. But I thought it was rather hot when my right hon. Friend came along
  1910
  for the last instalment after the danger against which we insured had, by the success of our arms, been swept away. It certainly does fall to the right hon. Gentleman to signalise this occasion by a memorable act of grace and generosity.
  I must, however, strike a note of deep anxiety at the continuance of war expenditure, although for the greater part of the financial year the war will no longer be going forward. The Chancellor talked of a difference of perhaps £20,000,000in the balance of my right hon. Friend's Budget which will eventually be made known at the end of the financial year—£20,000,000 of an expenditure of £5,400,000,000 or something like that. That is negligible. Therefore, although by March, ten months will have passed since the Germans gave in, and six or seven months since the Japanese gave in, our war expenditure, half raised by taxes and half by borrowings, will be continuing and will be found to continue at this full, hideous, destructive rate. I consider that that is a frightful fact and, indeed, every effort should be made to improve upon that position, if possible. There is still time, four or five months before the end of the financial year, and great efforts should be made to do so.
  I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of this, dwelt unduly, as I thought, upon the great increase of the expenditure he would have to meet if more men were discharged from the Forces. The terminal charges of their service fall to be met when they come in, but it would be a most shortsighted view to look upon the financial position from a single year. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about there being nothing secret or even sublime in its taking 365 days for the earth to travel round the sun. It might so easily have been a different figure. But do not let us escape—this is the last point I wish to make in these very personal observations—for one moment from the conclusion that, the sooner we get our men to work at fruitful labour, the sooner we get our industries humming, the sooner we shall be a live community again, and the sooner those consumer goods will be produced which are the sole unconquerable bulwark against inflation. There are different kinds of inflation. There is the inflation when a Government sets to work and debases the currency,

  1911
  there is inflation when there are far more demands for goods than there are goods to supply, and also when a Government has to come and borrow thousands of millions. All these are different forms of inflation, and for all there is one remedy—a greater increase of production, a greater increase of consumer goods which the great masses of the people need as they have never, in modern times in any community after a victorious war, needed so much before.
  I have made these few comments and my right hon. Friend and I will consider carefully the line which we shall adopt, but, broadly speaking, we must regard this as an interim Budget which will do no harm, if it does not do any good. I hope that the phrase uttered by the right hon. Gentleman, that the larger remissions of taxation will be considered in the Budget of 1946, will be a substantive matter of great importance. If you continue at this rate of war expenditure in time of peace, and if you keep the taxation appropriate to meeting that rate of expenditure, and if you are also committed to the vast borrowings which are necessary while the expenditure is at that rate, the whole of these, taken together, will exercise a paralysing effect upon recovery and will sap the vital energies of this country during critical months, when much in the world may be won or lost. For the rest, I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is a satisfaction once in a while for us to hear a great topic ranged over in a satisfactory and adequate manner.
  Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Simmons.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ACQUISITION OF LANE (OWNER-OCCUPIER) REGULATIONS
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
  "That the Acquisition of Land (Owner-occupier) Regulations, 1945 (S.R. &O., 1945, No. 759). dated 18th June, 1945, made under Section 58 (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, a copy of which Regulations was presented on 15th August, be annulled."
  1912
  I would first remind hon. Members that these Statutory Rules and Orders should be inspected by each individual hon. Member, because if they pass through this House they have the force of an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it is the duty of each one of us to go through these Orders, to read them, to see what provisions they contain and to understand them. During the last Parliament, the Government agreed to provide explanatory memoranda for those Orders which were particularly unintelligible to the lay mind. This Order, No. 759, has no explanatory memorandum, and, if hon. Members have not read the Order, I would recommend them to do so, in order to see whether they can understand it. I have gone into it fairly closely but even the Preamble is, to my mind, unintelligible. The Preamble takes the whole of the first page and about a quarter of the second, and, if I may say so, the draftsman on this occasion has had a most unenviable task. He did his best and I take off my hat to him, but he is a skilled draftsman and I am not, and I cannot, for the life of me, understand all that is in the Order. The Preamble does not say what the Order is about or what the Order is going to do and yet the Government are asking for arbitrary powers to make this Order have the same force as an Act of Parliament.
  To begin with, in this Order, which has four pages, of which two pages are Order and two pages are Schedule, four separate Acts of Parliament are referred to—the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of which the Order refers to Section 58 (5), the whole of Part II, Section 58 (6), and Section 52 (3); the Law of Property Act, 1925, Section 205 (1); the Settled Land Act, 1925, Section 117 (1); and the Interpretation Act, 1889. Hon. Members of this House have not the time to go into the Library and look up all these Acts of Parliament. I suggest that the Attorney-General has a very great advantage over us. He is a legal luminary, and many of us are not. Why not, when an Order of this kind, full of technicalities, comes before us, print in italics the various Sections and Subsections of the Acts which are referred to? Then we shall be able to see how these various Sections and Sub-sections are related to the Order we have to consider. In other words, why should not

  1913
  the Government make it intelligible in order to prevent delay. We are asked by the Government, or rather a Select Committee of this House has been asked, to consider ways and means whereby the time of the House may be saved and the Debates in the House cut short, but how can we allow Debates to be cut short, if we have Orders presented to us like this, which we cannot understand? If the Government will make these Orders understandable, I suggest that the Debates, on the whole, will be very much shorter.
  The definitions in the Order refer to-various Acts of Parliament. For example, the expressions "settled land" and "settlement" are to have the meaning given by Section 113 (1) of the Settled Land Act, 1925. Why not say what "settled land" and "settlement" mean in the Order? Why should Members of Parliament have to hunt up the Settled Land Act, 1925, to find out what "settled land" and "settlement" mean? I feel that we have got to have some explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman before we allow this to go forward.
