Commons Sitting of 11 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter past Two o' Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON NECROPOLIS BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL(by Order)
  Second Reading deferred until Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    St. Peter's Training College, Peterborough
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Minister of Education the reasons for the delay in opening St. Peter's Training College, Peterborough; when it is anticipated that it will be opened; why the tutors were provisionally appointed on 8th December, 1944, for a period of not less than two years; when they were allocated; what official duties they have been doing since; and from what date will the beginning of the two years' appointment be reckoned.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): There has been no delay in opening this college. The main premises were in use by the American Red Cross until October, 1945, and the hostel which forms an integral part of the accommodation was in use for prisoners of war until 16th February, 1946. The college was opened as soon as the necessary adaptations could be made, namely, on the 19th March.
    2064
    The tutors were provisionally selected in December, 1944, at a time when staffs were being built up on a shadow basis and it was not known when or where any particular staffs would actually be employed. All concerned clearly understood that this was the position and that provisional selection involved no commitment on either side. The teachers remained in their previous employment until they were appointed to the staff of the college in January, 1946, and from then until the opening of the college they were employed on essential preliminary duties. There is no question of staff being appointed for a period of two years and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.
    Sir G. Fox: Why is it necessary to appoint teachers in December, 1944, when the college was not going to be opened until October, 1945?
    Miss Wilkinson: As I have explained, they were appointed on a shadow basis and they remained in their own employment, getting their salaries where they were employed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shadow salaries? "] No, not shadow salaries. It was a perfectly wise idea, because otherwise my predecessor would not have known where to get staff.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is the Minister aware that I was in communication with her Department and with the Minister of Works on this matter at the end of last year and in January of this year, and that we received every consideration in the release of this college? I have a letter from the Chief Education Officer expressing deepest thanks for the way things turned out and we have managed very well without the assistance of the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox).

    Training Colleges (Tutors'Expenses)
    Sir G. Foxasked the Minister of Education what arrangements have been made for the payment of additional expenses for teachers both seconded and non-seconded as tutors to training colleges through taking up an appointment away from home; whether the same arrangements are made for tutors from His Majesty's Forces; and if, in the event of removal, removal expenses will be paid.
    Miss Wilkinson: Tutors in such cases are eligible for payment of removal expenses. If they do not remove their families, but find accommodation for themselves only near the college, they are eligible for an allowance in respect of the extra cost of living away from home. It makes no difference whether or not a tutor is seconded or whether he is appointed on release from H.M. Forces.

    School Milk (Bottles)
    Mr. Sidney Marshallasked the Minister of Education, whether ample supplies of one-third pint bottles are now available for school milk distribution; and to what extent in the London and home counties supplies are still being distributed by the teaching staffs in all sorts and kinds of odd containers from bulk.
    Miss Wilkinson: I regret that ample supplies of one-third pint bottles for school milk distribution are not yet available, but all possible steps are being taken to increase the supply and a gradual improvement in the position is expected. I am informed that in all but a few schools in London and the neighbouring areas milk is now being delivered in bottles and delivery in churns has been discontinued.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in January she said the supply of bottles would gel better and that up to now there has, in fact, been no improvement? It is a very serious matter that teachers' time should be taken up distributing this milk from bulk, and can she do anything in this regard?
    Mr. Peter Freeman: May I ask the Minister to consider the use of carton containers for this purpose? They are in supply and would be much more hygienic than this present system, and would do away with washing bottles.
    Miss Wilkinson: I am fully aware of all the uses of cartons, but they are available only in a few places and the Ministry of Supply cannot give us the amount of wax paper necessary for this job.
    Mr. James Hudson: Could not the Minister divert some of the beer bottles to this purpose?

    Salaries, London Area
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Education whether the sub-committee appointed to deal with applications
    2066
    for inclusion in the London area for the purpose of additional payments under the Burnham Scale has yet met; and whether she has any statement to make as to progress made.
    Miss Wilkinson: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) last Thursday, I understand that the Burnham Committee are about to appoint this sub-committee.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that this matter has been outstanding for seven years, will the right hon. Lady take steps to ensure that it is not another seven years before this matter is settled?
    Miss Wilkinson: The Burnham Committee was only appointed in 1945 so it could not have been before the Committee for seven years.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the application was first of all submitted in 1939 to the predecessor of the Burnham Committee and that this is a most urgent matter?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am afraid when we appoint an independent Committee to go into matters the Government have no power to order the date on which the Committee shall make their report.

    Frozen Cooked Meals
    Captain Marsdenasked the Minister of Education whether the conditions under which frozen cooked meals could be provided for schools have been fully considered from the point of view of providing the most suitable types of meals for schoolchildren, cooked under the best possible conditions, and with a great saving of expenditure on kitchens and kitchen staffs.
    Miss Wilkinson: I understand that the system to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is still in an experimental stage and that its use on a large scale will not be possible for some considerable time. It seems unlikely that it could be used in connection with the school meals service, which must be expanded with all possible speed.
    Captain Marsden: May I ask the right hon. Lady not to disregard the suggestions made, but to disregard any consideration of vested interests and have

    2067
    regard to the path of progress in this matter, remembering that this will be the principal way of feeding in the future?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am not at all sure that it is the path of progress.

    Deaf Children (Special Schools)
    Mr. Battleyasked the Minister of Education the total number of special schools for the education of deaf children in the country and in the county of London; whether she is satisfied that the number is sufficient and that these schools are adequately staffed and equipped with hearing and other appliances; what advice is given to parents in early examinations of the children regarding speech training; and whether the number of deaf children is increasing in the country.
    Miss Wilkinson: There are 43 special schools for the deaf with accommodation for 4,230 children in England and Wales, including four schools in London with accommodation for 246 children. I here is some shortage of provision, particularly for young deaf children, in the south of England, and in deaf schools as in ordinary schools more teachers are needed. Steps are being taken to remedy both these deficiencies. Before the war the provision of hearing aids in these schools was proceeding rapidly, but this development was stopped by evacuation and difficulties of supply and maintenance during the war. Suitable apparatus is, at the moment, virtually unobtainable but a committee of the Medical Research Council is investigating the whole problem.
    It is the practice of school medical officers and teachers to explain to parents the importance of giving a deaf child speech training from an early age. I have no definite evidence of an increase in the incidence of deafness among children, but I am glad to say that there appears to be a growing appreciation among parents of the importance of early diagnosis and treatment, and a consequent increase in the demand for special school education for the younger deaf children.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are children ever refused admission to schools for the deaf because they are slightly below the normal mental level, and is provision
    2068
    made for children who appear not to be up to the normal level?
    Miss Wilkinson: They are not refused on account of any slight deficiency or backwardness, because that might be due to deafness.

  POST OFFICE

    Telephone Service
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to make a refund to telephone subscribers whose lines have been out of action so much in the last 12 months.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): The rental for a telephone line leaves no margin for rebates in respect of incidental interruptions of service; but I am always prepared to consider any individual case where circumstances may have been exceptional.
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will now eliminate the extra charge for the hand microphone type telephone, as against the candlestick variety.
    Mr. Burke: I hope that it will be possible fairly soon to provide hand microphones free of charge whenever new telephones are installed I am afraid, however, that, in view of the acute shortage of labour and the large amount of work to be done in meeting the wartime arrears of applications for telephone service. it will be quite impossible to undertake for a considerable time the work of replacing existing subscribers' candlestick telephones by hand microphones.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that this will give satisfaction, and will he see that other improvements in the telephone service are not kept from 10 to 15 years before coming into public use?
    Mr. Burke: There is no desire to keep back any improvements. The difficulty here is largely one of labour supply which the Post Office has to meet along with other Departments.

    Victory Stamps
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the new Victory stamps will be available for public use; how many are being printed; and what size they will be.
    Mr. Burke: The new Victory stamps will, I hope, be on sale at all post offices on and from Tuesday, nth June. 240 millions of the 2½d. value and 24 millions of the 3d. value are being printed. The stamps will be double the size of ordinary stamps.
    Mr. Freeman: May I ask if it is possible to have the stamps by V-Day, 8th June, so that they may be used on that day?
    Mr. Burke: We have made every possible effort to get them at the earliest possible date and there have been much working of overtime and very great pressure to get them on the date mentioned. It is still doubtful if they will be ready even for that.

    Class B Releases
    Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many Servicemen have been offered Class B release since the inception of the release scheme for Post Office workers; how many have accepted; and how many are now back at work with the Post Office.
    Mr. Burke: Up to the end of March, 4,733 men in the engineering and manipulative grades of the Post Office serving with the Forces had been offered release in Class B, and 1,332 had accepted. Five hundred and eighty-one had been released up to 15th March, and have now resumed their Post Office duties.
    Mr. Erroll: Is not this a very disappointing figure? What does the Minister intend to do to increase the numbers?
    Mr. Burke: The Services are cooperating with us. We cannot get people out under Class B unless they are willing to come, but they are coming out fairly regularly now.

    Pevensey Bay
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the post office at Pevensey Bay, which was closed during the war, will now be reopened.
    Mr. Burke: It has not yet been possible to reopen the post office at Pevensey Bay for lack of a candidate. An application has recently been received and, if the applicant proves suitable and can provide satisfactory premises, the office will be reopened as soon as possible.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how much inconvenience is caused at Pevensey Bay at the moment, especially in view of the large returning population which was evacuated during the war?
    Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of that, but the difficulty is not merely that of finding a suitable applicant, but also that of suitable premises.

    Public Relations Officer
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the retiring age for the public relations officer of his Department.
    Mr. Burke: The post of public relations officer of the Post Office may be held by an established or an unestablished officer. There is no fixed retiring age in either case.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the age of the new public relations officer of his Department; and what was that of his predecessor on retirement.
    Mr. Burke: The incoming public relations officer is 64 years of age. The outgoing public relations officer will be 62 in May, 1946.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Are we to understand that this exacting task of public relations is now to be regarded as suitable gainful employment for a superannuated Socialist ex-Minister?
    Mr. Butcher: Is it not a fact that this is an admirable appointment?
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Is it not a fact that this appointment was made purely on merit, and that this person is a first-class public servant?
    Mr. Burke: All Post Office appointments are made on merit, and this is one of the best.

    Telegraph Service
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delays which occur in the delivery of telegrams in country districts and of the fact that such telegrams are sometimes delivered by post on the day after their despatch; and when it is expected that improvements in the telegraph service will be practicable.
    Mr. Burke: Telegraph delivery by hand in country districts ceases at 7 p.m. If a message cannot be disposed of by telephone after that time, it is either posted or held over for delivery by hand the next day, whichever is the quicker means of getting it to the addressee. Every effort is, however, made to effect delivery of telegrams of a vitally urgent nature. Although it will take some time to achieve prewar standards, the quality of the telegraph service has materially improved over the last few months, and I am confident that the improvement will be progressive.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that telegrams are sent with the object of getting messages accurately and quickly despatched, and that the cost is not low? In those circumstances, can he justify taking a high fee for a telegram, and then delivering it by post 17 or 18 hours afterwards?
    Mr. Burke: There are certain difficulties in country districts. Sometimes telegrams arrive late at one office, and are transmitted to an office where there is no means of delivery. People cannot be kept waiting in country post offices for the purpose of delivering an occasional message.
    Major Digby: Is the Minister aware that a telegram arrived by post at 11.30 one morning for me, having been sent the previous day, and that as I am on the telephone this was not a very speedy way of delivering the message?

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (COST)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the estimated average cost to public funds, reckoned per seat, of a contested election in a county council, rural district council or urban district council area.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The expenses incurred in holding elections of county and district councillors are paid by the county or district council concerned, and I regret that I have no information as to the average cost.
    Mr. Alpass: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the changes are worth the money expended?
    Colonel Clarke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that in view of the considerable number of cases involved candidates should put up a deposit, as they have to do in the case of election for the House of Commons?
    Mr. Ede: This matter has been considered by the local authority associations and Government- Departments concerned, but there appears to have been no general demand for it.

    FASCIST ACTIVITIES
    Dr. Haden Guestasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he now has any further statement to make on the control and restraint of Fascist and anti-Semitic political activities.
    Mr. Ede: Fascist and potentially Fascist bodies in this country are small, disunited, and ineffective. They will be watched with the utmost vigilance, and the potential danger of such bodies will always be kept in mind. The Government have examined in consultation with the Law Officers the scope of the existing law and are satisfied that in present circumstances the law is fully adequate to enable action to be taken against all really dangerous activities. If believers in Fascist doctrines engage either singly or in conspiracy in subversive activities, or disturb the peace, they can be, and will be, dealt with firmly as law breakers.
    Dr. Guest: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he regards anti-Semitic propaganda, carried out at a meeting for political purposes, as subversive within the scope of the definition?
    Mr. Ede: It all depends on the strength and virulence of the statements that are made.
    Mr. Driberg: Did my right hon. Friend observe that a recent meeting intended to promote anti-Semitism could not be held because the Westminster City Council, very properly, refused the use of the hall? Will he commend that example to other authorities?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I was very anxious to hear what the man who was advertised to address that meeting would say. Unless statements are made I cannot prosecute the people who would like to make them.
    Mr. Driberg: But has not this man made hundreds of statements before?
    Mr. Ede: Most of the statements hitherto made by that gentleman have been made in Scotland, where the law;is not quite as powerful as it is in England. This was the first opportunity for getting him to make a statement in England.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman used the term "Fascist doctrine." I am sure all Members of the House condemn Fascist doctrine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not all."]—but does he include all totalitarian philosophy?
    Mr. Speaker: We are getting very wide of the original Question.

    CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (AGE)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the age of criminal responsibility is lower in Britain than in many other countries; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend the law accordingly.
    Mr. Ede: The age of criminal responsibility was raised from seven to eight by the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, following a recommendation made by the Young Offender's Committee. Consideration of any further change must await a suitable opportunity for legislation.
    Mr. Hastings: But does my right hon. Friend really believe that at the early age of eight that would be true?
    Mr. Ede: The difficulty is not so much one of agreeing with that statement, as of deciding what is the proper age to fix as the minimum age in the circumstances. This will be a matter which will have to be considered when the Criminal Justice Bill is before the House.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this question of his responsibility for young offenders is an urgent one, and will he give it special attention with a view to preventing such offenders from embarking on a life of crime?
    Mr. Ede: I am exceedingly anxious to comply with that principle, and if and
    2074
    when the Criminal Justice Bill comes before the House I hope I shall get the support of the House in strengthening my hands in that respect.

    CRIMINAL RECORDS (RECONVICTIONS)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of persons over any recent convenient period in Great Britain convicted of crime were so convicted a second and a third time.
    Mr. Ede: The last occasion on which the criminal records were analysed for the purpose of obtaining statistics as to reconviction rates was in 1938; and I am sending to my hon. and learned Friend extracts from the volume of the Criminal Statistics which contains the results of that analysis.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister state what special steps are taken to prevent young offenders in the first class from falling into the other two classes?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think I could detail them in answer to a question. Doubtless on the Estimates or on some other suitable occasion I shall be able to deal with the matter.

    N.F.S. (WAR GRATUITIES)
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to pay war gratuity to N.F.S personnel in the borough of Romford, Essex.
    Mr. Ede: Arrangements have been made to accelerate this work in all areas, and I hope it will be completed at a reasonably early date.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these N.F.S. personnel have been waiting for as long as nine months for payment and that the continued delay in paying gratuities is creating a very unfortunate impression in the minds of a body of men who rendered the most invaluable service during the war?
    Mr. Ede: As I have previously explained to the House, my Department is not wholly responsible for this matter. We have to check up the periods of service with the local authorities who were

    2075
    the employers of the men prior to the establishment of the National Fire Service, but I am hopeful that everybody will be paid by the end of May.

    SUMMER TIME
    Mr. Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the desirability of legislation continuing Summer Time during the Winter months.
    Mr. Ede: In present circumstances I cannot say more than that I have noted my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Walker: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider sympathetically the position of school children—especially in the country districts—who are not able to reach home before darkness in the winter months?
    Mr. Ede: I have to consider that and a number of other matters, including the case of those who have to go to work and possibly to school in the dark in the morning if the alteration is made.

    POLICE CONSTABLES'WIVES (PUBLIC SERVICE)
    Mr. Corlettasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to requirements by the chief constable of the North Riding of Yorkshire that the wives of constables should cease to be teachers and should refrain from offering themselves as candidates for local authorities; what authority the chief constable has to make these requirements; and if he will advise the chief constable not to interfere in the private concerns of these and any other women who are not in the employment of the police authority.
    Mr. Ede: After representations from the Home Office the Chief Constable withdrew his requirement that the wives of constables should give up their employment as school teachers. As regards the case of the constable's wife who offered herself as a candidate for election to a local authority, the Chief Constable was asked for an explanation as soon as the facts came to my notice. He has informed me that the lady withdrew her candidature as the result of an intimation to her husband from the local superin-
    2076
    tendent that it was considered imprudent for a constable's wife to be a member of the rural district council of the district in which her husband was serving as a constable; the Chief Constable added that he himself would have offered no objection if the matter had been put to him officially.
    In both cases serious errors of judgment were made to which it is right that public attention should be called, and I am glad to have this opportunity of making it clear that such interferences with the private actions of constables' wives are not warranted by Police regulations.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (FUN FAIRS)
    Mr. Austinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause to be published the reports on fun fairs, in relation to juvenile delinquency, from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and chief constables of certain towns.
    Mr. Ede: I have received no recent reports on the alleged connection between fun fairs and juvenile delinquency. Four years ago my predecessor invited the observations of several chief officers of police and came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for any amendment of the law. I cannot publish these replies, but if my hon. Friend has any information to give me I shall be glad to consider it.

    GIRLS' PRISON SENTENCE,YORK
    Mrs. F. Patonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the case of two girls of 14 years of age sentenced at York to three months imprisonment; and whether, to prevent these girls being sent to an ordinary prison and in view of the frequency of such cases, he will take steps immediately to provide a special place of security outside the prison system with a staff specially qualified to deal with such cases.
    Mr. Ede: I have received information about these girls, who recently escaped from an approved school, and I have decided to recommend the remission of

    2077
    the unexpired portion of their prison sentences and to transfer each of them to another approved school for further training. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the general statement contained in the reply which I gave to her on 21st March.
    Mrs. Paton: Would the Minister consider providing finance to enable some outside specialist body like the Institute for the Scientific Treatment of Delinquency to set up institutions, one for boys and one for girls?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no power to make such a payment. That again is a matter that would, I think, have been dealt with more satisfactorily had the Criminal Justice Bill become law in 1938 or 1939. I hope that the House will not insist on a number of small Measures that would fritter away the time that might be far more usefully employed on a comprehensive Measure when Parliamentary time permits.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would the Minister say when he is going to introduce this comprehensive Measure? It has been asked for from all sides of the House.
    Mr. Ede: This Parliament is young and I have had my share of legislative time this Session, but I am not unhopeful that before this Parliament ends the Measure will be on the Statute Book.
    Mr. Gallacher: Does the Minister realise that there is need for a very rapid overhaul of the whole prison system, and will he hurry forward the legislation?

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS

    Disabled Ex-Service Personnel (High Court Judgment)
    Mr. T. Macphersonasked the Minister of Pensions if he has considered the recent judgment given by Mr. Justice Denning in favour of an ex-Serviceman on the grounds of "fit for service, fit for pension "; and if he is now prepared to review similar cases which have been refused by his Department.
    Mr. David Jonesasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is proposing to take any action in regard to those cases
    2078
    where ex-Servicemen have been refused a pension, despite a breakdown in health since entering the Service, in the light of the judgment of the High Court, given on 1st April, 1946; and whether he is prepared to take steps to review all such cases despite an adverse decision by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, if necessary, introducing amending legislation for the purpose.
    Mr. Garry Allighanasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the ruling given by Mr. Justice Denning in a successful appeal against his Department last week that if a man is discharged from the Services with his health deteriorated from the standard at which the Army certified it on joining, such deterioration may be presumed to be due to his war service, he now accepts the principle of "fit for service, fit for pension."
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Pensions in view of the recent decision of a High Court appeal, which decided that his Department had failed to produce evidence that the appellant's disability was caused by something other than his war service, he will consider reviewing any case dismissed by a tribunal.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): In the judgment referred to, the learned judge expressed the view that the interpretation to be placed on Article 4 of the Royal Warrant was that if a man is accepted for service in a certain medical category there is a presumption that at the time of his acceptance he was fit for the kind of service demanded of a man in that category; and that in the event of his discharge subsequently on medical grounds due to deterioration in his health there is a presumption that the deterioration was due to his service. He added that the presumption is not a compelling presumption but a provisional one. In order, however, to defeat the man's claim, the evidence had to show a real, preponderance of probability that his condition was not aggravated by war service. In the case before him the learned Judge held that there was no such evidence and that the tribunal could not properly come to a conclusion in favour of the Ministry.
    While there may at times be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes a real preponderance of probability I do

    2079
    not think that the general line of approach laid down by the learned Judge differs materially from that followed by my Department
    Mr. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of cases similar to those dealt with by Mr. Justice Denning? Having regard to the strong feeling among ex-Servicemen regarding the continuance of this scandal, can he suggest some way whereby these cases might be reopened and the Ministry's arrangements brought into line with the law and commonsense?
    Mr. Paling: It was laid down when the Tribunal Act went through that certain procedure should be followed—first my Ministry, then the tribunal, and, finally, an appeal to the High Court could be granted on a point of law. That procedure has been followed; the cases mentioned have been to the High Court and the decision is against us. That does not mean that we are wrong in all the other cases. Thousands, at least, of such cases which have had an opportunity to go to the High Court have not asked to be allowed to do so. The decision which has been given does not necessarily mean that the whole of our Royal Warrant is wrong or that it has been wrongly interpreted.
    Mr. Shurmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the number of these appeal cases is increasing? In view of the evidence brought forward, does he not think the time has arrived to alter the whole of the Royal Warrant and bring in the only real solution, "Fit for service, fit for pension"?
    Mr. Paling: If the numbers have increased at all it is only very slightly. There has not been a great number before the Court.
    Mr. Allighan: Would not the Minister admit that the effect of this ruling is that the fact that men are accepted in one medical category and discharged in a much lower category establishes aprima facie claim for pension, and that the onus of disproof rests upon his Department?
    Mr. Paling: Certainly, there is a presumption in favour of that—the Judge said so—and we have to disprove that a pension is due.
    Mr. Macpherson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply by my right
    2080
    hon. Friend, may I give notice that I propose to take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment?

    Appeals
    Flying-Officer Bowdenasked the Minister of Pensions how many cases were heard before Pensions Appeals Boards in the period 1st July, 1945, to 31st March, 1946; and in how many of these cases were the applicants for pensions successful.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The number of appeals heard by pensions appeal tribunals in the period from 1st July, 1945, to 30th March, 1946, was 19,275, of which 3796 were successful and 4,145 were adjourned for various reasons.
    Flying-Officer Bon den: Does not the Minister agree that although a large number of these cases have been successful they ought never to have reached the appeal stage but ought to have been granted before?
    Mr. Paling: The Ministry have to deal with hundreds of thousands of cases and it is inevitable that some of these go through. The tribunals were set up in order to deal with this matter and to make sure that pensioners and appellants have a fair deal.
    Mr. Sidney Shephard: How many applications to go to appeal tribunals were made in 1945 and have still not been sent to the Attorney-General's Department?
    Mr. Paling: I could not give that information without notice.
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications for pensions by ex-Servicemen, rejected before the appeal tribunals were formed, who have now been accepted by these tribunals as eligible for pension.
    Mr. Basil Nieldasked the Minister of Pensions the number of Service pension claims originally refused by his Department which have subsequently been allowed by him with recourse to the appeals tribunals since such tribunals were set up.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Of the 36,016 Service appeals decided by the Pensions Appeals Tribunals up to 3oth March, 1946, 9,110 were allowed.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is yet in a position to give details of the seven occasions, between 1930 and 1942, on which his medical officers examined Mr. F. Lawton with reference to the claim of which he has been informed
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Medical examinations were carried out on nine occasions between 1930 and 1942, the dates being 2nd March, 1931; 23rd January. 9th and 27th February, 1934; 21st March, 15th October, 29th November, 7th and 29th December, 1938.
    Mr. Beswick: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the time which he has recently devoted to this claim, I would like to ask him whether he is aware that on only one of the dates that he has mentioned was the man examined with reference to the claim of which I informed my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Paling: I am not quite sure to what matter my hon. Friend is referring. The man in question had a full medical board in 1931 to determine whether he was due for pension. On the other occasions he came before our own medical man.

    Limbless Persons
    Lieut.-Colonel Byersasked the Minister of Pensions how many limbless persons are now receiving pensions; and how many have applied, so far, for the new clothing allowance.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The numbers are, some 37,00o and 14,000 respectively.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Is the Minister satisfied that the existence of this grant is adequately known throughout the country?
    Mr. Paling: It has been fairly well advertised, but if there is any way by which it can be made better known, and if some of these people have not applied because they did not know about it, I would be willing to do it.

    Psychoneurosis Cases
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Pensions how many cases of psychoneurosis of ex-Servicemen have been accepted as due to war service and pensionable as a result of the last war and the 1914–18 war, respectively; what
    2082
    proportion have been rejected; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the near future to improve the arrangements for dealing with such cases.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Approximately 30,000 awards of compensation have been made to persons suffering from disablement due to psychoneurosis arising out of the 1939 war, as compared with 47,000 in which my Department has notified the formal rejection of a claim in respect of that condition. In addition there have been a further 47,000 persons invalided on account of psychoneurosis who have at no time made or inferred anything in the nature of a claim. I am sorry that the records of my Department do not enable me to give the corresponding figures for the 1914–18 war. I am not clear what arrangements the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. The general principles governing entitlement to pension are set out in Command Papers 6459 and 6714 and the presumptions in a claimant's favour are applied in cases of psychoneurosis as in other cases.

    ARTIFICIAL LIMBS
    Mr. S. Marshallasked the Minister of Pensions what success has been met with in his endeavours to obtain quicker deliveries of the essential fittings to the artificial limbs supplied by Roehampton; and what is the average length of time taken for delivery of the fittings after the limb has been fitted.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I assume the hon. Member has in mind fittings for use with artificial arms and I am glad to say that our efforts towards speeding up this supply are now meeting with success. To quote an average time for deliveries would be misleading as devices or appliances needed for cases of special difficulty naturally take longer to complete than the more common appliances which are normally available within a week or so.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that there are still many complaints about this matter? Has he considered obtaining skilled labour from among German prisoners for the making of these limbs?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think we have considered that aspect of the matter, but we have certainly been making efforts for months past in order to catch up with this business.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is the Minister aware that the price charged for artificial limbs is exorbitant in many cases? Will he look into the question and see whether they can be supplied more cheaply?
    Mr. Paling: I will look into it. I am not aware that the price has been exorbitant. Steps were taken to deal with the matter.
    Hon. MEMBERS: Speak up.

  HOUSING

    Lodgings (Colour Bar)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that landlords are pressing tenants to sign undertakings that they will not accept Indian and other dark-skinned citizens as lodgers; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent such colour-bar barriers.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have received no information on the subject. If my hon. Friend has information which he cares to send me, I will consider it, but in any event there will be no opportunity for legislation in the present Session.
    Mr. Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 700 or 800 students recently came to this country and have very great difficulty in finding suitable lodgings because of the colour bar? Will he take some steps to find opportunities for them?
    Mr. Bevan: There are difficulties, of course, in finding accommodation everywhere, but if special obstacles are being erected against these students, I will certainly investigate the matter if my hon. Friend will let me have the information in his possession.

    Registration of Lettings
    Mr. Haydn Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that local authorities with long waiting lists of housing applications have no means of ascertaining whether housing properties are available for letting, and since self-contained lettings do not interfere with the privacy of either owner or other tenants in a house, he will give local authorities power to register and control all lettings of self-contained housing units within their areas.
    Mr. Bevan: Registration and control by local authorities of all lettings would entail a great deal of additional work which I do not think would be justified.
    Mr. Davies: Would the Minister agree that if local authorities could make registers of these lettings, it would enable them to give accommodation to people most needing it?
    Mr. Bevan: They would not always have control over the lettings, but certainly it would be desirable, if the local authorities could undertake the additional work, to have a register of that sort.

    Council Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health if it was with his sanction that the Harrow Council raised the rents by is. per week from 1st April of all its houses and flats in order to cover the increased costs of repairs; and what additional repairs have to be undertaken by this council as compared with a private landlord who is not permitted to raise the rent for such a purpose.
    Mr. Bevan: The power to fix rents for council houses is vested by statute in the local authority themselves, and my sanction was therefore not required.
    Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister propose to seek powers to prevent a local authority doing something for which a private landlord, if he did it, would go to gaol?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not propose to seek powers at the moment at all. The power to vary rents charged by local authorities on houses or to fix a maximum for those rents is a matter for a Rent Control Bill which it is not practicable to introduce just now.

    Private Enterprise Building (Licences)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that part of his housing policy which states that four houses must be built by local authorities for every one built privately, is causing resentment throughout the country; how many licences for private builders have been refused, countermanded or reduced as a result of this policy; and how many more houses for sale and for rent, shown separately, it is estimated would now be under construction had licences not been so handled.
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health what instruction he has issued to local authorities where private enterprise builders are starting or completing houses faster than the ratio of 1 to 4; and how many instances have occurred of licences being refused to private builders or work being held up because local authorities are unable to maintain this ratio.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Health why he issued instructions to the Wokingham Rural District Council which resulted in the cancellation of 48 licences for building by private enterprise; and whether he is satisfied that local builders will immediately be able to erect at least the same number of houses for the local authority.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health (1) the reasons which have prompted him to revoke, or cause to be revoked, licences issued by local authorities for the building of houses by private enterprise;
    (2) in how many cases have licences, given to build houses, been revoked subsequently, either by the local authority concerned or by his Department.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Health why he has instructed local authorities to cancel all licences granted to private builders on which work had not yet begun.
    Major Digbyasked the Minister of Health how many houses are affected by the revocation of building licences as the result of action by his Department.
    Mr. Bevan: Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I will make a statement on the subject of these Questions at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Bevan: The great majority of local authorities have exercised with proper discretion the powers to license the building of new houses by private persons in addition to their own housing programme. In some areas, however, as hon Members will see from Appendix B to the Monthly Housing Return, the local authorities have not preserved a proper proportion between the number of licences issued and the size of their own programme; in other areas they have gone further and issued licences far in excess of the whole building capacity of the district. I will deal with these two points separately.
    2086
    The principal need of people today is a house to be let at a comparatively low rent, and this can only be provided by the local authorities. I have said that local authority house building should, in view of the needs of the people, be in the ratio of four houses to one built by private enterprise, the latter being normally a house for sale. The four to one ratio is intended to be a rough overall guide to local authorities and has not been issued as a specific direction to be adhered to strictly in each case irrespective of the circumstances. However, the Housing Return for 28th February shows that licences had been issued for nearly 34,000 houses to be constructed by private enterprise, while tenders had been approved for only just over 57,000 houses to be constructed by local authorities. This is not related to the needs of the situation.
    I have, therefore, instructed certain authorities that no further licences should be issued for the time being without my consent. The number of these authorities is 161 out of a total of 1469. In 32 of these 161 areas there is the further difficulty that licensing was completely out of proportion to local resources in labour and materials, and it must be obvious that where more licences are issued than can be met by the labour and materials available, the effect is to injure either the local authority's own building programme or that of its neighbours. The local authorities in those areas were, therefore, asked to review the licences already issued with a view to cancelling or modifying those which had not yet been acted upon, or had only partially been acted upon. I cannot say how many licences have been withdrawn as a result of this instruction. No licence should have been withdrawn where the house had been begun, but I understand that that has happened in one or two cases, and I am in touch with the local authorities.
    I have laid in the Library a copy of the letter sent to local authorities on this subject and of the circular letter to which it refers.
    Major Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as one result of this narrow minded and prejudiced policy, thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of families will have to wait months longer than is necessary before getting their own roof over their heads?
    Mr. Bevan: Is it not perfectly obvious that as the limiting factor on house building is not the number of contractors or speculative builders building houses, but the supply of labour and building materials, an additional number of houses built for sale must be at the expense of the building of houses to let? I do not expect the logic of that to sink into the minds of hon. Members opposite, but it is perfectly obvious that the issuing of licences by some authorities who were not fully cooperating with the Ministry's programme has resulted in putting the whole programme Gut of synchronisation. If we are to plan the programme properly, we must have synchronisation of this sort Furthermore, there are some local authorities who appear to have been actuated by political prejudice.
    Mr. Lipson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not have been better to forbid those authorities to give any further licences, rather than instruct them to cancel licences already issued in view of the fact that what he proposes to do amounts virtually to a breach of contract? Many people have begun work.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In the first place, I have prohibited them issuing further licences. In the second place, a licence not operated within two months is automatically cancelled. Where work has begun, licences are not cancelled, or ought not to be, and, therefore, no damage has been done.
    Mr. Gammons: Does the Minister mean that because a local authority has not got on to the job sooner, men should stand idle rather than that houses should be built by private enterprise?
    Mr. Bevan: It almost invariably happens that in these circumstances local authorities in the neighbourhood have got building programmes and are denied labour and material because other local authorities, who are behind in their own programmes, are artificially stimulating the building of houses for sale.
    Mr. Churchill: That is not answering the question.
    Mr. Bevan: It is well known that the right hon. Gentleman is well informed on these subjects. The fact is that in those circumstances the local authorities are not
    2088
    denied the right to issue licences, but it is essential that the local authorities should act cooperatively in this matter and not permit one local authority to take advantage of the activities of another.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister say whether, before taking this harsh and drastic action, he reviewed the potentialities of private enterprise to build houses to let in conjunction with building societies? Will he further say whether in the ratio of four to one, the houses to be built in the new scheme by private enterprise for sale to local authorities will count in the four, or the one?
    Mr. Bevan: The answer, as the hon. Member probably knows, is that I am in consultation with representatives of the building contractors with a view to the building of houses for sale to the local authorities. Where that is done, they will count as local authority houses, and not as houses built for sale, because they will be bought by the local authority to let. I would remind hon. Members opposite that we have already built far more houses in the six months following the end of the war than were built in the three years at the end of the last war.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. There were two parts to my question, and the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to only the second part.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
    Major Beamish: Further to that, the right hon. Gentleman has only answered half my Question, number 71.
    Sir Stanley Reed: If I send particulars of a case where a local authority, for reasons beyond its control, has not proceeded with its own programmes and yet, through a misapprehension of the Order, is refusing licences, where labour and material are available, will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully into the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly, I will look carefully into it, but it must be obvious from the February return that a far larger number of licences have been applied for for houses to sell than we can provide labour and materials for in the period. Therefore, it must be brought under some sort of control.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that many private enterprise builders have built houses cheaper and quicker—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not debate the question of private enterprise now.
    Mr. Beswiek: In my own area the local authority has, for one reason or another, issued too many licences to private builders; would it be possible for those houses which are being built for sale to be allocated on a basis of need in the same way as the local authorities are allocating their other accommodation to let?
    Mr. Bevan: The houses are in the possession of those who provide them, and I have no control over them. That is why it is necessary to canalise short labour and materials into the building of houses to let so that they may go to those who need them most.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a Second Reading Debate on a housing Bill. I think we had better pass on to the next Business.

    Heating and Ventilation
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the codes of practice on heating and ventilating installations are effectively adopted in all new houses, as recommended by the Fuel and Power Advisory Council in their report on domestic fuel policy; and whether he will give an assurance that the permanent housing programme as a whole will incorporate the recommendations of that report.
    Mr. Bevan: The Interdepartmental Committee on Domestic Heating is now considering the means by which the recommendations of the Fuel and Power Advisory Council can best be implemented.

    Houses for Sale (Requisitioning)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the methods, such as the concealing of the addresses of the selling agencies, which have been used to thwart his recent instructions to local authorities to requisition houses advertised for sale, with vacant possession; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Bevan: The power which I have delegated to the clerks of local authorities is that of requisitioning unoccupied dwellings so that they may be used by persons in need of accommodation. I am not aware of any general difficulties over this, but I am considering whether the procedure should be tightened up in certain respects.

    Birmingham
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Health if he will state the total allocation of temporary houses to Birmingham; how many of those houses have been erected; how many of the prefabricated houses from America, delivered last September, have been completed and the reasons why delay has taken place.
    Mr. Bevan: The total allocation of temporary houses to Birmingham is 4,631. Six hundred and fifty-nine of these have been erected and 473 completed ready for occupation. One hundred and nineteen American houses are erected and almost complete. The erection of the American houses is being undertaken by the corporation, who have apparently had difficulty in obtaining some of the equipment which is produced in this country. I am looking into this.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister satisfied that the progress of housing in Birmingham now is satisfactory? Is it not a fact that confusion reigns in the Ministry of Works and in his Department?
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, there is no confusion whatever. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I am certainly not satisfied with the provision of houses, either in Birmingham or anywhere else. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] I knew that would receive the enthusiastic support of hon. Members opposite.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Health the cost of prefabricated houses in Birmingham, including purchase price and cost of erection; and how many of the prefabricated houses recently erected have been condemned because they are not fireproof.
    Mr. Bevan: I am not yet in a position to add to the information given in the White Paper on the Temporary Housing Programme (Cmd. 6686). I am not aware that any houses have been condemned because they are not fireproof.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is it true that some of these houses actually cost £2,000 to erect?
    Mr. Bevan: I would be surprised to hear that. I know very well that these houses are exceedingly expensive, but I am not responsible for that.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Minister of Works if his attention has been called to the confusion which has arisen in Birmingham housing schemes consequent upon acute difference on the building programme between his Department and the Public Works Committee; and if he will give more sympathetic support to the promotion of housing in Birmingham.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Works have had a discussion with the chairman of the Public Works Committee and other representatives of the Birmingham City Corporation on 10th March at which it was thought the main differences had been resolved. An officer of my Department will see the Public Works Committee for the purpose of clearing any difficulties which may remain.
    Sir P. Hannon: Is it not a fact that housing in Birmingham, where we have 35,00o applications for houses, has been frustrated beyond question by the differences between the Ministry of Works and the local authority?
    Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, that is not the fact.

    COAST EROSION
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the country's sea defences have deteriorated owing to lack of proper maintenance during the war; that the storms this winter resulted in damage estimated at several million pounds; that the cost of repairing the damage is in many cases beyond the financial resources at present available; that the problem of co-ordinating the design, construction, maintenance and financing of these sea defences is in urgent need of solution; and what measures are being taken in this connection.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am aware that the country's sea defences have deteriorated and that repairs would be costly. I am afraid, however, that I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton) on 27th February.
    Major Beamish: Will the Prime Minister consider making one Minister responsible for co-ordinating and planning all the many problems connected with this matter?
    The Prime Minister: That suggestion is being examined now.