  Then, again, in the Budget statement, where there are technical points which the layman cannot always understand, there are examples. Why not give an example in this Order to show how it affects the small owner of a cottage in the country with a small parcel of land around it on which he plants potatoes? I do not know whether this Order affects the owner-occupier of a cottage in the country with a small plot of land around it. He may come to me, or to any other hon. Member and say, "In view of this Order, is it safe for me to continue to plant potatoes?", and, without a great deal of study, I could not tell him whether to continue to plant potatoes or not. I do not know whether the Order affects him or not. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but I am looking forward with great relish to hearing the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what exactly this Order does mean.
  In conclusion, I ask again why there is no explanatory memorandum, why the Preamble was not put in such a way that we can understand what the Order means and what the Government wants to do. I ask again, as we have asked before that, where Sections of Acts of Parliament are
  1914
  referred to, a very brief part of the Act should be printed in italics, to show how it affects the Order. This, I believe, will save time and Debates in the House, and we should then be able to get the vast volume of legislation before us passed in a quicker and more satisfactory way.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to second the Motion.
  I should like to add my plea to that made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), and to say that a number of us on this side of the House have read this Statutory Rule and Order very carefully, but, despite the application of our best intelligence, we are at a loss to understand what it means. We welcome the opportunity of hearing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in clear and concise terms, precisely how it is altering the acquisition of land in England. We are promised by the Government a spate of legislation, and a great many Statutory Rules and Orders, and it is highly desirable, therefore, that, at the start of their period of office, however brief that may be, they should be reminded of the need to explain carefully and precisely to the House what they are going to do with this particular Order. I should like a definite assurance to-day that, to all future Orders there will be attached, as was promised in the last Parliament, an explanatory note setting out, in language which a layman can understand, what the Order is designed to do.
  5.25 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I apologise to the House for speaking immediately after my hon. Friend on the bench beside me, but, by arrangement with him, I want to amplify a point which he made. I know nothing about this Order, and I never saw it until it was actually read out by my hon. Friend. I am not interested in that particular question, but, so far as I can see, my hon. Friend is entirely justified in the statements he has made. But a very important question of procedure arises. As the Attorney-General will be aware, there was, in the last House of Commons, and by no means confined to one party so far as I can recollect, considerable agitation on a question which affected hon. Members in all parts of the House, namely, the subject of Orders in Council.

  1915
  At the risk of appearing to put myself in the role of a pedagogue, may I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of hon. Members here, that the agitation was not because any party or sectional interests were affected. Many hon. Members had not the slightest idea of what the Order in Council meant, and I think that, through the present Prime Minister, who was then the Deputy-Leader of the House, it was agreed that there should be consideration of the matter, and, eventually, an announcement was made by the Government which was received most favourably in all quarters of the House. That announcement was that, in future, all Orders in Council would be accompanied by an explanatory note of a straightforward and simple character, which would make the position quite clear to those who had no technical knowledge of the subject under discussion—and we cannot all have technical knowledge on every matter. For some reason, for which perhaps the Opposition generally are to blame, there was no question put to the Government on whether or not they intended to continue this system, which was unanimously accepted by the former House of Commons. I very much hope that they are going to continue it. It would not be a breach of undertaking, because the promise was given by a previous Government, but it would be a calamity and a retrogressive thing if we went back to the old system whereby there was no explanation of these Orders.
  I think anyone who looks at this Order will say that what my hon. Friends have said is amply justified, and that it is impossible for any layman to understand what it means. I very much hope that the Attorney-General will meet what I believe is the unanimous wish of the House, and give us an assurance that the arrangement reached in the other Parliament will be adhered to.
  5.29 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I only wish that there had been an explanatory memorandum attached to these Regulations. I confess that it would have saved me from burning a certain amount of midnight oil last night. Let me say that I am not at all surprised to see that a Prayer has been put down to annul these Regulations, because, at first sight, they do appear to be
  1916
  extremely complicated and difficult to understand. I am afraid that that is inevitable, because of the subject matter which is dealt with. Both the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, to which the Regulations refer, and the interests in land, to which these Regulations apply, are complicated matters, and when you have to provide in a written instrument for complicated sets of facts, and you have to apply them in relation to complicated rules of law, it is exceedingly difficult to produce a document which has the appearance of utter simplicity.
  Indeed, that appears to have been the view taken by the House itself in regard to the matter because, when it dealt with the provisions that are now embodied in Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act, it expressly left this matter, which was one of especial complication, to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. Apparently, the House then realised that the enactment of rules in regard to matters with which these Regulations deal, was a matter far too detailed for inquiry before the House, and they thought it better to leave it to the Lord Chancellor and the lawyers to deal with. This is their child; a child, I might say, born after a very lengthy gestatory period, during which advantage was taken of consultation with every conceivable Department and authority which might be interested in the matter and might have been thought able to assist in a satisfactory accouchement. I say that it is their child. I might perhaps be permitted to add that it is the child of the late—I will not say the lamented, but the late—Government. However, in spite of the vices of its parentage, we have taken it over. Indeed, its custody was transferred to us, and we hope to make something of it because we think these Regulations, in fact, embody useful rules. That was apparently the view of the scrutinising committee, which, of course, has had to take them into consideration.
  I will endeavour as clearly as I can to indicate the effect that these Regulations have, and explain to the House what they do. First, perhaps, I might indicate what they do not do. They do not in any way affect the destination of compensation payable under the Town and Country Planning Act; they do not deal with that matter at all; they deal merely with questions of machinery. The title to the

  1917
  compensation has to be established in the ordinary course under the Act, and upon that matter these Regulations have no kind of bearing. However, as hon. Members know, under the Town and Country Planning Act the person who establishes a right to compensation may also be entitled to additional compensation, if he shows that he is the owner-occupier for the purposes of the Act. In those circumstances he gets, I think, an owner-occupier supplement, as it is called, of one-third. At first blush that seems simple enough, but Parliament apparently thought that the lawyers might find some difficulty about it. Who, for instance, was to be deemed to be the owner-occupier in the case where premises had been destroyed or damaged by enemy action so as to be unfit for occupation? Who was to be deemed the occupier for the purposes of this additional supplement in the case where land was vacant at the time and not occupied at all? Who was to be deemed the occupier in the case where, prior to compulsory acquisition the land had been held, perhaps for some period of years, under requisition by the Government? Were circumstances of that kind to prevent the owner from claiming the benefit of the additional owner-occupier supplement?