    MOTOR INDUSTRY (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Minister of Fuel and Power on 6th April, regarding the nationalisation of the motor industry, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was replying to a statement made by a motor manufacturer about Government policy He aid not announce any new policy but issued a general warning which has been issued before by leading Members of the Government.
    Mr. Gammans: In view of the conflicting statements which are continually being made by Ministers—[An HON. MEMBER: "We understand them."]—will the Prime Minister either re-establish the principle of Cabinet responsibility or appoint a spokesman upon whose pronouncements some reliance can be placed?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is wrong in thinking there has been contradiction. I am sure that any such restriction would have been resented by Members of Governments in the past, as it would be in the present.

    STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS (AVAILABILITY)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Lord President of the Council where a copy can be seen of the Straits Settlement (Repeal) Order in Council, 1946, reference to which is made in the Malayan Union Order in Council, 1946, as establishing 1st April, 1946, as the appointed

    2093
    day for the coming into force of the said Order; whether copies can be made available to hon. Members; and whether he will give instructions that no Orders shall be made in future in which reference is made to Orders not available to Members.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Straits Settlements (Repeal) Order in Council, 1946, has been published as Statutory Rule and Order No. 462 of 1946, and copies are now available in the Vote Office and the Library. As regards the last part of the Question, I must remind the hon. Member that many Orders in Council fall within the Prerogative, or deal with judicial or local matters, and are not published. I will, however, look into the point he raises and consider whether any further improvement in the existing practice can be made for the convenience of hon. Members.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Order was not available in the Library until this Question was put down? Is it a coincidence that it is now?
    Mr. Morrison: It all goes according to plan. As a matter of fact, there was quite as much information in the actual Order in Council as there is in this Statutory Rule and Order.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Painting and Decorating (Training)
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Labour what delay exists in the allocation of courses of painting and decorating at Government training centres.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) on 2nd April.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have here a case of a man who was released from the Army last November and who was informed by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman that no vacancy would be available for at least six months? In view of the fact that such men depend for their livelihood upon these courses, will the right
    2094
    hon Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that more speedy machinery comes into operation?
    Mr. lsaacs: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have that information which he says he has in his pocket, I will have a look at it.
    Captain Crookshank: Is this delay due to a shortage of paint?

    Interrupted Apprenticeship Scheme
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Labour whether payments to employers under the interrupted apprenticeship scheme are made monthly or quarterly; and whether he is satisfied that such payments are being made with reasonable promptness.
    Mr. Isaacs: Claims for the State grant payable under the scheme for interrupted apprenticeships may be submitted by employers at monthly intervals, although at the request of some firms their claims are submitted quarterly. I regret that owing to shortage of staff there has been considerable delay in handling some of the applications and claims, but arrangements have now been made which I hope will prevent such delays in future.
    Mr. Spence: Will the Minister say whether it is an obligation on the employer to claim these payments?
    Mr. Isaacs: I would like notice of that. I could not answer definitely.

    Ex-Officers
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Labour if he will look into the working of the branch of his Department in Tavistock Square, with a view to ensuring that ex-officers inquiring about employment are received with more understanding and sympathy.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have personally examined the working of this office and am satisfied that the existing instructions calling for understanding and sympathy in dealing with ex-officers are being loyally carried out. If the hon. and gallant Member has a particular case in mind and will let me have details, I will gladly make inquiries.
    Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister aware of cases such as that of a regular lieutenant-commander of the Royal Navy who commanded one of His

    2095
    Majesty's ships, and has a disabled arm, who after very casual interrogation by a gift was offered training as a chiropodist?
    Mr. Isaacs: if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars, I will look into it but I do not recognise that as the system operating.
    Wing-Commander Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of ex-officers, whose names are on the appointments register at the London Appointments Office, who have remained on the register for a period of longer than six months without obtaining employment.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not immediately available It could only be obtained by the examination of a very large number of individual registration forms involving a disproportionate expenditure of time which would not be justified.
    Wing-Commander Cooper: While I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot supply me with that information, may I ask if he does not agree that the success of the scheme depends very largely on the suitability of the development officers who have to interview the employers, and can he investigate the qualifications of these men to see if they are adequate for them to carry out their tasks satisfactorily?
    Mr. Isaacs: The qualifications of these people were examined before they were appointed. They include high ranking officers of the Services seconded to the Ministry for the purpose, and we get every assistance from them. Up to now I have not heard any complaints about them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Does the Minister mean to tell the House that there is no system of continuous review to see whether these men are getting jobs or not? Does he not think that is rather bad?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I do not think it is rather had because I do not admit that that was the case.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Minister undertake to review each case every three months? Many of these men are left six months without a reply.
    Mr. Isaacs: These cases are continually being reviewed and, whilst I would not like to say without further examination whether it is three months or at other intervals, they are continuously reviewed because our own files would otherwise be littered up because people—[Interruption]. Perhaps hon. Members will let me answer the question; I thought they wanted information. Some of the applicants are already in employment, and go from one job to another without telling us. Others find employment while waiting for these jobs to be given to them, so of necessity we are anxious to keep our files as clear as we can in order to avoid unnecessary duplication.

    Further Education and Training
    Mr. Weitzmanasked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to publish the report of the Hankey Committee on Further Education and Training; and what action is proposed to be taken upon the findings of the committee in regard to the expansion of university education.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is not proposed to publish this report. The information which it contained as to prospects and training facilities in the professions has been made generally available in the handbook and pamphlets in the "Careers for Men and Women "series. The steps to be taken to expand university education are now being actively considered.

    Domestic Service (Eire Citizens)
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a delay of several months is involved before suitable applicants from Ireland can obtain permits from his Department to undertake domestic service in this country; and what steps he proposes to take to shorten this delay.
    Mr. Isaacs: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to Eire. There must necessarily be some delay in these cases before permission to travel can be given owing to the inquiries which have to be made in Great Britain and in Eire, but it is only in exceptional cases that this amounts to several months. The possibility of adjusting the arrangements to avoid delays is under constant examination.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Sir G. Foxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that on all future occasions when he makes reductions in the purchase tax or abolishes its incidence on any article he will take steps to ensure that no loss will fall on the retail trader involved.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. Retailers are not required to mark down the prices of stocks on which tax has been paid at the higher rate, and they gain, of course, from the increased demand following tax reductions.

    War Damage (Total Losses,Birmingham)
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the bad conditions in the bomb-damaged districts of the city of Birmingham, the danger to children, the nuisance to tenants of houses adjoining these sites and the bottlenecks which are delaying the clearance, the War Damage Commission will give the local authority schedules of total loss properties, thus obviating the necessity for them to prepare their own schedules which is the cause of the delays.
    Mr. Dalton: The War Damage Commission regularly notifies local authorities of all properties in their area which are regarded as total losses, and this has been done in the case of Birmingham.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been given information that this is not so, and that it is causing a considerable amount of delay? According to the procedure adopted, it will be 50 years before we move the rubbish in Birmingham.
    Mr. Dalton: That will be a grave reflection on the new Birmingham City Council.

    VICTORY CELEBRATIONS (BANKS)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether banks are to be closed on 8th June.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

    GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (SALE,BIRMINGHAM)
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the growing demand in the city of Birmingham for Government publications, he will consider opening a branch of H.M.S.O. in that city.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is the non. Gentleman aware that Birmingham has a larger population than all the other cities that have a Stationery Office establishment at the present time?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: There are only four cities which have an establishment of this sort—London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Manchester, and I am not sure that Birmingham is larger than any of them.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of staff employed in London in Government offices in September, 1945, and March, 1946; and the normal commencement and finishing times of duty in September, 1945, and on 1st April, 1946.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that the information is not available centrally.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Nursing Service
    Mr. Messerasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the enrolment fee of £1 1s. charged to an intermediate assistant nurse is likely to prevent the recruitment of many suitable applicants; and if he will consider some alteration with a view to the encouragement of enrolment.
    Mr. Bevan: I have not received any general representations on this point and I have no reason to think that this fee is a deterrent to enrolment.
    Mr. Messer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are girls who have not been working but have had sufficient training to be intermediate assistant nurses, and they have been asked for a guinea before

    2099
    they have earned any money at all? Surely that must be a deterrent?
    Mr. Bevan: There are a large number of organisations, as the hon. Member knows, looking after the welfare of nurses, and no representations have been made to me on this point, but I will certainly look into it and see if it is a bar.
    Major John Morrisonasked the Minister of Health in which category of hospital, voluntary or municipal, the shortage of nurses is the greater.
    Mr. Bevan: The shortage of nurses is in general greater in the municipal hospitals, which include tuberculosis sanatoria and a large number of beds for the chronic sick.

    Doctors (Demobilisation)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Health whether the view which he expressed some months ago of reducing the number of doctors serving in the armed Forces to a ratio of about 2 per cent. of personnel has been achieved; and how many of the doctors so released since VE-Day are Scottish doctors who have returned to practice in Scotland.
    Mr. Bevan: If my hon. and learned Friend has in mind the ratio of 2 per 1,000 referred to in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) on 13th December, the answer is "Yes." On the second part of the Question I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the number of doctors released from the Forces since VE-Day includes 926 who were recruited from Scotland, but it is not at present known how many of these have returned to practice in that country.

    Tubercular Persons (Allowances)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health to what extent, as a result of the National Insurance Bill, it will he necessary to modify present instructions regarding the provision of allowances for rent and winter fuel and discretionary and special payments for tubercular persons under Circular 266/T.
    Mr. Bevan: This is at present under consideration and I am not yet able to make a statement.

    ARCHITECTS (EMPLOYMENT)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health what proportion of all architectural work carried out in Great Britain at this time, is in charge of architects employed either by the State on by local authorities.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Bossom: Has the right hon. Gentleman not stated that work under a licence given to private architects is given equal treatment to work submitted by architects employed by local authorities or the Government?
    Mr. Bevan: That is not the Question.
    Mr. Bossom: No, but that is my supplementary.

    BRITISH ARMY(PERSONAL CASE)
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for War why T-82144 Driver C. Kennedy, 585 R.A.S.C. Newport Barracks, Newport, Monmouthshire, has not been demobilised with Group 25; why he has not received his pay for his present service; and when he will be discharged.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger):Driver Kennedy is in Group 28, not Group 25. He was relegated to Class W of the Reserve for over seven months, and this period does not count towards his service for the purpose of assessing his age and service group. He is due to be released during the period laid down for Group 28, which is from 21st April to 18th May If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the point raised in the second part of the Question I will inquire into it.

    OPTICAL SUPPLIES,BIRMINGHAM
    Mr. Yatesasked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that persons residing in Birmingham, for whom glasses have been prescribed by the Birmingham Eye Hospital five months ago, are still unable to obtain them; and if he will take steps to increase necessary supplies to meet such urgent cases in Birmingham.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Leonard): Delays up to five months have occurred in isolated cases only and have been due to the complex nature of the prescriptions. I am informed that the Hospital to which my hon. Friend refers is satisfied that, in the light of present conditions, it is receiving reasonable service and supplies.
    Mr. Yates: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a statement made by the Governor of this hospital a few days ago, there were no fewer than 144 cases outstanding from last year, and over 800 for the first quarter of this year and, according to information received today, one optician in Birmingham alone has 15,000 spectacles lying in his workshops, whereas the normal number should be 500?
    Mr. Leonard: The production at the present time is close to normal requirements, and the lag is due to orders left over of a highly specialised nature. As labour accrues to this service, we will speedily remedy the defect.

    WORLD FOOD SITUATION
    Mr. Churchill (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the rationing of bread and the American proposals that "further sacrifices in oils and fats should be made."
    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food was in Washington, provisional proposals were made for the distribution of wheat up to the end of June. Unfortunately it now appears that supplies from the United States and other supplying countries are not coming forward in sufficient quantities to meet these proposals. The short fall will affect, not only the countries for which U.N.R.R.A. is responsible, but also the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire including the large populations in India. It will also affect occupied countries and other foreign countries in which we have special responsibilities—indeed it will apply to all importing countries alike. This situation can be met only by the united action of all countries, exporters as well as importers, each contributing to the maximum of its ability. During
    2102
    the war the Allies developed a system whereby all our resources were shared in common for the common good. If the same principle is followed now, we in the United Kingdom are willing to play our part and we shall not fall behind in the contribution which we make.
    The House knows already the successful efforts which we have made to increase our wheat production and the efficient system which we have developed for drawing all millable wheat from the farms at an agreed price, so that it is used only for human consumption. We have recently increased our extraction rate, even though this seriously affects our supplies of animal foodstuffs.
    We are now prepared to go further in the common cause. We are willing to ration bread if the supplying countries are prepared to do the same. Alternatively, we are ready to take administrative measures to save wheat and flour which are comparable in their effect to those which the supplying countries are prepared to adopt, so that the fullest contribution may be made by all to avert the risk of widespread famine and starvation.
    We are anxious to apply the same principle of common effort to meet the world's requirements of oils and fats. On this subject, however, I can make no statement at the moment, beyond saying that we are doing everything in our power to increase supplies from all parts of the world.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any truth in the statement that has appeared in the last day or two to the effect that the Americans considered our British consumption of fats per head greater than that in America?
    The Prime Minister: I have not heard that.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: In the statement the Prime Minister has just made, he spoke of our being willing to take similar measures with other supplying countries. Can he explain why in the Press notice issued from Downing Street the United States of America has been singled out as the only supplying country to whom we, so to speak, issue this challenge?
    The Prime Minister: I think the United States and Canada were mentioned. The matter was taken up in discussion with the United States and Canada.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that full statistics have never been given to this House of the decisions taken at Washington? Will he have them issued?
    The Prime Minister: They were provisional proposals, and it has now turned out that those allocations cannot be dealt with as fully as we hoped they could be.
    Mr. Nicholson: Why should not the House have even provisional allocations told to them, because it is important that the House should be fully informed of the facts?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously when suggestions are made of certain allocations which are not brought to a final conclusion, it would be a mistake to publish them.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the importance of this matter to this country, can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he will be able to inform the House of the decision of the United States Government?
    The Prime Minister: As I pointed out, they are considering this matter, and I cannot tell when they will finish the conversations. Of course, I will inform the House.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether approaches have been or are being made to Egypt and Brazil with a view to securing adequate supplies of cottonseed for making edible oils and margarine which are so badly needed?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that was taken up, and gone into very fully.

    FRENCH NAVY(BRITISH SHIPS)
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dug-dale): With the permission of the House, I desire to make the following short statement.
    As a result of conversations between my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Ministre des Armees,His Majesty's Government have agreed to lend to the French Government free of charge a light fleet carrier of the "Colossus" class. The loan will be for
    2104
    not longer than five years. His Majesty's Government hope that this arrangement will be of help to the French Navy which, at the moment, possesses no modern operational carrier. The French Government are at the same time buying six British-built frigates now on loan to the French Navy. I understand that an official statement is being issued this afternoon to the French Press in similar terms.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: Will the Leader of the House state the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 15th April—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, 1946.
Tuesday, 16th April—It is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, 1946, and to take the Motion to approve the Herring Industry Amendment Scheme.
Wednesday, 17th April—Report stage of the Budget Resolutions, and Motions to approve outstanding Import Duties Orders.
Thursday, 18th April—It is proposed to meet at 11a.m., and Questions will be taken until 12 noon.
Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 30th April.
On Tuesday or on Wednesday we shall ask the House to consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill and to other Bills
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made representations some time ago, and urged that we should postpone the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill until after Easter, in order to give hon. Members more time to consult local authorities and other interests. Further representations were made, and the Government decided to meet the request, but we felt that we could only do so on the understanding that the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill were not thereby prejudiced. We intended to take