  Those problems and those cases were, in themselves, fairly straightforward and in regard to those three, and one other case, Parliament made express provision in Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act. But then there arose the difficulty: suppose that the land concerned—the house which has been damaged by enemy action, the land which has been held under requisition, the land which is vacant at the time—is not owned by somebody who possesses the full rights to beneficial ownership in himself, but is vested in trustees who have the legal ownership, but who hold the land for the benefit of those entitled under the trust? What was to be done if that additional complication arose? Who was to be deemed to be in occupation of the house immediately before the damage by enemy action occurred? Was it the trustees? The trustees would presumably be a bank, who were not likely to have been in occupation in fact, and whose occupation, if one insisted on it, would really defeat the purpose of this Act of giving the additional supplement to the person entitled to the beneficial
  1918
  ownership. Similarly in the case of the vacant land. Dealing with the ordinary straightforward case of ownership, the House provided in Section 58 of the Act that although land was vacant at the time of compulsory acquisition, if there was a person who both had the right to enter and the intention of entering into occupation within a given period of years, that person should be deemed, for the purposes of the supplemental compensation, to be regarded as the owner-occupier. What was to happen in that case if the land was vested in trustees? The ownership was there, they would have the right to occupy, but was it to be insisted that they were to be the people who also were to have the intention of going into occupation within the fixed period?
  Obviously again, if that had been insisted upon, it would have defeated some of the claims which might properly have been made on merit to the owner-occupier supplement, and that being so, it was felt necessary by the House at that time to leave to the Lord Chancellor and the lawyers the very difficult task of providing how these complicated cases should be dealt with under the Act. What was done after a great deal of thought and inquiry by these Regulations was, first, to divide into four categories the different types of trust interest which might arise in land. I agree at once that when the type of interest is described—as it is in the first column of these Regulations as "settled land" or "ecclesiastical property" and so on—no elaborate definition is entered into, but I am bound to say, that I think it would be very difficult and, indeed, quite inappropriate to attempt, by definition, in Regulations of this kind to restrict the meaning understood in the courts of settled land or ecclesiastical property. The intention of these Regulations was not to restrict the right to the owner-occupier supplement but to extend it as far as it properly could be extended, within the intentions of Parliament as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act.
  Having, as I say, indicated in the first column of the Regulations the four categories into which trust interests in land were to be divided, they then provided in the second, third, and fourth columns of the Regulations for the different

  1919
  classes of persons whose occupancy, or whose intention to occupy, was to be sufficient to constitute owner-occupancy for the purposes of the additional compensation supplement. Perhaps I might refer to column 2 to take one example—paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—
  "Persons by whom occupation must be had or has been had."
  Paragraph (b) refers back to the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act and is the case where property has been damaged by enemy action so as to be unfit for occupation and was in that condition when it was compulsorily acquired. In the case of the ordinary owner, who is occupying for his own benefit, it is enough if he can show that he was in occupation up to the time of such damage and that thereafter the premises had been occupied until they were compulsorily acquired. This paragraph of these Regulations provides that if any beneficiary under the settlement, or any person occupying the land for the purposes of the trust or the purposes of the settlement, was inoccupation at the time of the damage, that will be enough to enable the person entitled to compensation—whoever that person may be—under the original provisions of the Act to claim the owner-occupancy supplement.
  Earl Winterton: May I ask the learned Attorney-General a question on that? That in no way affects the rights of a person under the War Damage Act who is a settled landowner to obtain compensation under value payments when those value payments are made, does it?
  The Attorney-General: In no way, as I understand it, does that affect the destination of compensation, either under this Act or under any other Act; it merely defines the circumstances in which an entitlement to the owner-occupancy compensation shall arise in these cases which are not normal cases of ownership but cases where land is vested in trustees—in fact, held for the benefit of other people.
  In some respects, when one looks at paragraphs 3 and 4, and the lists of persons set out there, each paragraph dealing with an alternative set of circumstances may appear to be a little artificial. In a sense they are intentionally so,
  1920
  because the object was to spread the right as widely as possible and not in any way to restrict it; to spread it so as to cover all possible contingencies in regard to the occupation of land held on various kinds of trusts. There is nothing restrictive in the Regulations, nothing restrictive of the right to owner-occupancy treatment. On the contrary, the right is extended as far as it properly could be. As I say, very great care was taken by those responsible for this matter in drafting these Regulations. All the interested Departments—the Charity Commissioners, the Public Trustee, high legal and judicial authorities—were consulted in regard to the matter and I hope that, after hearing my explanation on the purpose of the Regulations, the Prayer may be withdrawn.
  In regard to the other matter which was raised, the question of an explanatory memorandum, I am told—and I do not speak on this matter within my own knowledge—that the undertaking which was given applied only to Defence Regulations and to Regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act, but, as I indicated at the commencement of the remarks I have just made to the House, I myself see great advantages in providing an explanatory memorandum where that can conveniently be done, and without committing ourselves in any way, I will certainly look into the matter, see what the scope of the original undertaking was, and at any rate ensure that that undertaking, to the extent that it was given, shall be implemented.
  Earl Winterton: I think we are all very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. May I, with respect, suggest a procedure there? Possibly he would convey the suggestion to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It might be desirable to have discussions behind the Chair, as they are called, on the whole matter with a view, eventually, possibly, to an announcement being made as the result of a friendly Question. We on this side of the House attach considerable importance to this matter, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that many hon. Members on the other side of the House do so too.
  The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged. I will certainly see that that is done, and, as I said, for my own part I have great sympathy with the suggestion However, these Regulations were

  1921
  published not by the present but by the last Government, so any departure from the undertaking is not a matter for which we can accept responsibility.
  5.44 P.m.
  Alan Herbert: I am extremely grateful to the learned Attorney-General for his explanation, and I think I now understand what the Regulations are about. May I add one point, which I gather has already been made? People who are interested in these Orders should be able to know, without all the business of a Prayer, what they are all about. The purpose of a Preamble is to explain what is being done, and when a clear explanation is given, suspicion is removed. The only other thing I would like to suggest to the Attorney-General is what I have suggested in this House before—whether a section could not be printed at the end to show what it will read like, and what it will mean when it is amended. I am sure that it would be practicable in some cases. It may be that in this case it would be too complicated, but there will be many more things like this to come and if that was done it would be of assistance to Members and to people outside.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I would like to thank the Attorney-General for his lucid explanation, and to make it quite clear that we should have tabled this Prayer whether the Coalition Government had been still in office or not. In the last Parliament we tabled Prayers against a number of Orders and we shall continue to do so, if no reasonable explanatory memoranda are provided. In asking leave to withdraw the Motion, I would urge that examples be given in the Regulations in the same way as they are given in the Budget statement so that the ordinary individual can see how they will apply to him. By that means we should save considerable time.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  DIRECTED MINEWORKERS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
  5.47 P.m.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling (Brighton): I rise to bring before the House the ques-
  1922
  tion of the demobilisation of what are commonly called "Bevin boys." In effect, that means conscripts for the mines, and also a considerable number of optants. I had hoped that the Minister of Labour would have been able to be present to-night but I understand that he has gone abroad, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, will put before him the points I wish to raise. I am not trying to raise them in any political sense but merely for this reason, that I understand, and have understood for some time, that the Ministry of Labour have in mind making a definite statement about the position of these boys. Nothing, however, has been done yet and these boys remain where they are, not knowing what is to happen to them. They are not only constituents of mine, but also constituents of almost every Member. There are well over 20,000 actual conscripts, and nearly 30,000 optants, making a total not far short of 50,000 young men from the ages of 18 up to 22, and up to about 30 in the case of optants.
  These people, who have been brought from every part of the country, have no mining background. They come from every class of the community, and although they may be 100 per cent. fit physically many of them are entirely un suitable for life in the mines. It seems a great pity that the name of the former Minister of Labour should stick to these boys. I believe that unless we pay more attention to their position and unless we realise that the attempt to see whether we could do something to get more people into the mines has on the whole turned out to be a failure. These young men will be wrecking their lives.
  There is a possibility in years to come that they will be the first to be on the dole and will also be physically wrecked, because of that experiment, which has not been a great success. They are mostly young boys who have no real chance of voicing their grievances, and who feel that they are very much the forgotten men in this country. So far as I can see from a quick look at HANSARD, and what I heard myself, no reference whatever was made to these boys in yesterday's demobilisation Debate. Yet in a sense they are mixed up with the Forces. When it was originally decided to try out this experiment the conscripts were boys

  1923
  who, normally, would have been called into the Services. They were not given the option of not being called into the Services. Large numbers were in different Air and Army training corps when they were forced against their will into this calling.
  Certainly, the country was then given the impression that these boys were, in a sense, doing the same thing as fellows called in to the Forces. They complained that they would not have the glamour of being in the Services. Time and time again they were told, and were given the impression, that what they were doing was just as much a war-time job as any job in the Fighting Services. The optants were told when they left the Forces to go into the mines that it would count for their group towards release. Now I am told that that is not to be the case. Yet in the case of the Royal Air Force I gather that such service is to be counted. That is all wrong. Decisions must be made on this matter which will cover all the Services. So much for the optants. What about the conscripts? We have been told—and it took some pressure to get the statement—that their service is now to be counted for group release as if they were in the Services. But which Service? Yesterday we heard about the Navy, Army and Air Force groups coming out at different times, and we were told that the reason was because of the size of the different groups. Here we have a new kind of Force. It is not sufficient answer to be told that they will come out in the same way as the Services, because they do not know which particular Service. Think of these young boys. They are the future men of this country, and we want to have good men in the years to come. They are thinking about their future.
  Do not let us ever imagine that they intend to stay in the mines longer than necessary. I have been talking and travelling with them during the last month in Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland and South Wales, and I can say without exaggeration that I did not meet more than one per cent. who had any intention whatever of going on with mining. They said, "What training are we going to have for our future? Is experience as a haulier going to be of much use? Fellows in the Services may be trained as signallers or for any other of the innumerable
  1924
  jobs that have to be done there, but nothing is being done for us." These boys have been sent to the mines, and then have been practically told to go to the devil. Are there any education officers? Are there any welfare officers? Only two or three, and, in some places, none at all. Is anything being done in regard to vocational training? No. Men in the three Services are to-get gratuities. Are there to be gratuities for the Bevin boys when they come out of the mines? I believe I am right in saying that we have passed an Act whereby people entering war service must be given their old jobs back when they have finished with that service. That does not apply in the mines. I know several boys who have been invalided out, and whose jobs have not been kept open for them because there has been no compulsion on their employers, because the boys are not entitled to get back into their pre-service jobs.
  Almost all the boys coming out of the mines beg to be allowed to return to their old jobs. They are most anxious to have some kind of training. It might be said that they have every opportunity in taking courses and reading. But the boys say, "We are dog tired. We are not accustomed to this." Boys of 18 to 19 are being made to do jobs in the mines which were previously done by miners of 24 or 25, who had been trained for some time. In South Wales, I found them being sent down some of our worst mines, mines which the average miner would not go down. It would have been much more to the point to send these boys down the best mines wherever possible, but they have been sent anywhere where they have been needed. At one hostel, I met boys—this was in Doncaster—who had to walk one and a half miles to work to do a night shift from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. They took with them sandwiches, which they had to pay for themselves, and had four pints of water during the night. Their own sweat and the coal dust did not make those sandwiches particularly edible. Members might say that this is the ordinary life of the miner, so why should these boys not have to do the same? I do not say that they should not, but I say that if you are compelling young men to go into a job which miners go into voluntarily—[Hon. Members: "No."] Well, at present not every miner is allowing his son to go into the mines. At one

  1925
  place, where I saw 10 miners working, only two of their sons were going into the mines, whereas the eight others were Bevin boys who had been forced into the mines. If you are going to force them into the mines give them the same advantages and benefits as you are giving to the men you are sending into the Services.