2105
the Second Reading before the Easter Recess in order to allow as much time as possible for the Committee stage, and with a view to completing the remaining stages in the House by the end of July. From the consultations which have taken place, it is understood that this arrangement will not be prejudiced by delaying the Second Reading. The House will realise that these factors had to weigh with the Government in deciding upon postponement. I thought it right to mention this, and hope that the proposed arrangement will meet the general convenience of the House.
Mr. Churchill: We are obliged to the Leader of the House for the announcement he has made as to the postponement of the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill until after Easter. It must be remembered that in this Bill there are great differences of opinion, but there is also a much larger common ground of agreement on measures which were contemplated, and even advanced a considerable distance, during the life of the Coalition Government. Therefore, I trust this Business will not suffer because of the postponement until after Easter.
With regard to the addendum to the right hon. Gentleman's notice of Business for next week about considering Amendments which may be received from another place on the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill and some other Bills, we have not yet received the Amendments from another place. We do not know what their scope is. They may be numerous, and in some cases of obvious importance, and I hope that the Leader of the House will not endeavour to reach any conclusion upon them until he sees what the Amendments are. I do not know that they could be fitted in at the end of these busy days in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I hope that we shall not come to any decision on them until we see exactly what points are raised in each case.
Mr. Morrison: With regard to the Health Bill, I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise that there have been material changes in policy under this Government, and it is fair that there should be discussion. We hope that under the arrangement envisaged, we shall get a conclusion, wisely or unwisely, by the time indicated. With regard to the
2106
Measures coming from another place, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Bill especially is a Bill of some urgency, as it is related to housing development. I am informed that the Government will find it necessary to propose Amendments to the Bill in another place, but I am advised that a number of these Amendments are of a drafting character. It is our desire to consider any Amendments to this Bill and to other Bills which may be received from another place in order that the Bills may receive the Royal Assent before the Easter Adjournment. Quite often there is not much time to consider Amendments from another place which have come down shortly before a Recess, but we shall try to give the House as much time as is possible for the consideration of any such Amendments. We hope that it will be possible to obtain them on Tuesday or Wednesday, as I have announced in the Business statement. We must see the full extent of the Amendments when they are received. I hope that we shall receive any Amendments to Bills from another place on Monday.
Mr. W. J. Brown: How soon after Easter do the Government think they can afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Motion, signed by approximately 200 Member of the House, which is on the Order Paper, dealing with the question of counting unestablished service towards pension in the Civil Service?
[That the whole question of the counting of unestablished service for Civil Service tensions should be referred to a Select Committee of the House.]
Mr. Morrison: I see no prospect of time being available for that Motion.
Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an issue which cannot be referred to any other kind of machinery than this House, and that if 200 Members of the House cannot get time for a Debate on the conditions of service of their own employees, something is radically wrong? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that, with a view to giving us a day after Easter?
Mr. Morrison: I still take the view that there will not be time available. I appreciate that the hon. Member made elaborate efforts, by circularisation of forms ready to be signed by hon. Members—
Hon. MEMBERS: Why not?
Mr. Morrison: I recognise that 200 Members signed them, but I am quite free to judge, and have a right to judge, as to the relative importance I must attach to these efforts at plebiscites in the House.
Mr. Bowles: With reference to the Business for next Thursday, in view of the fact that the first hour is being devoted to Questions, will the House rise at 4.30 p.m. or 5.30 p.m.?
Mr. Morrison: The House will adjourn at 5 o'clock.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the many Questions which have been put down week after week, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before the Easter Recess on the reintroduction of the Criminal justice Bill?
Mr. Morrison: It is obviously out of the question for that Bill to be introduced this Session.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate at this stage whether it is intended to take the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill on the Floor of the House, in view of the large number of representations which have reached hon. Members on the subject? May I urge upon him the desirability of taking it on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Morrison: That is a point usually dealt with when we reach the Second Reading of a Bill.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Reverting to the question of the Motion on Civil Service pensions, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he recognises that a refusal by the Government to provide time for a Motion signed by 200 Members of Parliament, whose signatures have been perfectly legitimately obtained, on an issue which every Member of the House knows is years old, cannot but have the most unfortunate effect upon the whole of the public services, when it is seen how much time the Government can afford to other matters of much less significance?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to advance that argument, but I am perfectly entitled to have my view as to the relative importance I
2108
attach to spontaneous pressure on the part of Members of Parliament, and activities of this sort, where elaborate circularisation is persisted in, and signatures obtained, which I am bound to say I do not think is a healthy Parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the old freedoms of the House of Commons, the right of Members to associate with each other and to gather together for collective representation, should he disparaged and swept away, in the terms which he has used today?
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time in his life, has got it all wrong [Interruption.] I do not know what is the matter with the Opposition today.
Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman ought to look in the looking-glass.
Mr. Morrison: Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to make such steps as they think wise, but the Government must be free, and must be entitled to judge between one form of expressing the opinion of the House and another.
Mr. Churchill: If as many as 200 Members sign a document or petition, or agree upon a policy, that is not a reason for adopting the policy, but it is considerable reason for seeking some opportunity to enable the matter to be ventilated.
Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with the the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] He is reducing Parliamentary procedure to an automatic machine. If he thinks that some interest—and this is an interest—which by efforts, carefully organised and planned, can get the signatures of 200 Members of Parliament, is automatically going to command a Parliamentary day, I do not agree with him. I think we must judge these cases on their merits as they come along.
Mr. Churchill: I never suggested that the process should be automatic, although I may point out that the question of moving the Adjournment on urgent matters of public importance is decided by an automatic operation of 40 Members standing up in their place.
Mr. Morrison: Not very automatic.
Mr. Churchill: Surely it should be weighed by the Government and every effort should be made to meet the wish of the House to discuss questions which arouse great public interest. I am not dealing with the merits at all. I might differ altogether from the views put forward; but, from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, if there is a general desire to debate anything in this House, or if a large majority wish a matter to be debated, it is the duty of the Leader of the House to do his utmost to accommodate them.
Sir G. Fox: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask what steps can be taken to ensure that next week Ministers are here at Question Time, following the experience of today when there was no Minister in attendance to answer Question No. 89?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that we got through the Questions quickly today. No doubt the Minister will be here next Thursday.
Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: On the Business for next Monday, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your Ruling as to whether the first Notice of Motion on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, stand-in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr Leslie Hale), to call attention to the need for pensions for parents, is in Order, as the subject matter covered by it does not appear to be included in the Army Estimates?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) is out of Order. The provision, which the hon. Member advocates, of
" basic pensions or allowances payable to the parents of unmarried members of His Majesty's Army who lost their lives on active service during the recent war "
is not capable of being brought under Vote 14, which relates to pensions for disability incurred during peacetime service, Dr, so far as I can see, under any other Vote of the Army Estimates. But it does relate to a Vote in the Civil Estimates—that of the Ministry of Pensions. Under Standing Order No. 16 an Amendment on going into Committee of Supply must relate to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Committee of Supply. I must therefore rule that the hon. Member's Motion, which relates to the Civil Esti-
2110
mates, is out of Order on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.
Mr. Bowles: I do not see the hon. Member for Oldham in his place. He is probably in the best position, Mr. Speaker, to argue against your Ruling—which I do not doubt is quite right—but I would like to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) gave notice to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) that the point was going to be raised.
Mr. Speaker: That is not for me. I was asked a question and I have given a Ruling. The hon. Member will be able to make representations if he disagrees.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I gather from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that although this Motion would be out of Order on the Army Estimates, it would have been in Order on the Civil Estimates. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that the matter is obviously cognate to matters raised in the Army Estimates, he could arrange for Civil Estimates, or at any rate that particular one, to be taken on the same day.
Mr. Speaker: The Question will be that I do leave the Chair. We cannot take another Question on the same day as the Army Estimates.
Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order. Arising out of the answers given by the Leader of the House, which seem to involve the curtailment of individual liberty of Members of this House, is there any way in which this House can reestablish individual rights to bring matters to the attention of the House, other than the way which we have suggested?
Mr. Speaker: I did not quite follow that question.
Mr. Davies: Two hundred individual Members have put a Motion on the Paper. The Leader of the House said that no time could be given for discussion of the Motion. Is there no other way in which what is desired by 200 Members may be discussed by the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is rather a difficult question for me to answer. Motions are put on the Order Paper and the responsibility must lie upon the Government to give time. Hon. Members may object and may put down Motions objecting, but the

2111
responsibility remains with the Government for giving or refusing time. No doubt there are chances on Supply and on other occasions of raising the matter again.
Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that if the hon. and learned Member wants to raise it, he can move the Adjournment of the House, if his 200 Members stand up, and then the matter can be decided?
Mr. Speaker: In that case it must definitely be a matter of urgent public importance. I do not think this quite comes in that category.
Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not the case that when Private Members' time was very largely withdrawn in the House, we were assured by the Government of the day that if there were any issues which any large section of the House desired to have discussed in this place, then the Government would take the necessary steps to give us time? If 200 Members of Parliament cannot discuss the treatment of their own servants in the public service because the Government will neither give Private Members' time nor Governmental time to it, then what remedy have these men but to strike? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that when one talks about the remedy of the strike, one is very far from a point of Order.
Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the time taken up by Questions on next week's Business, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether there is any chance of extending Question time?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker?

DOMESTIC WORKERS(ALIENS)
Mr. Isaacs: I am now able to announce the decision of the Government on the admission of foreign women for domestic employment in hospitals and private households.
There is still a great need for domestic workers in hospitals and similar institutions. Whilst it is to be hoped that the new rates of wages to be adopted and the improved conditions will attract an increased flow of British domestic workers
2112
into the hospitals, some time is likely to elapse before this can be achieved, and in the meantime steps must be taken to deal with the immediate problem. It is therefore proposed to approach the Government; of a number of European countries where there is thought to be a potential supply of domestic workers for hospitals, with a view to extending to those countries the recruitment scheme now successfully operating with the assistance of the Belgian Government. In addition it will be open to the hospitals to apply for permits for the admission of individual foreign women, with whom they have themselves got into touch, to fill their domestic vacancies. Second only to the needs of the hospitals are those of the housewives who have borne an excessive burden for years past. I propose to explore with foreign Governments the possibility of enlisting their assistance in the recruitment of suitable women for private households. It is clear, however, that an immediate measure of relief is due, and it has accordingly been decided to reintroduce forthwith the system under which permits may be granted for the admission of individual foreign women for service in private households. Subject to any special inquiries which may have to be made in individual cases, applications will be considered for women of all nationalities other than German.
Under this scheme a permit may he granted to an employer who has not already a domestic staff which is reasonably adequate having regard to the circumstances of the household, provided that my Department is satisfied that there is no suitable British woman available, and that the wages to be paid are not below those prevailing locally for the particular kind of domestic work. Permits will be issued in each case for periods not exceeding 12 months in the first instance, and this will enable the position to be kept under review. If the employment for which the permit was issued comes to an end the consent of the Department will be required before any other employment in this country can be taken up. The necessary administrative arrangements are now being made and the scheme will be put into effect as from 6th May I would ask prospective employers not to make applications to the local offices of the Department before that date.
Earl Winterton: May I, as the chairman of a voluntary hospital, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make it clear that, provided the conditions of service are satisfactory, there will be no sort of disequilibrium, in other words, there will be complete equality, between the rights or opportunities of voluntary hospitals and municipal hospitals in obtaining this extra staff?
Mr. Isaacs: We have no intention of discrimination at all. We want to see that all hospitals of every character, which are caring for the sick, get the help they need.
Mr. John Paton: May I ask the Minister whether he would consider laying down a minimum standard of conditions, which is just as important as wages?
Mr. Isaacs: The reference I made to improved conditions now in operation in the organisations concerned does cover conditions of employment.
Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: In addition to the needs of hospitals, which we all recognise, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the urgency of providing more staff for seaside resorts in the coming holiday season, as there is great urgency for more staff for seaside resorts, and they have been promised some assistance?
Mr. Isaacs: That has not been ruled out. It is still under consideration, but, as there is a considerable amount of work to be done to staff the hospitals we do intend to give preference to that side.
Mr. Mikardo: Will these people be available for employment by local authorities who run "home helps "schemes?
Mr. Isaacs: I would like to look into that.
Mr. Erroll: Will these women be allowed to bring their children, if they have any, to this country; and will any provision be made for their children?
Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. We are not proposing to import families. I am not quite sure whether, if a woman has a family to look after, she could do domestic duty.
Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodģe: Could the Minister tell us whether the scheme covers the employment of nationals of ex-enemy countries?
Mr. Isaacs: I think the words I read out very clearly were "all nationalities, other than German."
Mr. Sidney Shephard: Will the responsibilities for the cost of the fares be borne by the employer, or is it a matter of arrangement?
Mr. Isaacs: This matter is under discussion—I do not want to be unduly long about this—and we are negotiating with these various Governments. They have people who are anxious to work, and we have the vacancies to fill, and we think there must be a suitable bargain both ways. I will look into the point.
Mr. Shurmer: Will the Minister say that priority will be given to our hospitals before these women are placed in private service?
Mr. Isaacs: I think that is definitely covered by my statement.
Mr. Walkden: May I ask the Minister, if he is considering the case of the seaside resorts, whether he will see that we safeguard these girls against the foul conditions that obtained before the war—long hours, low wages and the tipping system? Will he ensure that they have real conditions, if he is going to help the seaside resorts?
Mr. Isaacs: I can only say that we are still in negotiation on that question.
Mr. Braddock: Will the Minister consider postponing the application of this scheme to private householders until the needs of public institutions are met?
Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, because we hope to work on a kind of bulk arrangement with institutions, but there are many people who have contacted individuals who can be brought in, and there are many households in this country urgently in need of help.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 10th April.]
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  AMENDMENT OF LAW
  Question again proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."— [Mr. Dalton.]
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received so many congratulations on the clarity with which he presented his Budget on Tuesday that I will not weary the Committee or embarrass him by adding to them. The picture which the right hon. Gentleman presented to the country was, to my mind, however, a much more rosy one than the facts of the case justify. There has been a considerable diversity of opinion in the Press. The "Daily Herald" called it "a proud Budget." The" Daily Mail "called it a" no incentive Budget," and described it as "niggardly in conception and partisan in its aims." The "Financial Times" headline was "Soaking the Rich Again."
  The figures which the Chancellor presented were based, no doubt, on the best estimates which he could obtain. Knowing the skill of his advisers, I have some confidence in them, but we all know that statistics can be used to prove almost anything and, on this occasion, the Chancellor has, used the figures with which he has been provided, to try to convince the country that the general picture, at any rate so far as home finance is concerned, is remarkably satisfactory. Truth, we are told, is a jewel which has many facets and, if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to present to the Committee the truth as I see it emerging from the Chancellor's figures. Mine is certainly a different view from his. What do his figures show? They show, to begin with, that the huge estimate of expenditure made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) last year has almost been reached, and this in spite of the fact
  2116
  that this expenditure was planned to cover a full year of war whereas, in fact, a very great part of the year was a year of peace or, at any rate, of transition. To my mind this shows a deplorable lack of control of expenditure, and I would remind the Committee, if I may, that in his two hours' speech the Chancellor said not one word about the need for economy nor the need to curb extravagant expenditure.
  Let us now look at the proposals made for the forthcoming year. There was a point in his speech at which the right hon. Gentleman turned to his supporters behind him and said:
  " So much for the past; now let us face the future. "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1810.]
  —almost waving in his hand the Labour Party's election programme. My complaint is that he did not face the future at all. He left it as all Socialists must —in the lap of the devil. The Chancellor gave the impression that he had very nearly balanced. his Budget. What in fact do the figures show? The deficit for the year, as shown on page 27 of the White Paper, is £725 million. Were it not for the receipt of £50 million from the sale of surplus war stores, that figure would have been £875 million. Although the Chancellor's estimates of revenue included such terminal receipts as this, they excluded such terminal payments as war damage compensation, Excess Profits Tax refunds, repayment of postwar credits and any expenditure which has to be financed from the Civil Contingencies Fund. All these items are items which have got to be found, and they were estimated in "The Times" newspaper yesterday as between £400 million and £600 million during the current year. I am bound to say that I think that estimate is rather high, but, even on the assumption that they amount to only £300 million, which I guess is nearer the mark, this figure brings the true cash deficit for the year well above £1,000 million. This makes rather a different picture from that which the Chancellor painted, particularly in the concluding part of his speech when he said that on a certain basis the deficit was reduced to only £300 million.
  However, let us look at the bright picture which the Chancellor himself painted and allow him for one moment all

  2117
  the indulgence we can. He claims that he has nearly balanced the Budget this year or that, at any rate, he will balance it next year if he wants to. He admits that the. cost of the social services will rise by £200 million during the next two years, and he hoped for some reduction in defence expenditure to offset that. He envisages, therefore, that he will be in a position to balance his Budget next year.But what a balance! He will be balancing himself on the top of a very high ladder which is not very firmly wedged at the bottom. In fact, it will not be wedged at all—it will be supported by the almost broken back of the poor British taxpayer. The truth is that he is only hoping to be able to balance his Budget by maintaining taxation at the present appalling wartime level. This means that we shall be faced, as far ahead as we can see, with a penal rate of Income Tax and Surtax, with beer taxed at 7½d. a pint, with cigarettes taxed at is. 9d. for 20, and with a Purchase Tax, about which the Chancellor gaily told us on Tuesday, that not only does he intend it to stay, but that it must yield an increasing revenue over the next few years.
  What a precarious position the Chancellor will be in at the top of his ladder. He can only manage to screw this vast sum of money out of the unfortunate taxpayer by maintaining current taxation and if the current level of income is maintained. Does he really count on this? It will be interesting to hear from him in his reply, what he thinks the current level of income will be for the next few years. Does he not know that already, in some cases, profits are falling? Does he know that in many industries which have turned over from war to peace no profits are yet being earned? Has he noticed, for example, the startling fall in the railway traffics which are a good indication of the trade of the country? Has he observed that the earnings of workers have been much reduced by less overtime? Does he know that the vastly increased cost of building is having its effect on the costs of maintenance of property and works, thus reducing the net income?
  Is it not plain to all that the current level of income is not likely to be maintained indefinitely? Although, as after
  2118
  he last war, the revenue, which is always a reflection of the trade of a year or two ago, is likely to remain buoyant for the time being, it will, sooner or later, suffer a heavy fall. What will the Chancellor do then? The poor, sweating taxpayer will collapse at the bottom of the ladder which he can no longer support, and the Chancellor will come tumbling down, and all the king's horses and all the king's men will not be able to put H.D. together again. Perhaps at this point it may be reasonable to suggest what we on this side of the House would do if we were now in charge of affairs. First, we would attack the vital question of reducing expenditure.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what expenditure he refers?
  Mr. Assheton: I will. I had not omitted to notice the speech of the Financial Secretary last night when he put that very question and I have been thinking about it during the night. Before the war, our national expenditure was running at about £1,000 million per annum and the Chancellor has now budgeted for an expenditure of £4,000 million. It is perfectly true that since the end of hostilities there has been a decline in expenditure, but it is still running at a level far above that which is either necessary or can be tolerated. I have been examining the figures of expenditure after the last war and I find that, then, expenditure fell far more rapidly than it has fallen this time. In 1919 the figure was £2,579 million; in 1920 it had fallen to £1,660 million, and by 1921 to £1,100 million. It is clear that we have been much slower on this occasion in trying to cut our coat according to our cloth and in trying to beat swords into ploughshares, and I hope that the process will be speeded up, because it is far more necessary this time than it was then.
  There are vast new commitments of all sorts upon which we have entered. Social services of the sort concerned in these new commitments, as "The Times" has pointed out, have two qualities. On the one hand they have to be paid for by a transfer of money from contributors and taxpayers to beneficiaries; these services are not free, as some people think they are, any more than one is travelling free if one has a season ticket on the railway. On the other hand the goods and services

  2119
  must be forthcoming if the beneficiaries are to benefit. They are no good at all if these are not forthcoming.
  The people have certainly voted for these reforms. Now comes the question: Can we earn them? If we cannot earn them, the people will have been cheated. The people will also have been cheated if they find that the benefits they are receiving are in a currency which is vastly depreciated. There is no advantage in doubling the old age pension, if everything the old age pensioner buys costs twice as much as it did before. The need, therefore, to eliminate all extravagance is greater than it has ever been. We on this side of the Committee do not believe the Government are doing all they should in that direction. We were grieved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no word in his speech about economy. He gave no hint that he was watching out for extravagance, except in the one case of the extraordinary item of £80 million spent for the benefit of the German people. I hope he will get after that item very quickly. In fact, the Chancellor seemed to pride himself on the large sums of money he is going to spend. He had a song in his heart, although it was not a song of sixpence but a song of millions.
  Mr. Harold Davies: For the depressed areas.
  Mr. Assheton: The Government are taking a vast part of the people's income, and a lot of it is being wasted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where? "] I am going to tell the Committee. It is salutary to remember that the State has no money of its own, and that every penny comes out of the pocket of the people. That is a platitude, but it cannot be repeated too often. The people, therefore, have the greatest interest in eliminating waste, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must never forget that he is their principal agent for this purpose. There is no limiting the expenditure of departments, except by the strictest possible control. Here, of course, we in Parliament are responsible, for most of the vast items of expenditure are the result of Parliamentary Votes. We must not get into the habit of thinking that we get results merely by voting money for this and for that. What we have to ask ourselves is: are the goods and services available to make that money good? The pace of Government expenditure is alarming.
  2120
  In January this year there were 937,000 men and women in national Government service—more than there were in the whole building and civil engineering industries. On the same date, there were 854,000 employed in local government service, which is more than those engaged in the whole of agriculture.
  According to a table in HANSARD of 15th March, 35 per cent. of the occupied population is still employed in the Armed Forces, as non-industrial civil servants, as employees of local authorities and in the manufacture and equipment of supplies for the Forces. That is a figure at which the Chancellor should look. It is shocking that at this time more than 1,500,000 are still employed on orders for the Supply Departments. These figures can be seen in this excellent Monthly Digest of Statistics with which the Government are good enough to provide us, and the latest figure given is 1,562,000 of insurable age, and there is another unstated figure for those over insurable age. I cannot state what the total figure is, but it must be above 1,562,000. I suggest that that constitutes an incredible waste of labour and materials, and it is something about which I would like the Chancellor to tell us this evening.
  It is unnecessary to give many details of Government extravagance. Everyone is familiar with some which come within his own experience, but I was particularly horrified at the figure of over £13 million for stationery and printing which appears in the Estimates. I know how difficult it is for the Treasury to control the Service Departments; it is very difficult indeed, and I have every sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I hope he is aware of the extravagance that is going on all over the world. It is a frame of mind which is inevitable in wartime, but we must now get rid of it. There was a time when we were the richest nation in the world. That was a long time ago, and we can no longer afford to behave like millionaires. It is particularly galling to see extravagance at a time when the Government are continually telling us to save and to be austere. We want a little of our money to spend on ourselves. We know the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs a great deal of it, but it makes us mad when we see him spending money that we can so hardly spare. Let the Government practise some of the austerity which they preach.