  What about their pay? These boys are not allowed lavish pay. They get about £3 10s. a week, whereas the waiters in this House get almost double that sum. The same applies to hostels. I saw and stayed in one where there should have been 400 boys, but where there were only 300. They were getting £3 10s. a week. Certain deductions amount to about 7s. 6d. and there is a further 30s. deducted for their hostel keep. That does not leave them with a very large income. In addition, these boys are given two leave passes a year, but they are only available between the months of April and September. I have seen some of these boys in Northumberland, who have come from my own area of Brighton. In two cases, boys wanted to go home to see their fathers on leave from the Front, in the months outside April and September, and they paid the full fares themselves. When some of us went into the Services, we were allowed Service rates. Why cannot these boys, if they are not allowed to go into the Services—many of them have been in the A.T.C. and other training corps—and are forced to go into mining, be treated in the same way. There seems no reason why they should not be.
  Absenteeism is a growing trouble. I would like the House to picture these boys as having just left school with their careers and lives in front of them. Normally, up to a point, they would be kept by their families or, if they were in the Services, everything would be done for them. They would be trained, educated and an eye would be kept on them; but these boys are in hostels and, although the staff do their level best, these boys are wasting their time completely when not down the mine. They have nothing to do, and no one tries to find anything for them to do. It is true that they play billiards and ping-pong, and get reasonably good food, but the point is that now they have been told they will not be
  1926
  prosecuted for not going down the mines, and so they are gradually drifting away.
  I met some of these boys, who told me, "We only go down the mines now twice a week, because that pays for our hostel keep." The rest of the time they waste hanging around doing nothing. Two other boys I met went down the mines very seldom, and when it came to a night-shift they did not go down at all. They were living in these hostels for young miners, and they went off digging potatoes for local farmers. Another boy went off as a taxi-driver. They are compelled by law to work in the mines, but when they get to the mines they are not compelled to go down them. They are hanging about, and if you can imagine anything worse than that for boys of 18, 21 and 22 I, personally, cannot. I think that they sometimes think they are forgotten by the Government, and are not being bothered about because there are only 40,000 to 50,000 of them.
  Something should be done to save these young men. They are not trained, and they are going to come on to the labour market in a hopeless condition—work-shy and completely ignorant of a trade, many of them, though not all. There are large numbers of them who are more than willing to work, but they are becoming less in number, because they get less encouragement from the Government and feel completely forgotten. I cannot get the figures from the Minister on absenteeism in the last two or three months, but I do not need to have them, because one can see it all the time. The rumour has gone round that they are not going to be prosecuted for not going down the mines, and the majority of them are slowly but surely giving up any idea of work in the mines. I do not know what the solution is. In peace time it is an appalling think to think that any group of people in this country are being conscripted and forced into work which they do not want to do. What are the Government going to do about that?
  These youths, in large numbers, have said to me, "We would rather be in the Forces than here. It is wrecking our lives, and we hate it like poison." They really do; you can see it in every hostel. Their argument, and I think it a reasonable one, is that under Class B there are numbers of miners serving in the Forces who have had two or three years training

  1927
  in the mines who would lie far better able to do the job than they can. Why do you not force them to come back? If you are going to have people under Class B who are vitally important to the country, it is no good saying in a lackadaisical way, "You ought to come back." If they are vitally needed, they should be made to come back. If you are going to need, as you do need, a large number of miners this winter, you will get far better work out of the men who know how to be miners if you get them back under Class B, and replace them by putting these boys in the Forces. These miners could be sent back, and the boys could be sent into the Services where they originally wanted to go.
  This present absenteeism does not mean that you announce in the morning that you are going to be absent next day or next week; it merely means that you do not like the weather and you go back to bed again, and do not tell anyone about it. The very fact that these boys do not turn up for work, is completely upsetting the shifts and organisation of the pits for many hours, and means loss of a considerable amount of time. That is going to increase unless something can be done. I think it is up to the Government to do something fairly soon about it. I would beg of the Government if they do not feel they can make a statement on this matter to-day to realise that there are these reasons, and that they are felt by thousands of boys all over the country. If these boys had been properly treated they might have become young ambassadors for the mining industry.
  Mr. Hale: When the hon. and gallant Member talks about soldiers who have been miners, how long does he suggest that those who have served in Burma should be directed to the mines? Why is it that he says that 90 per cent. of these lads who have been trained refuse to remain in the mines?
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: As to why 90 per cent. of them do not want to stay in the mines, I have given some suggestions as to what I think are the reasons. As to the other point, I would only ask that these Class B men should remain compulsorily in the mines so long as the Bevin boys would be compelled to stay in the mines if they take their place
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Blyton: I have listened with amazement to the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I have just emerged out of the pit after 32 years as a lodge secretary. We had a certain number of Bevin boys at a particular colliery, and I think it would be very unfair to suggest that these lads should have gratuities when they have been paid the trade union rates of wages for their work. It has been said that these lads have been forced into the pit. I myself was forced into the pit, not by direction of the Ministry of Labour, but by force of economic circumstances. I went into the pit to try to augment the family income in the early days of 1913, when the coal industry was a very thriving industry. Are these Bevin boys who now desire to get out because they do not like the conditions to have privilege over others who went into the mines? There are some good Bevin boys, and there are some that are round pegs in square holes. It is surprising to me to find the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite arguing that absenteeism should increase, and making a statement which, in my opinion, might encourage that absenteeism.