  2121
  I liked something which Mr. William Barkley wrote in an article in the "Daily Express" the day before yesterday:
  " One tires of the line of talk which seems to suggest that the whole purpose of life is to apply our noses to larger, rougher and more numerous grindstones."
  The first thing, therefore, the Chancellor should do is to curb extravagance, and I suggest the Service Departments and the Ministry of Works are a couple of good places in which to start. The next important thing is to take measures—
  Mr. Austin: The right hon. Gentleman referred to economy in the Service Departments. Does he mean, therefore, that we ought to have a revision of our foreign policy?
  Mr. Assheton: Not at all. I was hoping that the Services might be able to conduct their affairs on more economical lines than at present. I am certain the Chancellor would be the first to agree that there is always room for economy in the Service Departments—not economy necessarily in the total amount of work done, but economy in the actual expenditure and in the control of it.
  It has been admitted on both sides of the Committee that the present level of taxation is intolerable, even when account is taken of the concessions which the Chancellor has made in his two Budgets. No one disputes the inevitability of high taxation for the time being, but it really is ridiculous to suggest that the burden does not lie very heavily on the backs of the people. They dislike very much seeing so much of their income going into the pockets of the Chancellor. It is vitally necessary that our fiscal policy should be designed in such a way as to enable the necessary revenue to be raised with the least disturbance of trade and industry. The Chancellor has acknowledged the need to adjust taxation so as to give the greatest incentive to the greatest number of people. He has told us that that is his object, but he has not lived up to his ambitions in this respect. The present rate of Income Tax is universally regarded as an intolerable burden, and the attitude of mind implicit in that belief is, itself, a fairly strong argument in favour of a further substantial reduction in the standard rate of tax. A high rate of tax, of course, imposes a definite brake upon work and enterprise, whether personal or
  2122
  corporate, and it tends to reduce the national income and certainly to operate unfavourably upon our competitive power as a nation. "The Times" said in a leading article on Tuesday:
  " The notion that the deterrent effect of taxation was a myth or excuse of the rich has suffered a change. Nowadays it is a familiar truth among the poor."
  The eyes of the manual worker have been opened to the true burden of Income Tax by watching the workings of P.A.Y.E. However much the blunt instrument of P.A.Y.E. is sharpened or refined by gradations, it will never be possible to conceal the fact—nor would it be a good thing to do so—that an increase of earnings is accompanied by an ever-increasing steepening of taxation. Wage earners are not the only section of the community who have shown some resentment at tax deductions from their pay packets made in various ways. Other sections of the community are also human. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will constantly bear that in mind. The effect of a high rate of tax on the willingness of professional men to render services is clearly observable. Even among that large number of professional men whose prime motive is not necessarily money gain, there is the obvious inclination to procure for themselves more leisure, and, therefore, to render less service than they would do if taxation of all sorts were lower, and they were able to expect that more of their earnings could be set aside to be available for their old age or for building up something for their children. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) suggested yesterday that we were slandering or libelling some classes of the community in suggesting that these deterrents did not operate. I suggest to him that the temptation to secure for oneself a little more leisure is a very real one.
  Then comes the large number of persons or firms engaged in trade or business. A high rate of Income Tax is bound to influence their Headiness to embark on new ventures and developments, especially ventures which bear considerable risk. Also, it has a hampering effect on their ability to get capital. It is often that particular kind of enterprise which is most desirable in the interests of progress and material welfare. Some people will be debarred or deterred altogether from going into business as entrepreneurs. It is not

  2123
  easy to assess the loss to the community through these causes, but there is no doubt that it is appreciable. It is not very tempting to anyone to be venturesome, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a large partner in all one's successes, but does not participate in one's failures. Heavy taxation makes it difficult to build up those reserves which are so necessary to the growth of any kind of progressive concern. Enterprise is also checked because companies are always more ready to undertake risks when they are in a strong financial position.
  Another point I would like to stress is this. High taxation has the effect of inducing business concerns to take up a domicile outside the United Kingdom. In recent months there have been announcements in the Press from which 1 have drawn the conclusion that certain concerns which operate overseas—not in this country—have transferred their head offices from the United Kingdom to some other part of the world, where taxation is not quite so oppressive.
  Mr. Wacker: That is very patriotic.
  Mr. Assheton: I am only telling my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what I read in the newspapers, which may well be true. They may not even be concerns owned entirely by English people. They have been tempted, because of the high rate of taxation in this country, to move overseas. I am just telling the Committee the facts and asking the Committee to address itself to them. With regard to the high rate of taxation in this country, there is also the consideration—and the hon. Member opposite will not be able to shout ' patriotism "over this—which affects the decision of those who were outside the United Kingdom, whether they should come into this country or establish undertakings abroad. That is another point to be borne in mind. The arguments in favour of a graded scale of taxation are obvious and well known. It is very easy to see the plain justice in the contention that taxation should fall most heavily on those shoulders which can bear it best. However, the argument in favour of a graded scale of taxation can, I suggest, he pressed too far. The number of the most highly salaried professional men, scientists and business executives, may be comparatively small, but their importance cannot be over-estimated, particularly in
  2124
  an age like this, when science plays so great a part, and where the best brains are so essential for the development of commerce.
  I was particularly sorry that in restoring part of the earned income allowance, the Chancellor saw fit to restrict the full benefit to those who were earning £1,200 a year or less. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) put the case with regard to that very fully, and I will not add to it now. I would say, however, that the section of the community immediately above that level is as valuable an element in the community as any other, and is badly in need of encouragement. We should do something to lift the burden from the shoulders of the middle classes. I am particularly sorry also that the Chancellor has not seen his way to make any concessions to the Surtax payers, for on the activity and enterprise of many of them depends the country's success in trade and commerce. There is no doubt about that. I cannot really believe—and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think very seriously about this—that it is a sensible plan to tax any part of a man's income in peacetime at 19s. 6d. in the £. I do not think any Member of this Committee can but doubt that that must have some restriction on effort. I do not think any hon. Member opposite can believe a tax of 19s. 6d. in the£on part of a man's income can fail to have a restrictive effect on his effort. I should have thought that a tax of, say, 15s. in the£ was about as high as could be imposed without serious loss to the community. I hope the Chancellor will consider this matter before the next Budget, and not approach the task from too doctrinaire a point of view with a mere desire to soak the rich. Perhaps I may remind the Chancellor of some words of Abraham Lincoln:
  " That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is worthy encouragement to industry and enterprise…Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him labour diligently to build one for himself, thus, by example, assuring. that his own shall be safe from violence…It is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property…Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich. It would do more harm than good "
  Quite sensible advice that, from a great man. Talking of soaking the rich, there

  2125
  is also the further increase in Death Duties which we on this side of the Committee deplore. Apparently, from the way in which the Chancellor has adjusted the Death Duties, it is quite permissible and respectable to follow the profit motive, provided one is not too successful at it. Very few Tables in the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure are more instructive than Tables 12 and 13, which show the distribution of private incomes by ranges of income. They show clearly that a silent revolution has been going on at a pace which, of course, is only fully realised by those who have suffered most from it. There are now, as can be seen from Table 13, less than 1,000 individuals left whose income after tax amounts to £4,000 a year, whereas, before the war there were 19,000 of them. For good or for evil, I suggest to the Committee that that is a very substantial, though silent, revolution.
  One of the great difficulties of this sudden, vast transition has been that many of those wealthy people who had large incomes have not been able to reduce their commitments to match their loss of income. In consequence, many others besides themselves have had to suffer. A large income generally involves heavy responsibilities, and these responsibilities are not so easy to dispose of. There are many misconceptions about the income of the people which need to be cleared up. There was an article in "Tribune" on 8th February which suggested that the vast army of wage earners only got as much every year as a small clique of property owners. It was pointed out, in a very interesting letter, by a Mr. Miller, who is the General Secretary of the National Council of Labour Colleges, on 1st March, that that statement appears to be made on the assumption that the man who, theoretically, receives £50,000 in a year in fact gets that income, whereas, of course, we all know from studying the Chancellor's White Paper that, in fact, he receives less than £5,000. Therefore, the basis of that article on 8th February was quite a false one, and I am glad Mr. Miller was good enough to correct it. In any case, the "small clique of property owners "is not a small clique at all. It comprises all those who draw any rent, interest, or dividends, and forms a
  2126
  very large proportion of the population including workers by hand and by brain.
  We are still being faced continually with attacks on profit, and a lot of abusive references, such as that made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on Saturday last about a "rake off" by private owners, though I am happy to say that other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite try to take pains to inform the people of the truth of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly not too proud to take his share of the profits where they are earned. Profits are, of course, the wages of capital and enterprise, just as a weekly pay envelope is the wages of labour.
  Mr. Alfred Edwards: To keep the picture in perspective, could the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of the kind of capital increment on which they pay no tax, in reference to this small clique of people?
  Mr. Assheton: I am afraid I have not those figures at hand. The hon. Member can give them to us when he speaks.
  Mr. Edwards: Perhaps it is very many times the amount of tax that they pay.
  Mr. Assheton: In the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom there are no figures of that sort. I am fully aware that' capital resources have also to be considered and taken into account. The Committee should not forget that it is income which is primarily to be considered. The capital values of investment vary from day to day; some days they go up and some days they go down.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Not under this Government. Under this Government they go up.
  Mr. Assheton: It may well be that the increasing prices on the Stock Exchange yesterday offset the total amount which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to obtain in Estate Duties. Tomorrow it may be going down again, when the public has had an opportunity of examining those figures and the Budget more closely; they may take a less ebullient view of it. I hope that hon. Members, particularly hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, are studying carefully the White Paper on Income and Expenditure.

  2127
  It is a most interesting document, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury on the latest edition of it, though I hope hon. Members who have not studied it before will bear in mind that a great deal of it is necessarily guesswork. It does not profess to be anything else, as one can see if one reads the document carefully. Estimating is always a difficult task, and one ought not to base oneself too firmly on figures which are merely estimates, or one will fall into the same mistakes which have been the undoing of those responsible for the food arrangements of the world. The important economic problem of today, of course, is whether or not we can avoid a further measure of inflation. By inflation I mean a rise in prices and a fall in the purchasing power of money.
  The answer depends on two things. It depends on whether the wage level continues to rise disproportionately to output, and whether borrowing can be kept within bounds set by current savings. It appears to me that some further measure of inflation is inevitable. I largely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. David Eccles) who spoke last night. In any case the present cost-of-living index is no true guide to the real situation now. The cost-of-living index stands at 31 per cent. above the prewar figure and is kept artificially low by subsidies on many of its constituent elements, and some of its constituent elements are such things as woollen stockings for women, which they are not wearing very much nowadays—
  Major Bruce: Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with these subsidies in any way?
  Mr. Assheton: I will come to that later. What I was saying was that the cost-of-living index was not really a very realistic figure at the present time. I suggest to the Committee that the true position is reflected more accurately either in the weekly wage rates, which are 58 per cent. above prewar figures—not earnings, which are considerably higher—and wholesale prices, which are 75 per cent. above prewar figures. Somewhere between these two figures is a much truer measure in my opinion of the real purchasing power of the pound sterling. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) who has just made an interruption, I would say that
  2128
  this is a very grave question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine: how long will he be justified in striving to maintain the cost-of-living figure at the cost of such very heavy subsidies, which must inevitably result in enormously heavy taxation? It is a question of balancing advantage against disadvantage, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has said, it is a question giving him, quite understandably, very grave anxiety.
  But the way to limit inflationary tendencies is clear. There are two weapons in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of them is to increase the production of goods and services as quickly as may be; the other is to cut down ruthlessly all extravagance. The more goods and services there are to buy with the money available, the less we are likely to see the danger of too much money running after too few goods. It is essential, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, through a wise taxation policy, give every incentive to increase production and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities said, to increasing productive efficiency. I hope I have shown that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet done so, and I trust he will consider the matter further.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) that the overseas deficit is probably the most serious of all our financial anxieties, but I refrain deliberately from commenting upon it today because I do not think this is the most suitable time to develop one's views on the overseas borrowing position. I would only observe that the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to finance the Budget without further large borrowing from the City of London, is due to the fact that he anticipates borrowing very large sums of money overseas, and that if this had to be shown in his domestic Budget it would have presented a less agreeable picture.
  Perhaps I may conclude my observations with a reference to the peroration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was a good peroration.
  Mr. Assheton: I was about to commend something which the right hon. Gentleman said in his peroration. I have often thought it a pity that the Treasury have not taken advantage of Section 56 of the

  2129
  Finance Act of 1910, and I am glad that instructions have been given to the Board of Inland Revenue to keep a constant watch on suitable instances in which they can accept land in payment of death duties. I doubt whether very much will come of it, because once the Government have discovered how heavy is the burden of the ownership of agricultural land, they will seldom find suitable instances of which to take advantage. But I commend to the right hon. Gentleman to watch that particular instruction very carefully or he may find a little bit of quite proper resistance from his officials. I doubt whether much will come of it. However, I welcome the instruction, but I must say I do not approve the Chancellor's setting up a State fund. These funds really mean nothing. We have heard of them before. They are merely book entries. The £50 million put into the fund is not really set aside at all. It is merely written in a book, and that money will have to be borrowed when the time comes for the money to be spent. It is, I think, just a little bit of bluff. But it is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and not for me to decide.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his peroration to the wonderful beauties still to be found in this country. I should like to say to him that where this beauty has not been marred by ugly development, the result has been achieved by the wisdom and self sacrifice of many landowners who have preferred to safeguard the amenities and beauty of the countryside rather than take advantage of circumstances to enrich themselves to the detriment of the public good. There are in this country many good owners of property as well as bad, many good owners who have kept their property well equipped and in good order in spite of great difficulties. I should like to think that this is recognised by hon. Members in all parts of the House. In spite of its subject, however, the peroration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to me to be altogether a fitting one for a Budget speech.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It was much too human for the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Assheton: I have been pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be human all the time. I was reminded of one of Dr. Johnson's remarks to Mrs. Thrale:
  2130
  " Nay, Madam, when you are declaiming, declaim, and when you are calculating, calculate."
  In this Debate we are calculating, and so I shall make no attempt at a peroration.
  4.43 P.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to start by touching on something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) about Surtax payers. I am always interested in that class of the community. I want to deal not only with what he said, but also with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said yesterday, and to some extent what the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Spearman) said. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities said that these very rich people were diminishing in numbers and that the reduction in the number of rich people was alarming, and he went on to quote from Table 13 of Command Paper 6784 to show how the incomes of those people liable to Surtax was decreasing, and that the numbers had diminished. That is putting an entirely false gloss on the position. What is all-important in deciding whether the number of Surtax payers is diminishing, is not the amount of income they have left after they have paid tax, but what their income is before they pay tax, and how many there are in that field before they pay that tax. That, I suggest, is the fair comparison. On that basis of comparison there is no doubt that, so far from this class of taxpayer being a diminishing number or a class of people who have to be "coaxed and cosseted "—I think that was the phrase he used—they are a sturdy, ebullient, growing and fast-developing race. That may be a criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I might have to say to him that he is not doing enough in that direction.
  Let us look at the figures. I refer hon. Members interested to Table 12 of the Command Paper and also to the Eighty-eighth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and to put those two together. Table 12 shows that in 1944–45—there were 125,000 Surtax payers, approximately. The Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1938–39 reveals that the number of people who paid Surtax in that year was

  2131
  104,000. During the war—and I suggest that this is incontrovertible—the number of people who have crept into the over £2,000 a year class has increased by over 20 per cent., from 104,000 to 125,000. In addition, the amount of their gross income has increased. The comparison of these two statements will show that it has increased from £513 million in 1938 to £570 million in 1945. That, surely, I suggest to the Committee, is the real basis of comparison; not how much income these people have left after this House has deducted tax from them, but how many people there are in that field before tax is deducted. Is that number growing? The answer is "Yes, on every count." I suggest that this is the test we should apply. A statement of the right hon. Gentleman of that sort does create a wrong impression. It may be that my humble words can correct it, and that would be desirable, although they do not carry the same weight as his. But I think we ought to be careful in comparing like with like.
  Mr. Spearman: Why is that the test that matters? I should have thought that it was the test of the effect of spending power that matters. I was quite wrong in my calculation yesterday.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is true within limits, but the point I am trying to make is that the real test is one of incentive. Is there a desire to get within this field or not? The answer is that there is and that there are people wanting to get there and that they are getting there. Take the example of the family man who is married with two children, and has —2,000 a year. His tax is of the order of £680 a year. It is a heavy sum, but it still leaves him 13s. in every pound.
  I leave that point. I come to the question of P.A.Y.E. I want to suggest to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, even though he is not here now, that he was quite wrong in saying that all the speeches yesterday cancelled themselves out. I do not think they did anything of the sort, apart from that of the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir Stanley Holmes) who wanted to throw the baby away with the bath water. I thought that the proposition was this: that we think this present scheme is better than that of the old system, but wonder, has the time arrived when, because of its effect on incentive, upon employers and upon the
  2132
  workers generally, we ought to consider variations? This was an experimental scheme. It has been running only two years. It was introduced in a comparative hurry without a great deal of consultation, although all the relevant interests were considered.
  I suggest that the time has arrived when we ought to look at the whole question again. I am not going all the way with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. D. Eccles), who, in a rather gay and debonair air of someone who has not thought very much about the matter, propounded a solution to the Committee last night, which seemed to me a trifle insouciant.I have heard of at least six variations to the existing scheme, two of which have been propounded by Members of this Committee, one by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) and one by the hon. Member for Chippenham. These schemes have their advantages and disadvantages, but, for myself, I should not care to come down on one side or the other, on any of them. I suggest, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should follow up the suggestion made from all sides of the Committee, and appoint a body to review the working of the P.A.Y.E., and to consider whether an alternative system would not be better. We all know that the real trouble about P.A.Y.E. is the level of tax, but there are ways of lessening its effects. I have no desire, as I am sure no other hon. Member has, of an unnecessary mortification of the flesh in paving our tax, if the same results can be attained by an adjustment in one way or another
  I consider that it is the job of this Committee to investigate those parts of the system that are undesirable in the interests of the workpeople and of the employers. I would remind the Chancellor that, from 31st December next, the employers will not be able to pay the wages of their accounting clerks out of E.P.T. as they have done in the past, and that the murmurs we have been hearing about the number of people being employed will probably grow to a louder crescendo. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is hearing murmurs from the Inland Revenue staff, who have borne a very heavy burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House have made heavy inroads on their loyalty and spirit of initiative

  2133
  during the last few years, and it does them no good to hear comments like those which the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. Jennings) made last night. These people are fighting under a terrible load at the present time, and I suggest, in their interests, apart from anything else, that we ought to consider this matter once more. I wish to make one further plea to the Financial Secretary, who I understand is to broadcast tonight. I hope that I may see him before he makes his broadcast, because I have had an urgent representation from the staff of Inland Revenue, that already offices are receiving applications for postwar credits from the older people, including some married women. Would he kindly tell the Press and the public, that they will not get their postwar credits vet, but that the forms will be made available later? If he would do that on the wireless tonight, he would save the staff an enormous amount of trouble. The staff of one office, two miles away from here, is trying at this moment to interview callers in a rabbit hutch 36 square ft. Nearly 200 people pass through this rabbit hutch each day to discuss their affairs, and the office also has to be used as a public thoroughfare for the staff to pass to and fro with their papers. Anything we can do to cut down unnecessary callers would be desirable, and if the Financial Secretary would utter this plea, it would be a token of his regard and affection for the staff.
  I pass to one or two points regarding the Budget generally. I congratulate the Chancellor most sincerely—and this is not being merely conventional—on the two Budgets he has introduced. They must be taken together, because, on the one hand, there is the incentive given to the employee last Autumn, which will make a difference as from next Friday, whereby, for instance, the family man receiving £7 per week will be taking home another 7s. 6d. in his pocket, and, on the other hand, there is this Budget in which the Chancellor has got rid of E.P.T. to the jubilation of hon. Members opposite. In this connection, I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) has turned out in his swallow-tailed coat.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: If the hon. Member only knew the reason.
  Mr. Callaghan: In view of the jobbers' profits on the Stock Exchange, no doubt we shall be seeing a second top hat—such is the incentive which has been provided. I think that the Chancellor was right to utter a warning about a possible dividend tax. Perhaps I might recall to the memory of the Committee, although I do not suppose the Stock Exchange will read any words of mine, that, in 1920, a Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Corporation Profits Tax a year after the abolition of the Excess Profits Duty to make up for the generosity of that abolition. I do not think that we can regard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as unnecessary bluff. The two Budgets, taken together are good Budgets. The Government have done their job, and have provided the necessary incentives, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, we have to produce the goods; that is the only real test, and no one on this side of the Committee has been backward in propounding that. Production must increase. I do not tie up the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for City of London (Mr. Assheton) with some of the arguments used by his colleagues. He said that the level of income was bound to fall, whereas his colleagues have been talking about the dangers of inflation in the next few months. If the one takes place, the other is not likely to happen. For myself, I stand by his colleagues. I consider the greater possibility is that the level of income will remain where it is, but we simply must go ahead with producing the goods to meet the increased purchasing power when it comes along.
  I do not share the views expressed about the terrible dangers of a Budget of the size we expect in two or three years' time. The tax taken out of people's hands between 1914 and 1919 increased by something like eight times, whereas between 1919 and 1934 the increase was only doubled. I do not flinch from facing a permanent Budget of the order of £2,500 million if we are to redistribute the national income and increase our social services; the key is production, and that is what we have to get down to. I see no reason, as production increases, why the 9s. rate of Income Tax should be maintained. The product of a penny on the rate is something in the order of £10 million and, as a rough arithmetical calculation, —120 million per year can

  2135
  save 1s. on the rate. That is a very rough and ready calculation, and there is bound to be a little jiggery-pokery. Therefore, I see no reason why we should have to maintain the rate at 9s. in the £. I conclude by cordially congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget. We shall have things to say to him on the Finance Bill, but, on the whole, the Government have taken a bold lead in their two Budgets, and it is now up to the country to follow that lead, and to produce the goods which are needed.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) followed, and I think rightly followed, tradition. It has been some years longer than I care to remember since we had a Tory Opposition in full cry on Budget day and in the Debates which follow it. However long it may be, the tradition has remained, more or less the same. The first attack, as it used to be in former days, must be upon expenditure. Expenditure is much too great, too wasteful, and so on. Then inevitably comes the question, such as the Chancellor put today to the right hon. Gentleman: "Would you mind telling us what you would cut? "It is a question which has never won a satisfactory reply. There has never been any suggestion today that there was too much expenditure on the Defence Services. Then we come to the home services. Would hon. Members cut education? If they want a cut in education let them say so. Would they cut the social services? If they desire to cut them, let them say so. There was another very pertinent question put to the right hon. Gentleman, about the sum which has to be expended in maintaining the cost of living, which is now at a very high figure. Again, when the question was put, "Would you cut on that?" there was silence. It has all been in accordance with tradition.
  I feel that it is rather difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to come here today to criticise this Budget. We are very glad to see that his colleague from the City of London is also here. Yesterday's headlines in all the newspapers were "Boom in the City." I think that all the prophecies prior to the General Election were of not "a boom" but "a gloom" in the
  2136
  City. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism rather took the line of the shareholder who, when you are rather rejoicing about the profits of the day, and are about to declare quite a good dividend, gets up and says, "I would like, Mr. Chairman, to call attention to the amount we are spending on safety pins and blotting paper." That is much too small, when you are considering much bigger matters such as we have to consider here.
  The other day, I paid a well deserved tribute to the officers of the right hon. Gentleman at the Treasury and at the Board of Inland Revenue. May I extend that tribute. I wish the right hon. Gentleman himself would say a word or two on this: I want to express our appreciation of the work done by the Inland Revenue officials throughout the country. During the war, they have been understaffed, they have worked in uncomfortable offices and for very long hours, and they have come through one of the most difficult periods of all; and I think that the country should express its gratitude to them. Recently, I spoke about the resilience of this old country and its people, which has enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the expenditure of the year by revenue which comes within nine-tenths of the expenditure. As I have often said before, the Chancellor of the Exchequer today is much more concerned with the welfare of the country, the standard of living, the state of employment, and the production of wealth, than were any of his predecessors of old. His predecessors were concerned almost entirely with finding, with the least possible difficulty, the amount required to meet the expenditure about to be incurred by the Government Departments. They thought of little else. Today, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to carry out his full functions properly, the finding of the money is only one item, although a very important one, which he must take into consideration. He is now more than a guardian and a watchdog over expenditure, and a collector of Revenue, he is the trustee for public welfare.
  The great need of the moment, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South (Mr. J. Callaghan) has said, in one of his very able contributions is production. The demand for goods is colossal, not only in this country, but in every other country of the world. That is natural, because of the

  2137
  limitation which has been put upon the production of consumption articles in most of the countries of the world during the past six years. In the meantime, two other things have happened: Machinery has become out of date or outworn or both; and, secondly, men and women are undoubtedly tired. Time and again, attention is called to our failure today to produce as much as we used to produce per man hour. On the other hand, taking all these things into consideration—the long years of war, the terrible anxieties, the losses families have suffered, the dangers through which they have gone, the narrowness of the food rations and the sameness of the food—I am amazed that they are producing today as much as they are producing. It is through production that we shall reach salvation. We all dread inflation, and the answer to high prices is abundance of goods. The need for more food, the payment for that food, the payment for the transport to this country of that food, can only be met by increased production in this country. The need, again, for raw materials, the payment for those raw materials, the payment for the transport to bring them here can only be met by increased production here. Therefore, there must be a premium upon production.
  Some time ago, in a very interesting article, Professor Carr of "The Times" made a searching analysis into the truth of the problem, "What is the incentive to work? "His answer was that for centuries men worked because they were compelled to work by legislation—slavery, serfdom, the old Statute of Labourers. Then that period changed and a new theory came in, which was even more cruel than the other. The new theory was "You will either work or you will starve." And that was the theory that remained until the beginning of this century. In this century we came to the conclusion that it is not right that anybody should starve, and certainly his family should not suffer. A man should not even have any anxiety with regard to his old age; we should provide him with an old age pension. Even if he is out of work, he and his family must be maintained. We must provide him with proper social services, whether he is working or not working. So we come to the period of the war, to the time when this article to which I have
  2138
  referred was written by Professor Carr, in which he said:
  " Undoubtedly, the incentive to work comes from public opinion and from the natural patriotism of every man and every woman."
  The war has finished. What is now to be the incentive to work? Professor Carr, having stated the problem, having analysed the position down to date, almost like Pontius Pilate of old—having put the question, "What is truth? "—stayed not for an answer. It seems to me that the only answer we can make is to put a premium upon work and to give people that incentive. I realise the Chancellor's anxiety not to loose too much money among people at the present time, lest they should use it to buy articles which are in short supply and so send up prices, but he could, as we have done up to the present, guard against that by controlling prices. Therefore, I do not think there is very much danger of inflation on that ground, and certainly not as much danger as some suggest that there might be—as long as prices are controlled.
  The deficit between the expected revenue and the expected expenditure is far less, as the Chancellor very rightly pointed out, than anything which the economists, the financiers, or anybody else prophesied. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, we all expected a deficit of over £1,000 million, whereas the deficit, even allowing for the terminal payments, is only £694 million. I have long protested against the old idea that it was absolutely necessary and essential to balance the Budget year by year. Of course, a balanced economy is always essential, but a balanced yearly Budget is not essential. The Chancellor should take a much broader and wider view and aim at balancing over a period. There is no virtue in 12 months. The period should be one which the Chancellor's advisers estimate will be such as will enable the country to overcome the difficulties in any particular year and reach a period when he can foresee that the country will be on such a firm productive field that it can repay past deficits and so gain on the balance between income and expenditure. The Budget this year is not, and cannot be, balanced. There is this deficit of £694 million.
  The Chancellor, throughout his speech, as many of his supporters and many Members from every part of the Committee have emphasised, stressed the

  2139
  need for increasing production. The right hon. Gentleman is abolishing the Excess Profits Tax, and I think he is right in doing so, although I do not think that the Excess Profits Tax had a limiting effect upon production directly. No manufacturer in his senses stopped producing or stopped his turnover merely because he thought that he would have to pay Excess Profits Tax. It did affect production indirectly in that the Chancellor took from the manufacturer, or the firm or company, money which otherwise they might have ploughed back into the business for increased production. In any case, Excess Profits Tax is being abolished.
  I think that Income fax upon wages not only has an indirect effect upon production, but has a direct effect upon it. Income Tax was paid last year to the amount of £241 million by wages as compared with a payment of £2 million only in 1938. The Chancellor has already made certain concessions to the wage earners. I wonder whether he realises the electric effect this is already having. I am sure that well before this week is out, it will even show its effect in production. I suggest to the Chancellor that he has been a little too orthodox and too pedestrian. I could have imagined this Budget almost being introduced by an ex-chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), balancing everything rather nicely, being able to prophesy what the effect would be if one did this and what the effect would be if one did that, but taking no undue risks. I regard the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities as a sort of archpriest of orthodoxy, but I thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had long left the orthodox church and was more of a nonconformist.
  In order to get increased production, I would have given more priority to the worker. I would have given him a better incentive to work. With controlled prices, this would riot have led to any inflation, but would have led to more savings, a matter to which the Chancellor referred. What I would have liked him to have done would have been to give more thought to the workers of the world, to have encouraged us all to sweat, and I would have liked him to have done away with all direct taxation upon wages. It would have cost this year from the
  2140
  Revenue £241 million. Let us do a sum. The deficit between revenue and expenditure this year is £694 million. If the Chancellor had abolished the £241 million on wages, this would have brought the deficit up to £935 million—still well below what we all prophesied would be the difference between revenue and expenditure Even my Celtic imagination cannot reach to the heights of what the production might have been if that incentive had been given to labour. We are still in die transitional stage, and we can afford to take the usual risks. This thing is not experimental. After all, the tax on wages did not begin, or did not affect very many people, before 1938. Let the Chancellor consider very carefully, as the need for production is so very great, whether he cannot do away with this, and resort to borrowing this year.
  May I come to another point closely allied to it, and that is the differentiation between earned and unearned income. The Chancellor has again made certain concessions to those earning income, but what puzzles me is why he should be so half hearted about it. Stimulus has to be given to the workers, and we need not be so lenient with non-workers. Talent and skill have got to be encouraged, and I want to give all the incentive that I can to the producer, the man who works with his brains, to skill, to talent, to experience and to ability wherever they may be found. This will not only add to the wealth of the individual man, but it will increase the wealth of the whole community. The Chancellor has a double policy. First, he wants to reduce the interest and, secondly, he wants to ensure full employment. That means he wants to ensure a full income for the whole nation, full profits and full capital values. If full income and full profits are maintained, there is secured a capital appreciation for the whole country. So there is no reason to be sorry for the non-working man and the dividend earner. He is being helped by the Chancellor's policy, and he has been helped all along by the country's production and by the worker. My reason for saying this is that not only have we had taxation direct and indirect on incomes for a very long period, but we have had a capital tax since 1894 when Sir William Harcourt introduced the Death Duties. Nevertheless in spite of taxation and capital taxation the value of the

  2141
  wealth of the entrepreneur has not only been maintained, but has increased, and goes on increasing.
  The national income has grown, and one of the most interesting things in the White Paper is that, according to Table 20, the national income has all but doubled during the period from 1938 up to now. Mr. Asquith was the first Chancellor to distinguish between earned and unearned income and to give encouragement to the working producer. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who referred to this yesterday, would have paid a tribute to the Chancellor who started not a great revolution but probably a greater revolutionary idea than any Chancellor who followed him. I wish the Chancellor had followed those lines much more completely than has been the case in the past. The income of the non-worker is only met and is only secured by the activity of actual earned income. Therefore, all the time, even after taxation takes away from his income, the non-worker each year makes up on the swings what he loses on the roundabouts, because his capital values are capable of rising as the country's production keeps rising.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Nominal values?
  Mr. C. Davies: I am amazed at the right hon. Gentleman. These values keep on rising the whole time as the status and conditions of the worker are improved, and as production improves. There is no fear of inflation as long as the Chancellor keeps price control, but what I do want is to give incentive to the man who improves production, whether with his brains or his hands.
  We were all rather amazed at the figure which the Chancellor gave us of our debit balance on international payments of £750 million. What puzzles me is how the Chancellor arrives at that figure. If I did not place such confidence in the accuracy of his advisers, I would be rather inclined to doubt it. Might I tell the Chancellor why? For months now exports have been rising and over 1,000,000 of our people have been engaged working upon goods which are to be sent for export. My own estimate, which is a very modest one, is that by the month of August something like £100 million
  2142
  worth of goods will be exported, which is £1,200 million a year. I should have thought that the gap between the cost of what we are importing, and the amount that we are exporting, would now be closing rapidly, and I am really surprised that it still is measured in the big figure of £750 million. During the war we stopped publishing the figures of exports and imports. The war is now over. Is there any reason why we should not get a complete balance sheet, which will give these figures completely, so that we can see where we are and make our own comparisons? The Chancellor realises that these are not matters merely for the Government, but matters which will guide the country as to what they are doing and what they should be producing.
  Finally, we were surprised at the figure of £80 million that the Chancellor gave with regard to reparations in Germany. There is not one of us who desires to do other than our duty towards the German people who are suffering today. By all means, let us help them to get food and clothing as best we can, but that is no reason why we should be charitable. This is not merely a question of comment; it is a question of principle. Why should they not work and produce the articles which we can then take and sell to pay for the food they want? It must be an extraordinary state of things that the policy which is now being pursued is such that we who suffered, who did not want to go into the war, who stood alone for civilisation and who in the end defeated the enemy are now paying out of the little we have left, in order to maintain those people. It is a policy leading to their own destruction, for the man who lives on charity, instead of living upon his own worth, is ruining not only his body but his soul. It is about time that this policy was changed. These are the criticisms that I have to make upon this Budget, upon which I have already congratulated the Chancellor. I put it to him again that he should help the worker and help the producer whether they are producing by their brains, or by their hands.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas: My right hon. Friend must feel very happy at the reception which has been given to his Budget. He has managed in a most successful fashion to give a certain degree of relief from taxation to a very large

  2143
  number of individuals, and he has done it after allowing for the readjustment of Estate Duty at the very small cost for the present year of £32 million or about 1 per cent. of the expected revenue. Measured in those terms the relief is not so great, but it is a move in a direction which most taxpayers have been hoping for, and they will welcome this indication of the Chancellor's intention to reduce taxation.
  We are faced with the prospect for the future of a level of national expenditure far larger than that which prevailed before the war. There are two reasons for this. One is because it is accepted—with different degrees of emphasis, it is true—by all parties in the State that the Government must incur additional expenditure on many things which they have never undertaken before, or on things which they must carry on upon a far more extensive scale. There is no difference in principle between the Opposition and the Government on social insurance, national health services, and other matters, although there may be differences as regards the amount. Not only is there this large extension of the field of public expenditure, there is also the fact that it has to be carried on at a price level which must inevitably he very much higher than that which prevailed before the war. The note circulation is now some three times greater than it was before the outbreak of war, and the deposits of the clearing banks, which correspond with it, have also increased very largely. This process of inflation—it is nothing else—is not reversible. There will never be a reversion to the price level which prevailed in 1939 unless it should happen—as it certainly will not so long as my right hon. Friend is Chancellor of the Exchequer—that inflation were allowed to run away to the point at which the currency became completely devalued and had to be replaced by a new currency. That is the only circumstance under which inflation is ever completely reversed.
  We have to recognise that the price level will inevitably be very much higher than it was in 1939. That fact has to a certain extent been concealed from the attention of the public because of the very large measure of subsidisation which has been given to the price of food for reasons of public policy which I am not questioning in the least. This has taken away the instance in which a rise in the price level comes most sharply and potently to the
  2144
  attention of the people. Since we are confronted with this very high level of public expenditure in the future it is indeed relevant to ask, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have asked, whether a high level of taxation will destroy incentive to work and to produce, and, on the other hand, whether steps are being taken to secure economy in the carrying out of public services. By this I mean not a curtailing of the purposes of those services, but securing that they are provided at the minimum possible cost. That has and always must be an overriding consideration in public policy to which not only the Treasury but every Department of State must pay attention. It is one of those things which are extremely difficult for this House of Commons to control. When they arrive here the Estimates contain an enormous mass of detail of all kinds which it is extremely difficult for hon. Members to master and analyse or to control collectively.
  The effective control of public expenditure, in order to see that value is received for the money expended, has to rest upon the Departments of State which are effecting that expenditure and which are preparing the Estimates. It is an individual responsibility which has to rest upon every one of them, and it is the duty of Ministers,and of the chief permanent officials to see that that canon of public conduct is observed. That, however, is a subject which I do not wish to pursue at the present moment. I wish to refer to one or two topics which have emerged from the Budget Statement and which, I think, have not received a great deal of attention during the discussion so far.
  I was somewhat surprised—I would almost say shocked—to hear my right hon. Friend propounding the view that the Purchase Tax was a form of taxation which might or, indeed, ought to become permanent in this country. This tax was introduced during the period of the Coalition expressly and only for the reason that it was said to be a means of preventing inflation by—to use the phrase which the Chancellor quoted—" mopping up purchasing power." That was the argument for it as a temporary measure to meet a wartime danger, and it was upon that ground that members of my party, for the most part with considerable reluctance, accepted it at that time. I do not consider that it is a suitable permanent means of taxation. It has, of course, one

  2145
  great merit which all indirect taxation has. It tends to be concealed from the notice of the taxpayer so that he does not realise how much he is paying. In that respect it conforms with the maxim of Louis XIV's Finance Minister that "The art of public finance is to pluck the goose with the least amount of squawking." I think, however, that there are other canons of public finance which are more important and which override that. If they are to raise really appreciable amounts of public revenue all taxes of this nature have to be imposed upon articles of widespread consumption. They have, in fact, to be imposed upon articles which are necessaries of life. I do not mean necessaries from the point of view of moralists and abstract thinkers, but from the practical point of view that people want them sufficiently to go on buying them in spite of the increase in price which is caused by such taxation. If that was not the case, if they ceased to buy them because of the increase in price, those taxes would yield no revenue, and would be entirely ineffective from the fiscal point of view. So, Purchase Tax, or any similar device, if it is to be the means of raising a considerable bulk of revenue, must fall on articles of widespread consumption.
  Mr. Blackburn: My hon Friend has mentioned the importance of incentive. If adequate incentives are provided, surely, there will be enough money in the pockets of the people to buy large quantities of luxury goods, from which the Purchase Tax would yield a very substantial revenue to the Exchequer.
  Mr. Douglas: I am well aware that it has long been the theory that such taxes are defensible because they are levied on luxuries, and that they take out of the pockets of rich people and idlers money which they spend on frivolous purchases. But the whole experience of this matter during history has shown that that argument is not true. One of the greatest illustrations of that was in the reform of our fiscal system which took place during the first half of the last century when hundreds—and I think I could say, thousands—of taxes were repealed and abolished, having been imposed on this, that or the other article, upon the plea that they were taxes upon luxuries. When
  2146
  this House, through a Select Committee, examined this question they found that in a great many cases these taxes were hardly paying for the cost of collection, and that as a fiscal instrument they were entirely worthless. It was upon that practical and pragmatic ground that the House repealed an enormous number of taxes which had been defended by the kind of argument which my hon. Friend has indicated.
  More than that, we have to consider this, as I said before, not from the point of view of how to extract a large amount of money from the taxpayer without his squealing, but from the point of view of the economic and moral principles which ought to govern the matter. All taxation which is levied on commodities, unless it is levied on commodities of widespread consumption, is in itself necessarily discriminative and arbitrary. Let me give an illustration: If I buy a play by Mr. Bernard Shaw, in the form of a book, I pay no Purchase Tax. But if I see that play performed at the theatre I have to pay for my entertainment according to one rate of taxation, and if I see it performed on the screen, in the cinema, I have to pay at another rate. There is nothing more meritorious in one case than in the other. There is no reason why, when I get entertainment from reading a book, I should get it free of tax, and that when I get my entertainment from going to a theatre I should pay tax.
  If I purchase the score of a piece of music by one of our great composers I pay no Purchase Tax or other tax upon it. But if I buy a gramophone record, on which this piece of music has been recorded for my enjoyment, I am subjected to Purchase Tax. I say that these discriminations, which are inherent in the nature of the tax, can never be given any economical or moral justification. What happens in the end is that the Chancellor is very largely guided in his decision on this question by the amount of resistance which the public offers to taxation of some particular article, and the amount of revenue which he gets out of it. So, the principle of equality of contribution to the public revenue and all other fundamental canons of taxation are thrown to the winds. I therefore regret that the Chancellor hinted, in his Budget speech, that the Purchase Tax ought to be a permanent part of our fiscal system. I do not accept that view.