  When I heard the hon. and gallant Member talking about sandwiches and sweat, I recalled sweating without the sandwiches. I remember that I coal-hewed five days a week, and took 35s. home for a wife and two children as a result of the policy that was pursued in the coal industry by hon. Members opposite when they were in the Government, and dealing with the coalmining industry of this country. Mention has been made of water by the miner in the pit always has a glass of water by him, because water is the best thing to drink while in the pit. To talk about the miner drinking water is to try to convey something to this House which is a commonplace in the mining industry. I suggest that the fairest way of dealing with the Bevin boys problem is to apply the age plus service principle in the mines as in the Services.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested we should get these lads out of the pit. What is the use of the Minister of Fuel and Power urging an increase of output during the coming winter months, when the man-power in the pits has dropped from 713,000 in the last four

  1929
  months to 696,000? With lost man-power, we are asking the men to get more coal to tide us over this winter period, and then an hon. Member opposite suggests that we should worsen the position by releasing 40,000 to 50,000 haulage lads who are absolutely essential in the working of the coalmining industry. I suggest to the Minister of Fuel and Power that he will find that the men who have come out of the pit have done six years' service. The Essential Work Order in the mining industry was put into operation at the time of the capitulation of France in 1940. Men in the pit before that time were directed into the Army. These men have tasted a different life and have made up their minds, many of them, that they are not going back to the mining industry. Why should we force them back to release the Bevin boys? As a miner, and a lifelong one, who has emerged out of the pit to become a Member of Parliament for a mining constituency, I say quite frankly that the eyes of this country will be opened to those who do not want their sons to go into the pit. I suggest that the Minister of Fuel and Power should try to get our men to give us a greater output of coal, and not reduce the output by releasing Bevin boys on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but release them on an age plus length of service basis as in the Forces. If he does that I am sure that in the period that lies ahead he will be able to give to the people in the blitzed houses the coal they need this winter.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling) has performed a public duty in bringing to light the conditions and the problems connected with the Bevin boys. Those of us who were in the last Parliament, to whatever party we belonged, will agree that there have been many arguments on the question of these young men being drafted into the mines. I am not in the least saying whether it is more valuable service to be in the Army, or to be in that most honourable profession, a very distinguished representative of which we have just heard, and whom we welcome in this House. He speaks with far more authority than I could ever do about the mines. These boys without exception were
  1930
  willing to fight, and if necessary die for their country.
  Those of us who were serving in the House received a great many letters. Many of these lads had served in the cadet forces, had done pre-military training of some kind or another and were desirous of fighting for their country. Then down came the late Minister of Labour's order directing them into the mines. [An Hon. Member: "The Government's order."] That is so; I am not trying to make a party point. It was the Coalition Government's order. That created misery in the minds of these young lads. They went down the mines, and I think it is wrong to bring into this Debate a suggestion that anything wrong goes on in the mines. The mining industry must be made a magnificent industry. Why should it be considered a disgrace to go down the pit? The point I am trying to make is that these lads want to fight for their country. If they had been balloted into any other industry, they would have felt just at disappointed as they did when they were directed into the mines. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when he comes to reply: I do not like the method, of ballot by which some names come out, and because I do not like these lads having been prevented from fighting for their country, I ask him in all seriousness and in all sincerity, May we see fair play for these lads just as if they had fought for their country?
  One point is that they are to have no medals. They will mix with their contemporaries and will have nothing to show what they did in the war. Then again there is the economic point. I am solidly against direction of labour. My right hon. Friend knows that I fought the late Minister on that I want to know whether these Bevin boys will have a period of leave following release, when they will be free to choose whatever work they would normally take, which is the privilege of the Serviceman when he is finally demobilised. Will they get their own jobs back? These are the main points. I am not trying to overstress the case. I am not trying to say that these boys have been treated most abominably. The whole country has had to go through a very difficult time, and every one of us has had to make sacrifices of a major nature. All

  1931
  I am interested in is to make absolutely sure that, wherever it is reasonable, these boys shall be treated as if they had served their country.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I speak in this Debate not as a miner but I have had some little to do with the Bevin boys. For 10 months I was chairman of an Essential Work Order Tribunal where some of the Bevin boys who objected to being directed to the mines had to appear. If there is anything in this country at the moment to which it is desirable that patriotism should be applied it is the mining industry. I know of no reason why the sons of those I who are not miners should not have their share of mining. I would that it had been possible to have Bevin boys 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They would have brought back from the mine knowledge which would have been disseminated to their relatives and friends, which would have been of tremendous value to those who, because of economic circumstances, have to work in the mines. These boys are directed to the mines on a very fair ballot principle, but I know of no better people for the mines. They have had a good schooling, and statistics will prove that their average weight and physique are far better than the average of the miners' sons from the valleys and the mining areas. They are the people who should shoulder their fair share of the things which were necessary to win the war, and, indeed, to win the peace.
  I repeat that it would have been a good thing if we could have had some semblance of the Bevin boys 50 years ago. My advice to these youths would be that it is right in the interests of winning the war, and now primarily in the interests of winning the peace, that they should take their share of the things which some people have realised are very obnoxious things. It should not have been possible for a position to be reached in which people do not want to go back into the mining industry. Those people who allowed the industry so to degenerate that the mines are now in their present position are those who are now objecting to their sons doing something which they were quite willing that other people should do. Some of the young fellows whose lives have been spent in sheltered circumstances, and
  1932
  whose parents have to bear responsibility for the condition in which mining is today, are objecting to doing their share to bring about the prosperity of this country.
  I hope that the Government will refuse at this stage to release these boys. I have five children who have served in this war. They volunteered. They did not decide where they should go. If it was the submarine service, they went. If it was the Navy or Air Force they had to go—where they were directed. They had no option. They went in the interests of the country. They asked no credit for that, nor do I ask it for them; they are like millions of other people's sons. But there is every right, a moral and legal right, why these Bevin boys who are objecting should be kept where they are if mining is of the importance which it is indicated as being. Without coal, whatever this Government or the people do, what is our position? The Minister of Fuel and Power cannot get coal. Neither can the Cabinet nor the people who sit on these benches. It is only the men at the coal face who can get coal, and these people should have to take their fair share in enabling the wealth of the country to be used throughout the whole social structure.