  2147
  Another matter to which I would like to refer is the question of accepting payment of Death Duties upon landed estates by a transfer of the estate, in kind, to the public. With this the Chancellor coupled the provision of a fund of £50 million, to be used for the purpose of acquiring land which it is desirable, for one reason or another, should be publicly owned. On the second point, I think it may well be that there are instances in which it is highly desirable, for the purpose of preserving amenities, and having opportunities for public recreation and so on, and where it is beyond the means or resources of the local authorities concerned to undertake it, that there should be power in the hands of the Government to safeguard, for the common enjoyment, such tracts of land. But on the fiscal aspects, to accept payment of Death Duties by receiving land is not something which can be carried out to any great extent. If, during the course of a year, the Chancellor were to accept payment in kind of £50 million due for Death Duties he would be short of £50 million of current revenue which he required to meet current expenditure. To get that £50 million he would have to raise some other taxation if he wished to keep the land, and not sell it All the land would yield would be its revenue for one year, five per cent., or whatever it might be. Clearly, therefore, there is a limit to the extent to which that kind of thing can be done without raising taxation correspondingly, so that as a fiscal device it does not present any great advantages.
  The last matter to which I would like to refer is the relationship between national and local Government finance. The White Paper issued in connection with my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement has a Table in it which shows that the central Government is now contributing £290 million towards local expenditure. My right hon. Friend indicated, and so has the Minister of Health, that in due course there must be readjustments of the block grant when the responsibility for public health services is transferred from local authorities to the State. That. of course, I accept as an inevitable corollary.
  Local rates are going up, very substantially. We have seen day after day in the papers announcements of places where the rates have gone up by one, two or even three shillings in the£already.
  2148
  That is by no means the limit of this process. Again, it is an inevitable one, because of the higher price level with which we are now confronted, and which will raise the cost of carrying on all local services and will involve the local authorities in a higher rate of expenditure. On the other hand, we all know, from experience of what happened after 1918, that movements of rateable value take place with the most extreme slowness. I suppose I should be about right in saying, that even in the 20 years between the two wars the average increase in rateable values due to revaluation was not more than about 3o per cent., although the price level then, as compared with 1914, was very much higher. Therefore, it is inevitable that there will be very heavy increases in the rate in the £ levied by local authorities during the next few years.
  That will have the effect of accentuating all the evils and injustices which arise out of our system of local rating. In particular it will mean that every house which is built to meet the frightful shortage of housing accommodation with which we are confronted will have to bear an extremely heavy burden of rates. Its rent will be increased by, in many cases, 75 per cent. or 100 per cent., by reason of the rates which are imposed upon it. When we are talking about incentive and about encouraging production, surely, here is something which cries out for remedy. It is just as wrong to impose local rates upon houses as it is to impose a Purchase Tax upon other essentials of life.
  I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, will give most serious consideration to this question of local rating with the object of carrying out what has been approved by a very large number, hundreds, of local authorities in this country, the rating of site values—a reform of which there has been 30, 40 or 50 years' experience in some of the British Dominions overseas. I beg of my right hon. Friend to look at this question, which has a most important bearing upon the financial stability of our local authorities and upon the progress of the house-building programme of this country If hon Members on the other side of the Chamber are anxious to see the private building of housing encouraged at rents or prices which people can afford

  2149
  to pay, they also ought to take an interest in this question. To penalise the building of houses, as does our local rating system at the present moment, is certainly doing no public service and is making a solution of present problems far more difficult than otherwise would be the case.
  These are a few suggestions which I offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that his next Budget will show further progress along the lines which he has already indicated of relief of taxation and encouragement of production, and I hope that it will show a complete balance.
  5.55 p.m.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: The shortness of the time which I have at my disposal will cause me materially to reduce the number of subjects which I should like to have raised. I propose therefore, to direct the attention of the Committee to one matter only which has not been referred to so far as I am aware by any other hon. Member. I am very concerned about the manner in which the Accounts and the Financial Statements are presented to the Committee. When heard the Chancellor refer in his opening speech to setting aside £50 million from the sale of war stores to develop and purchase land, I appreciated that he was, from my point of view and possibly from the point of view of other hon. Members, confusing capital assets with national expenditure.
  I suggest that the time has arrived when we should have two entirely separate sets of figures, one to show the national income and the national expenditure and the other to show the money expended upon capital assets and the income derived therefrom. It may be that a national balance sheet cannot be suitably applied to national economy but I would like to see a financial statement drawn up under two distinct headings. I would like to see a statement of our national income and expenditure classified under their respective headings: Expenditure on important capital assets; how they are expended; and how they are ultimately disposed of.
  During the war, the Government have spent money on a large scale, not merely for war purposes but upon capital assets. Today the Committee has no information, nor have hon. Members been given any statement to show what those assets com
  2150
  prise. The Government have built Royal Ordnance factories and factories rented by the Ministry of Supply, they own a large amount of merchant shipping and they have purchased vast quantities of all sorts and kinds of raw materials, not yet put into consumption.
  The Government purchased the whole of the wool stocks from Australia and New Zealand; not merely the stocks which were on hand, but the whole of the wool clip for the duration of the war and for one year afterwards. My right hon. Friend is aware that the Government also entered into an agreement with Egypt, whereby they purchased the whole of their stock of cotton and cotton-seed at the outbreak of war. The Committee is given no information in regard to the volume and value of these stocks, or how the Government propose to liquidate them. The Government also hold vast stocks of raw materials of all descriptions. They hold great stocks of raw materials, including food, and a variety of other capital assets too numerous to mention. What I am asking my right hon. Friend to consider is—are we to be given no information in regard to their character, their quantity or the value of the money they represent.
  Are these stocks to be liquidated and the money derived therefrom to be regarded as a part of the national income? If that be so, I say, quite frankly, that it is wrong. It is bad bookkeeping. They are capital assets, and should be treated as such. The Committee is entitled to ask for some comprehensive statement of the Government's capital assets, and to ask how these capital assets are to be utilised. Capital is being expended today in large quantities in housing. The Government is going to develop industry in what is known as the depressed areas. They will spend a considerable amount of money. How is this money to be presented to the House. I have in mind a company in which I am personally interested. The Government are to expend some £200,000 in putting up a factory in a depressed area. I see no reason why I should not make reference to this; I do not propose to give detailed information. The company in which I am interested will then put into this building some 250,000 value of machinery. This company will employ something like a thousand hands in this depressed area

  2151
  I want to know how the money which the Government expend on this sort of development is to be dealt with in the national balance sheet. Money expended in that direction cannot be regarded as ordinary expenditure. It is a capital asset and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the time has not now arrived when there should be a complete readjustment of the manner in which the accounts and financial statement are presented to the House. The Government should present a statement showing the capital assets which the country owns, the value of which must certainly run into hundreds, and, I should imagine, over a thousand million pounds. It is ludicrous to say that we are expending x millions of pounds a year when, in fact, a portion of that money—and a substantial portion—not only today, but all through the war years, has been expended On capital assets.
  My last point is to ask my right hon. Friend to consider issuing in a White Paper a statement, not only now, but every year when the Budget is presented, which will clearly show the physical assets which the Government own and the value of those assets. Particularly would I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to permit capital assets to be sold, as they are being sold today, and the money derived from them regarded as a part of the income of the country, which should be appropriated to the reduction of the National Debt.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Guy: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of joining in the chorus of approval of the proposals which the Chancellor has placed before the Committee. No doubt they have been very warmly received by those who will benefit. The removal of the Purchase Tax on those household goods which are so very important and necessary to the comfort and well being of our homes will give immense satisfaction to so many who are desirous of obtaining those goods, but, after listening to the conversation of a few of my women constituents yesterday, it seems to me there is a fear that will beset them. They are afraid that when they come to purchase those goods, now that the tax is removed, they will find that the goods, too, have been removed and have disappeared under the counter, only to be sold to special customers at a very special price.
  2152
  I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to three particular matters, and, in particular, to the absence of two of them from his Budget statement. The raising of the Excess Profits Tax has been well received by the Opposition and the Press generally, and there is no doubt that that was done to stimulate both industrialists and depressed industry in order to increase production to the fullest extent. In order to make this secure and to keep a proper balance between production and the worker, the overtime earnings of the worker should be excluded from taxation. This has been a very sore point and I am sure is well known.
  Mr. Assheton: Does the hon. Gentleman mean only manual workers or all workers?
  Mr. Guy: I said workers, whether by hand or by brain. Anyone who has had experience of having to work overtime every night in the week, every Saturday and every Sunday, knows only too well the heavy extra expense which has to be incurred; extra meals and extra necessities, each according to his taste—some like beer and some like other things—certainly cigarettes and minerals, and this is all expenditure which would not be incurred in the course of the week if one had not to work overtime. That leads workers generally to the conclusion that it is really not worth while working overtime at all and, having had that experience, I entirely agree with them.
  My right hon. Friend has very generously and, I think, rightly, agreed to pay postwar credits to the old age pensioners, and I am sure that none of us in the Committee will disagree with that. But what about the other workers, many of them in the late 50s and in the early 60s who have become incapacitated through the very heavy burden of extra work imposed upon them during the six years of war, very many of them now down to a bare living week's wage, finding it very difficult to manage, and very many of them thrown on to the employment exchange. They feel, as I do, that they are justly entitled to some consideration of having their postwar credits paid to them.
  Before I leave this question, I want to make an important point in connection with the payment of postwar credits to old age pensioners. It has been recognised that many of these elderly people answered the call and returned to industry to help in the war effort, and in

  2153
  so doing their pensions, on which they were drawing, were included in their weekly wage amounts for taxation purposes. I would utter this warning to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and to my colleagues on this side of the Committee: if there is any attempt by the pensions officers to include this money, which will be paid back to these people, and count it as income, so reducing their pensions during the time they receive this payment, there will be a first-class row in this House. I trust that particular notice will be taken of that warning.
  Finally, there is the very important question, which affects so many families and households of this country today, of the payment of balances due under the War Damage Act, 1941, Part II, Private Chattels, to those people who were bombed out and who lost their homes. The Chancellor made no mention of this in his proposals. I sometimes wonder whether it is realised what this means to many families who had the misfortune to lose their homes by enemy action in this war. Many of them are living in cramped conditions with their families. Those who are fortunate enough to have sufficient accommodation have not enough furniture or household goods to fill even one room, and are waiting for the opportunity to get a home together again. Added to this is the worry of the returning members of the home from the Forces. My right hon. Friend should realise what it would mean to these people to have their money returned to them at the earliest opportunity. The longer there has been delay in making payments to these people, the higher have risen the prices, not only of furniture, but of many other household goods. When it is remembered that the assessments of the homes lost or destroyed were made in 1940 and 1941, the price of goods today, and the fact that the balances have only accrued at the rate of 2½per cent., the Committee will realise the position and how important it is that this money should be paid to them. I trust the Chancellor will give an answer to the points I have made and, having made them, I desire to express my warm approval of his otherwise very excellent Budget.
  6.20 p.m.
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: I want to raise a point which I do not think has been mentioned before,
  2154
  and which may not be of great public interest, but does affect quite a number of people. That is the question of tenants for life who receive the income from some entailed sum of money or property. The object of the entailment is to enable the head of a family to go into public life, or serve his country as a soldier or in some other way or to live on and manage his estate instead of having to go into trade, and to put him in a position free from worry while he does his duty. It is also to prevent some spendthrift son or heir in the days to come from squandering the family inheritance.
  The position has entirely altered since the days when entails were made, say, up to the 1914–18 war and when Death Duties were comparatively small. Now Death Duties go up to 70 per cent. plus Inheritance Duties and this means, with the very high Surtax, that the heir to a big estate in money or land who is only entitled to the income, and cannot touch the capital, cannot provide for his family. He is unable to sell anything, either for the benefit of his widow, or to give his children a start in life. Whether inheriting property is right or not does not come into this question, but the point is that the heir to such a man should not be in a worse position than the man who does not bother about what happens to his money after he has gone, and leaves it for his heir to do what he likes with. I do not think that the thrift and foresight of some forefather who tries to ensure that his capital should carry on from generation to generation should be penalised and that he should be put in a worse position than the ordinary man who possibly has no sense of responsibility.
  There are two or three suggestions I would make as to the way in which that difficulty should be got over. One is that a tenant for life, if he is willing to give up a proportion of his money to the next heir, should be allowed to realise an equal or fair proportion, either to go into business himself or to endow his family and give them a chance. Again with the present heavy taxation a tenant for life with no money of his own who tries to save something for his family finds it very difficult to do so. Supposing he saves £5,000, £ro,000 or £20,000, that is lumped into Death Duties with the whole of the main estate. That means, supposing it is at 70 per cent., that on £20,000

  2155
  his heirs might only get £5,000 or so out of it.
  More consideration and humanity might be shown in some cases by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue when dealing with these cases. For example, in one case a tenant for life who married again late in life tried to leave his widow the residue of his estate which came to about£1,000, and a lump sum of£5,000. As he knew she was not very good with money he said that it was to be released at a rate not exceeding £500 a year. After a time, the trustees found that the Income Tax authorities were charging Income Tax on the capital released. The trustees thought that under the circumstances the only thing to do was to realise the whole sum. They appealed to the Chancellor at that time who turned it down but said that they could make a further appeal to the Commissioners, but that is expensive, and nothing was done. The money had been left in that way in order to protect the widow against herself and so that she should have something to go on with for as long as possible. I maintain that this tax claim was wrong, and should never have been made.
  On the general terms of the Budget, I congratulate the Chancellor on his abolition of tax on kettles and such articles about which I am sure he has had representations from all sides of the Committee. With regard to P.A.Y.E. I would like to make the point that if a secretary or typist or any casual employee applying for a job is asked what he or she wants, the reply is that "it costs so much to live and so much in tax." They add the two together with the result that the employer pays the tax, with the result that it is one of the greatest inflationary Acts ever passed.
  I very much welcome the Chancellor's statement that he will accept land in payment of Death Duties. I think one of the bad examples of private enterprise is the speculative buying up of an estate which has been in good hands for generations and is forced into the market by Death Duties, and is then split up and sold and resold irrespective of the interest of the tenants and cottagers. It is far better that the State should become the landlord in such a case. The State is not always a good landlord, certainly not so good as the old-fashioned landlords of the better type, who in bad years would always forgo part of the rent. It is hardly likely that the Government or the Crown
  2156
  authorities would be in a position to do that without all sorts of appeals and questions in the House.
  Finally, I would beg the Chancellor to remember in future that if he wants to keep the best brains in the country it is no use taxing a man out of existence or he will go elsewhere. We can all learn from other countries and only the other day we find that in Russia where capital is now allowed the manager of a State farm which had evolved a new breed of cattle—Swiss and Russian cross—was given 150,000 roubles as a bonus for his good work. That is supposed to be equivalent to about£15,000. We don't even give our war leaders that. In Russia, I understand, contrary to the assumption of hon. Members opposite, people are allowed to pass money on to their sons and heirs. I would like to know what are the rates of Death Duties on that money, if any. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us. I would appeal to him not to penalise thrift and initiative, but to encourage our best brains by every means in his power.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. L. Williams: In welcoming generally the proposals of this Budget, I would at the outset say that intimations of views of my constituents in the last six months on taxation have been confined mainly to three phases: Income Tax allowances, Purchase Tax, and Entertainments Duty. So much has been said, and said very well, upon the first two items that, although I hold pretty strong views about the need for widening the gap between earned and unearned income, and about the need, when a greater volume of consumer goods is on the market, to put a wider range of articles outside the Purchase Tax, I propose to devote the few minutes I have at my disposal to dealing with the third item, Entertainments Duty.
  We all welcome the proposal to make a concession in regard to outdoor sports. That would seem to receive common approval. At the same time I find that one recreation, which is very popular, has been given no concession, that is, the cinema. Three years ago, when the late Sir Kingsley Wood put up the rate of tax for the cinema, as for other recreations, he said that the increased tax was to be borne by those who, at any rate, had some money to spare for expenditure of this kind. The position today is that that