  I say to the Government as one of its supporters that they should stick fast to the existing ruling, at all events until such time as the mining industry can be brought to a position where there will be no need for anyone to be balloted into the mine, no need for anyone to be forced into mining through their economic position. Let it be an honoured profession, mechanised, providing decent wages and conditions, and then we shall have all we need of that most important commodity—coal. Without it we shall die.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think the House should be misled by the hon. Member who has just spoken and I do not think he meant his remarks to mislead the House. My hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling) and Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) stressed that what they were out for was fair play. They were not arguing in support of the immediate release of Bevin boys, or in support of an agitation which claimed that these boys had been particularly unfairly used.

  1933
  Far from that, they made it quite clear that all they were out for was fair play on release and fair play throughout for these boys. That is a different matter. They pressed the Minister to make a statement to reassure their minds and the minds of the House and the country that fair play would be meted out to these boys. I do not think it would be quite fair to associate those who raised this matter with the words used by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Jack Jones).
  We are out for fair play. We are out to see that these boys are treated on the same terms as boys who have served in the Fighting Services. Nothing could do more harm to the mining industry than would be done if these boys were unfairly treated when they came out. The harm would be done to the industry far more than to the boys. I would like to stress that point more than anything else. I was born in a mining county—Ayrshire—and I have never lost my tremendous admiration for those who live in mining communities and work underground. We have to spread that knowledge. I do not believe that the experience of these boys will be lost on the country. If they come out feeling that they have been unfairly treated, they will not be too ready to help in the great work of spreading good news about the present and future of the coal mining industry, which is so vital not only to the welfare of those with whom they have been working, but to the country as a whole.
  6.28 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I listened with great interest to the statement of the case by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling). When I saw his Question I was impressed by the fairness of its wording and its obviously genuine desire to get information. I came along to the House this evening to give him and the House what I thought would be a reasoned reply. I am afraid that the way in which he has addressed the House has created the impression that the Bevin boys, as a rule, are not playing their part in the national effort. I am afraid that in concentrating his criticism upon what is obviously a very small minority he has given the impression that the Bevin boys are a liability in the mining industry. There was repeated later from the other side of the
  1934
  House the statement that the Bevin boys must have fair treatment. What is the assumption—that they are having unfair treatment? Is there that assumption? [An Hon. Member: "Yes."] The Bevin boys in the mining industry are getting parity of treatment with the rest of the boys in the industry. In the vast majority of cases they are getting preferential treatment.
  I was rather impressed with the last speaker's remarks about his concern for the men in the mining industry. I come to this problem not without some knowledge and I wish that concern had been shown many years ago, when as a boy of 13, I went down the pit to work for 9s. a week and had to walk four miles to my work and four miles home from work. It seems to me that this concern for the Bevin boy is a bit belated. The Bevin boy is suffering as a consequence of the House of Commons not doing its duty to the mining industry years and years ago. I am sorry to introduce this feeling into the matter, but this Bevin boy affair becomes a matter for politics in this country. We have to look at the very serious position in the mining industry, and we have to treat these boys fairly and with respect. There has been too much flippancy in the treatment of Bevin boys in the mining industry.
  Let me deal with one or two points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman beyond the gangway. He raised the point about having no medals. Why should a miner have medals more than a gun-maker? If we are to give medals, we must give them to the whole civilian population, and, not least, to the house wives of Britain. I do not think that that is really a tenable proposition, and we cannot treat the Bevin boys differently from the rest of the community.
  Colonel Clarke: Surely, there is a difference. A great many miners volunteered and went into the Forces and got medals. These boys wanted to go into the Forces, but were not allowed to, and so did not have a chance to get a medal.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that there were thousands of boys in the mining industry who wanted to fight and get medals, and we would not let them go. I do not think that the talk about medals gets to the root of the problem at all, and if that were all

  1935
  there was in it I think the Bevin boys would laugh. [Hon. Members: "That is only a small point."] I can only deal with one thing at a time, and I am trying to be quite fair to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have raised these points; I would like to give them the answer as we see it.
  Let me take the suggestion that the ballot was wrong. I think that that suggestion really ought not to be made from that side of the House. It was decided upon by the full House of Commons—by a Coalition Government. It was equitable and fair to everybody, and it means that boys who, by nature and upbringing, have to go and do a dirty job, a job that they do not like, are taken into a strange social community, and find the atmosphere completely alien to them. It is regrettable that any social atmosphere in Britain should be so distasteful to any section of the community as to produce this result. As a final indication of our desire to meet any justifiable complaints from Bevin boys, the Minister of Fuel and Power yesterday met a deputation of them. He has given them certain undertakings and certain guarantees to investigate their legitimate complaints, to improve their hostels, to give them better facilities, to locate them in hostels nearer to pits and to try to improve their travelling time and welfare amenities. But here is the significant thing; the Government are doing more for the Bevin boy than it does for the ordinary boy in the industry.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I interrupt? I do not mean to make a point out of it, but, surely, the words just used by the Parliamentary Secretary do record the fact that there were grievances of such a nature that a deputation had to see the Minister of Fuel and Power. I am not rising to underline the fact that there was a deputation, but I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be fair. The difficulties were obviously of such a grave nature that the Minister himself had to receive a deputation.
  Mr. Ness EdwardsWhat the hon. Gentleman fails to realise is that, in ordinary circumstances, the Minister would only receive representatives from organised workers in the industry, and the Bevin boys are part of that organisation, but in order that there should be no suspicion that there was any bias against
  1936
  them, the Minister received them, and discussed with them what they regarded as grievances. The Minister went one step further. If there is any possibility of removing the things they complain of, even if it would mean improving their position compared with other men in the industry, the Minister is prepared to see what can be done.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: The hon. Gentleman has just said that, normally, the Minister would only meet representatives of the industry. Are these boys allowed, or entitled, to belong to a miners' union?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech said he had been speaking with these Bevin boys. I am really astonished that he is asking a question about such an obvious, well-known fact. The answer is that the Bevin boys are not only encouraged, but that special steps are taken to link them up with the industry, and to present their grievances as accurately as possible.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Do they become members of a union?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: They do become members—one Bevin boy is a member of the Yorkshire Miners' Union, and is in this House with the money subscribed by the Miners' Federation, so I think the complete answer is that Bevin boys are encouraged to be members of the union, and to play a full part in the union. In one of the hostels, they have even representation on the Miners' lodge committee, so that, on that point, there can be no doubt at all. They are fully welcomed into the miners' organisation.
  Now I come to one or two points raised in the opening stage of the Debate. To say, in this House, that Bevin boys' lives are being wrecked is, in my view, putting the matter far too high. Their lives are no more being wrecked than those of any other boys who were taken from their homes and sent into foreign parts, as were our Armed Forces. There is the same interruption of careers. That is all it is, and I should say that fighting in Burma might be adequately compared with the Bevin boys' experiences in the pit. I do not think any impression ought to be created that because a Bevin boy, or a young man, in this country goes into the mining industry to play his part in

  1937
  getting the coal, upon which the success of our war effort depended, he is wrecking his life.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I did not say that.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says he did not say that, but I took it down. He said that all this scheme is doing is to wreck boys' lives.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I definitely gave the impression, I am sure, that their lives are being wrecked because there is so much absenteeism, and nothing is being done about it. They are left hanging around, and they have none of the educational facilities available to young men in the Services.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: That was a bit of make-weight thrown in. I am coming to those points; I have them here. We shall see how much substance there is in that allegation. In every Bevin boys' hostel in this country there is a welfare organisation; there is a welfare officer. The manager of the hostel is, in effect, the welfare officer for his hostel. That is mainly his job. Associated with each of these hostels in a miners' institute. In a case I know of in South Wales, all the facilities of the mining community are made available to these boys within a stone's throw of their hostel. To say that they are just allowed to run wild is, I think, not paying them a compliment. I have met many of them in the hostels and I have attended their debates and discussions, their meetings, their plays, and their dances, and I want to say that the standard of their conduct is as high as, if not higher than, that of any other section of the community in this country. Their behaviour, on the whole, is first-class. There is nothing to complain about in their general behaviour
  The position—I am sorry to be speaking at such length—is that there are three categories. There are the Bevin boys—so-called the ballotees—there are the optants, and there are the volunteers—50,000 men, altogether, in the mining industry. If the scheme is scrapped, and all these men are pulled out, what will be the effect upon the life of the community this winter? The next point the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised was that men in Class B should be brought
  1938
  out. So far, we have had 2,000 men back to the pits since demobilisation began, but even if we had in Class B all the men we wanted, all the men planned to be got out, we should not be able to replace the Bevin boys because of the normal wastage of man-power in the mining industry. We cannot afford to lose a single man in the industry this winter. The position is really serious, and I would ask hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House not to make the task this winter more difficult than it is, because so much depends upon it. The comfort of our people, the rehabilitation of our industry, the reconversion of our industry, the success of our economy, all depend on us getting an increase in the supply of coal. To let anyone go away at this stage would be to make the position worse than it is. There are one or two other small points. The first is with regard to the date of release.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: The date of release is not a small point.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: After yesterday's Debate one would have thought that the general impression was that there would be a general levelling-up with regard to the date of release in each of the three Services. It is not challenged that the principle of release applying to the Armed Forces should apply to the Bevin boys. That is regarded, I take it, as being equitable and fair. In order that it should be clear and easily understood, what is in mind is that the date of demobilisation of the Bevin boys shall be the date on which they would have been demobilised had they been in the Army. That, I imagine, is not only fair, but is giving them almost favoured treatment.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: That is what they want to know.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The next point is in regard to rights of reinstatement. Rights of reinstatement only apply to men in the Armed Forces, and to no one else. If it is to be given to the Bevin boys, it must be given to the optants, to the volunteers, and to every man who has been directed to employment in this country during the war.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Surely it could be given to the optants who were in the Forces beforehand?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: If they were in the Forces and came out under Class B, and they went back to their employment—
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: But—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member must allow the Minister to get on with his speech.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am stating the fact. A man goes out in the class W (T) reserve, and goes as a nominated worker to his old employment, if his old employment is still available. He is, in fact, reinstated. If we are to have the Reinstatement Act applied to everybody, the House should have thought of that before.
  Mr. Bowles: If my hon. Friend looks up the report of the Debate he will find that the Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, said he was going to make special arrangements for these boys to be reinstated in civil employment.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no knowledge of that, and I have looked through the papers carefully. I recollect no assurance of that sort ever having been given by the right hon. Gentleman. Let us see to what the Bevin boys are entitled. When they are demobilised they are entitled to training, to further education grants and to the benefits of the interrupted apprenticeship scheme. Those are
  1940
  the rights they have—rights that are not available in the same way to the ordinary industrial worker. Those rights are there, and those they will get. This matter is the subject of very close investigation, and, if I may say so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question has held up the Minister's statement. We were asked in the question by the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to make a statement until he had placed these considerations before the House. I do not know if he wants me to read the letter.
  Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: It was in a Question put last week.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, and in a letter which followed it. As far as the Government are concerned, they want to give to the Bevin boys every fair treatment that can be given to them. The vast majority of them have played a very great part in winning this war. A small minority of them have not been playing the game. I want to appeal to all the Bevin boys, to the optants and to the volunteers, to see us through this winter and through all these difficulties, because upon their efforts will depend the success of our turnover from war to peace production.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.