  2157
  money is not there in the same volume. First, some of the money spent in those years upon cinema attendance was spent by people who were keen supporters of other forms of recreation, but who, because there was such a restriction upon football, cricket and outdoor sports generally, went to the cinema instead. Also, there was a great deal of overtime payment then which is not now enjoyed by the same people. Cinema attendances were also swollen in those years by Servicemen from other parts of the Empire and the world, people who are not now here to spend their money.
  I am concerned about this problem chiefly because it has a close relationship to the housing conditions of the people. A great many people in my constituency go to the cinema because their homes do not give them the opportunity afforded to people in better houses. Overcrowding and slum conditions are such that it is a great relief for many people to spend an evening at the pictures. There are so many phases of this housing problem that I do not think even the widest housing Debates in this House have ever covered them, and this is one of them.
  I find that this tax bears more heavily upon cinemas in the poorer than in the well-to-do districts. Last year there was collected in cinema duty an amount between three and a half and four times greater than that collected in 1929. The position in a representative cinema in my constituency, which is not exactly in the poorest district but in a mainly industrial area, is that the tax borne is put at between five-and-a-half and six times the amount carried by that concern in 1939. That will give some indication of the position. Sir Kingsley Wood said, in 1942, that expensive seats provided very little money, and that has been the position ever since. The cinema tax is, in the main, borne by the people who go to the low-priced seats. Having said that, I would add that I believe the opinion of the people in my constituency will be that the Chancellor has done very well, but that in some respects, as in regard to this form of Entertainments Duty, he can do a little better before this Budget becomes law.
  6.35 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: It is a little difficult, at this
  2158
  stage of the Debate, to say something that is not a repetition of what has already been so well said I am glad to have this opportunity to speak, however, because I think the principal points which were submitted by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), in his interesting speech this afternoon, ought to be emphasised again. It is all very well for Ministers to say, when we suggest economy, "Tell us how we ought to carry out these economies." It is not the function of the Opposition to provide the means for His Majesty's Administration to deal with the question of economy; it is the Government's function and responsibility. No one in this country who is familiar with the course of our public life and the working of our affairs can close his eyes to the fact that there is an immense amount of waste in progress in one direction or another.
  After the last war we had the Geddes "Axe." I do not for a moment suggest that we ought to introduce a Geddes "Axe" again, but it is, and ought to be, the function of the Government to determine where a reduction in public expenditure can be effected. Then we had the May Committee. Lord May rendered signal service to the country at the time—[Interruption.] I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree with that, but this side of the Committee, where common sense prevails, does agree.
  Mr. Alpass: What was the effect of that Committee?
  Sir P. Hannon: The effect was very salutary and that was one good thing. The Committee has had an interesting series of speeches. This is my 27th Budget, and I have rarely heard so many interesting speeches as have been made during the course of this Debate. In particular, I would like to commend two speeches, because each embodied such practical suggestions and so much political wisdom, and I hope that the Solicitor-General, who I see is in charge of the Treasury Bench at the moment, will convey my observation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These two speeches were delivered by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). All of us on this side of the Committee were, I thought, particularly impressed by the wise suggestions and the practical exposition of sound policy

  2159
  of the hon. Member for Chesterfield. It was a remarkable speech in a Debate in which we are confronted with so many million pounds of expenditure. I would emphasise some of the things which have been said by Members of both sides of the Committee in regard to the Purchase Tax. It is a serious decision on the part of the Chancellor that this tax is to become a permanent feature of our public finance.
  I would like to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am sorry he is not present—that he has been a friend of mine for a long time, and I have watched his development with great interest and sympathy for many years. I have seen him in storm and sunshine. I was present on many occasions in the old Chamber, when we had thundering rebuffs from the right hon. Gentleman which shivered and shook those of us on the other side. Now he has mellowed and become an object of benevolent maturity. He is taking a much more generous view of life. At the same time he has cultivated the faculty of framing a Budget which is not wholly unfriendly to the prospects of the party on the other side.
  On page 16 of the White Paper it is emphasised, again and again, that the level of taxation is too high. If production in this country is to be increased, every means should be brought into play to lessen the cost of production. The heaviest burden upon production in this country today is taxation. The level of taxation is far above what the commitments of the country and public finance are able to meet. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to take the commitments very lightly. As was emphasised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), unless we can foot the bill, to use a vulgar expression, this country will find itself in a very precarious financial condition in the course of the next couple of years. Then we shall see the value of the statements of which we have had examples from time to time, and of the promises so indiscriminately made during the course of the last election—[An HON. MEMBER: By whom? "] By hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was a sort of friendly rivalry among hon. Gentlemen opposite in the making of promises. It will be another story when it comes to the question of the realisation of promises.
  2160
  I do not want to add any more to this Debate. The whole Budget has been analysed. It has been torn to pieces on this side of the House, of course, with a certain amount of friendy feeling, and on the other side of the House it has been received with plaudits of acceptance. It is, on the whole, a better Budget than I expected. In many respects it is a good Budget. It presented difficulties with regard to the provision of money by taxation. I say that because I always like to be generous to my colleagues. Of all people, I would like to have a kindly word to say of the Chancellor. I hope that when the Finance Bill comes before the House of Commons, account will be taken of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Donovan: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made two observations yesterday in winding up for the Opposition, which prompt me to a short intervention in this Debate. He said, first, that this Budget does nothing whatever for the capital requirements of industry. I remind him that only last Saturday this Government brought into operation an Act whereby large reliefs are being given to industry in the direction which he indicated. Capital expenditure on buildings, plant, machinery and on patents and other matters, is all to be allowed as expenses in computing the profits to industry for Income Tax purposes, spread over a number of years. When that unprecedented relief was given only last Saturday, I submit it is not really reasonable to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to begin again on the Tuesday. The second observation which he made was that we ought to be ashamed of "incomprehensible" taxation. I fully agree, but the complexities of the subject are such that I do not think we shall ever get a sort of Dobson and Young technique in the matter of explaining the Income Tax Acts.
  Nevertheless, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconstitute the Simplification Committee which was set up in 1927, and which reported in 1936. That Committee produced an excellent Bill embodying a form of simplified Income Tax. What has happened to that Bill nobody knows. The task of bringing it up to date would not be superhuman. Although one cannot expect legislation

  2161
  for this or the next Session, or perhaps even until near the end of this Parliament, a committee could be set to work at once on the subject. In view of his interest in the subject I would like to nominate the hon. Member for Chippenham as one of the members of such a Committee.
  The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) referred to the question of children's allowances and regretted that they were not being raised. I share his regrets. In terms of taxation, we gain £22 10s. for a child. When that is added to family allowances it is not sufficient stimulus for the sort of people whom we want to have more children than they are having at the moment, particularly if family allowances are to be taxed. The reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight will be, "I am very sorry but I cannot spare any more money." May I suggest to him a way in which he could help in this direction without spending a penny more? He has£30 million in his pocket which he is going to give away to taxpayers in the shape of restoration, or partial restoration, of the earned income allowances. Could he not distribute that in such a way as to differentiate between the family man and the man without a family? There is no question here of asking the Chancellor to take something away from people who have got it already and give it to somebody else. There is no question of asking him to find the money. Here is a unique opportunity. He is to give £30 million away in any case. There is no administrative difficulty about doing it. I ask him then to discriminate between those with families and those without. It is not a difficult thing to do and might be productive of much social good. There are many other things I would like to add, but they have all been said much better than I could say them, and I, therefore, content myself with those brief observations.
  6.47 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: At this stage of the Debate, when on every occasion an hon. Member resumes his seat, there is enacted a scene reminiscent of the playing of the National Anthem, I am fully conscious that he who has the good fortune to catch your eye, Major Milner, earns the virulent dislike, if not the positive hatred, of hon. Members in all parts of the Com
  2162
  mittee who had hoped to have that good fortune. I am going to try to respond by making my remarks almost telegraphic in order to leave time for others to participate. When the Chancellor was delivering his eloquent speech on Tuesday I could not escape the impression that he was addressing himself to the American Congress rather than to the British House of Commons, so ostentatiously did he soft pedal Socialist policy. Whether unwittingly or not, the first 48 hours certainly have produced results, which I shall hope to indicate in a minute or two beneficial to the get-rich-quick type of capitalist dear to the heart of Wall Street. However, before coming to the controversial remarks which I have to offer, it would be churlish not to thank the Chancellor most cordially for the concession he has made in the matter of Entertainments Duty on sport, if only because I took up the time of the Committee for some 40 minutes last October in placing certain data before him. If my remarks were tedious on that occasion they have at least reaped some reward because I am hopeful that some of the facts I placed before him then may have played a modest part in the concession we have received.
  Coming to the broad causes of alarm and disquiet which this Budget causes in my mind, I will enumerate them as follow: Are the Government reconciled to high taxation for ever? It looks as though approximately the present levels are to continue indefinitely to finance peacetime projects of one kind or another. Only the other day, in reply to a question, the right hon. Gentleman stated—I think I have got the figures correct—that the figure for taxation of all kinds, which was £3 per head in 1914, is now £67 per head. That is a solemn and staggering reflection. I regret that nothing has been done in this Budget for those stalwart supporters of the Revenue, the consumers of tea, sugar, beer and tobacco. I think that reasonable relief could have been afforded in all those cases. We are confronted with this simple fact—that the Socialist Party, having almost completed the process of soaking the rich, are now starting on their next objective of soaking the masses. That will become more and more apparent as the days go by.
  An economist almost as distinguished as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Professor Pegou, professor of Cambridge

  2163
  University, and not a Tory by any means —I believe he shares, broadly speaking, the views of hon. Members opposite, but it may be that he is a Liberal of the Gladstonian rather than Montgomerian type—in one of his works, says that mankind is always economically striving after three goals: high wages, full employment and a stable currency. The distinguished professor went on to add that one could always have any two of these three objectives, but that it was impossible, economically, to achieve all of them. I gather, from the Government's policy, that they are striving for the last two—full employment and a stable currency. Certainly, and I do not think this will be denied in any quarter of the Committee, the present taxation level bears with undue harshness upon real wages, and that brings me to the topic raised with great force by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), with whom I find myself in full agreement in what he said about the Purchase Tax.
  I do regret that this tax, imposed in 1940, as a matter of fact, by Lord Simon when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and specifically declared to the Committee of that day to be a war tax, should be retained. It was introduced to produce revenue and reduce popular spending, but I heard the right hon. Gentleman say on Tuesday that it is to go forward in perpetuity. It is an unfair tax upon males, and it is a grossly unfair tax upon the fair sex, who might look forward, as austerity is relieved, to blossoming forth in those changes of apparel so dear to their hearts. They will find that this tax presses harshly on many of the things they would like to have. Let no one imagine that the ladies of this country are going to content themselves with utility clothing for a moment longer than is necessary.
  Looking forward—and here I found the Chancellor rather disappointing in the prophetic part of his speech—I think he failed to take into account one factor which will press upon us more severely as time goes on; that is, that the population of this country is a rapidly ageing one. The fall in the birth rate between the two wars is now beginning to make itself felt, quite apart from the grievous casualties sustained in the second war. and the young men now returning from the Forces, who will be reaching middle
  2164
  age between 1960 and 1965, will take upon their shoulders the main weight of the social proposals we are now putting through. I Lope it will not prove to be the case, but it may be that the National Insurance plan which was welcomed in all parts of this House and in the last Parliament, where it was first adumbrated, may press so hardly upon the shoulders of that generation in their middle age that, so far from being a life-buoy, it will prove to be a millstone round their necks. That is a sombre possibility, unless we are able to reestablish our financial equilibrium.
  Now a few words on the cost-of-living subsidies, which have reached the figure of £335 million. I am not one of those people who oppose that policy, but I feel that it is very necessary for every hon. Member, of whatever party, to explain to the people in the plainest possible language that this is, in fact, camouflaged inflation—well camouflaged, but camouflaged for all that. Agriculture is thus in an extremely precarious situation. The price levels, fought for so long, are now established on a basis of unreality. The time may come when the taxpayers in the urban areas will tire of this huge figure, because, while it is used to keep down the price of food, it is paid for in other directions, in indirect taxation and the like, and it may well be that some harassed Chancellor in the future, finding an unbalanced Budget, may seize upon these subsidies to the primary products of agriculture as a possible way of escape. I think that that should be made perfectly clear. I hope that hon. Members who represent urban constituencies—this is not a party point—and who are anxious to see the full development of the soil of Britain and agriculture maintained on a prosperous basis, will not cease to preach to their constituencies this economic fact arising out of the food subsidy position.
  In his Budget speech, the right hon. Gentleman said this:
  There are two substantial items of non-tax Revenue which I shall get this year as legacies of the war I can only estimate them in round figures; but I count on getting£150 million from the sale of surplus war stores,£50 million as surplus receipts from the trading activities of various Government Departments,…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946: Vol. 421, c 1816.]
  I think it is a little odd that, when looking five years ahead, the Chancellor had nothing to say about another source of

  2165
  revenue which I thought he would have advertised in the plainest manner, and particularly to hon. Members opposite. What about trading profits from the nationalised industries? We have been told that private enterprise is inefficient, and so it is being superseded, and everything is going to be streamlined. Are there going to be any profits from the nationalised industries, or are there to he losses? It used to be a Socialist doctrine, and I was always able to follow it, economically— [Laughter.]—I am not trying to be humorous at the expense of hon. Members opposite. I often used to listen to Socialist speakers when I was young, and that is why I joined the Tory Party. One of their economic arguments was that it might be good policy for this country to run the coal mines at a loss in order to supply industry with coal and have other profitable industries making up the loss. If that is still Socialist policy, let them say so. Is the Chancellor budgeting for profits from his nationalised industries? We ought to be told. I cannot imagine the perfect equilibrium of running on a non-loss or non-profit basis. If we are to have nationalised industry, how much is likely to go into the taxpayers' pockets for the next five years? The Government must have some idea, and perhaps the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will obtain the information from the Chancellor and ask him to deal with it. Or is the promised land entirely devoid of milk and honey? Ought we not to be told?
  The cost of food, again, may rise sharply during the next two or three years. I am told that, through this vast bulk purchase system, wherever Britain is known to be in the market, the result will be that prices will be hoisted against us. If that is not the case, and the Government will do well out of the bulk purchase system and will make profits, I think we also ought to be told. The Chancellor should let us know one way or the other. I am bound to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade would do well to spend some time in commodity markets. They could be financed, I am sure, by the Cooperative Wholesale Society. Then three successive unprofiable years of operation by those right hon. Gentlemen should exclude them from office under the black-ball system. Let
  2166
  them at least study these matters rather more closely.
  My last point is that of savings. The savings of the people last year reached the wonderful figure of£658 million;£520 million are estimated for the current year and have already been written into the Budget. They are to be used for current expenditure. Do the Government reiterate—because I think this should be done every year by the Chancellor of the day—that these savings are to be paid back in paper money of, approximately, the same purchasing value as at the time they are lent? We should be told at frequent intervals how we stand in this matter. It would indeed be melancholy if those who have invested in British Bonds and Savings Certificates were to suffer the fate of the Japanese bondholders and be told with a shrug of right hon. shoulders that they have backed the wrong horse. The present tendency is inflationary. I agree with the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) when he says we are in the "phoney" period of the war against inflation. The question is not whether inflation can be avoided, but to what extent it can be kept in check. The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) referred this afternoon to the Stock Exchange; he referred also to my sartorial appearance, which has no financial significance. I would say to him that the stock markets have hoisted a storm cone in the last two days. There is a definite inflationary tendency in those prices. That is what I meant when I began my speech. While the impact of the Socialist Election poster, "Enter Labour, Exit Want," on the housewives' larder has been discouraging, it has been carried into glorious fulfilment in the case of the shareholders of the Greyhound Racing Association. It must also be some comfort to hon Members opposite that the stalwart shoulders of the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer have hoisted Mr. Butlin above the poverty line.
  In his peroration—and I have now reached my own—the Chancellor referred to the late Earl Lloyd-George and his land policy. I thought he was somewhat infected by the eloquence of the late statesman, because "The sun rising over the mountains of Wales," and all the rest of it, was very much the sort of thing we got. In fact, the Chancellor gave the

  2167
  assembled brothers an unduly generous allocation of "wind on the heath" in his peroration. I am bound to say that the Chancellor has not always been happy in his prognostications. I well remember the grim winter of 1940–41 when, as Minister of Economic Warfare, he broadcast to us on the subject of German oil. To listen to him did much to maintain my morale at the time. One could imagine that he was in command of the magnificent Air Force. He was selecting targets: the great red weals were spreading over Germany, and, by 1941, the German oil supplies would be crippled It was not the fault of the Royal Air Force; they were not to blame. But the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the magnitude of that problem and neither does he understand the magnitude of the problem with which he is now confronted. I would say of the Chancellor that he was wrong then and is wrong now, and that his prophetic perorations fall far below his retrospective rhetoric. He has taken on a task which requires second sight. If only the right hon. Gentleman's foresight were equal to his hindsight, the nation would be better off by a long sight.
  7.5 P.m.
  Major Bruce: I thought that the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) was a little uneasy when he led off for the Opposition this afternoon, and I think the reason for that is perfectly clear. In their heart of hearts, the Opposition believe that the Budget is a good one. The City of London is convinced that the Budget is a good one and the country, by and large, knows that the Budget is a good one. The criticisms which we have had from the Opposition, so far, have crystallised, broadly speaking, under two heads. There has been a little special pleading on behalf of those whose incomes slightly exceed£1,200 per annum. That argument was satisfactorily dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), and the remainder of the Opposition argument has boiled down into vague allegations of extravagance on the part of the Government and dark hints that, unless rigorous economies are enforced in the future, the nation is in for a bad time.
  But the Opposition cannot have it both ways. All the way through this Session since the King's Speech, we have been
  2168
  introducing Measures of social reform into this House and on practically every occasion hon. Members opposite have congratulated the Government and expressed regret that it was not their Government who were introducing them. Indeed, on occasions when the Service Estimates have been presented, hon. Members on the Opposition benches have urged even more reforms at even more monetary cost. When the right hon. Member for the City of London was speaking this afternoon, he was questioned as to the manner in which various economies could be enforced. I thought he paused for an unduly long period of time, but, eventually, he said, somewhat lamely I thought, that there were always the Services. I looked along the Front Bench opposite and I saw the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). I thought his face blanched a little, but my view of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) was obscured, so I did not see what his face was like. I remember that when he came to my constituency three Inc nths ago he complained that the new rises in naval pay were niggardly.
  Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways in this matter. Is it suggested that the economies should be effected by cutting down in all the social services? If so, will the Opposition please specify which social services are to be cut down? Is it to be at the expense of the Armed Services, as suggested by the right hon. Member for the City of London? If so, I suggest that by far the best way of doing that would be to raise the matter specifically on the Army, Navy or other appropriate Estimates and, if necessary, to carry those views to the Division Lobby in exactly the same way that the Labour Party did before the war when it disapproved of an Estimate. The country would not misunderstand the Opposition in this matter; it would not make the allegation which is very often made on the Opposition Benches, that we were voting against the Army, Navy or Air Force. If the right hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about this, I suggest that he should carry it to the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Assheton: I would like to explain that the principal criticism I made was that the number of men and women still employed in making munitions for the

  2169
  Services was over 1,500,000. The other criticism was directed against extravagant administration—nothing else.
  Major Bruce: The only example that my right hon. Friend was good enough to give to the Committee was some expenditure on stationery to the tune of£13 million. I am pleased that the Chancellor decided to maintain the food subsidies which have been brought into existence during the war. Some of us remember what happened immediately after the last great war. I have not a very long memory and I was not sufficiently old at the time, but I know a number of people who were alive during that period, and, of course, there are plenty of books on the subject. I find that on 1st October, 1918, the price of potatoes had doubled itself in two years, the price of sugar had gone up by 73 per cent. by July, 1920, the price of tea was up by 34 per cent. by 1919, and butter was up 33⅓ per cent. in two years. These points ought to be borne in mind when allegations of extravagant expenditure are made.
  I now pass to the subject of Purchase Tax, which was touched upon by the Chancellor in his speech, in which he said:
  " My view is that the Purchase Tax has got to stay, and must yield an increasing revenue over the next few years to help pay the bill for social betterment. Its yield will rise as the production of taxable goods increases." FOFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1826.]
  I think the Purchase Tax will have to stay so long as a period of stringency in commodities continues to exist, but I also agree to a large extent with what has been said on the Opposition benches on this question, in that I do not think it should be a permanent feature of our financial existence. I was particularly stirred by something which was said by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon-Walker). It is only fair to the Chancellor to say that he did not by any means imply these views, but the hon. Member for Smethwick said:
  " I suggest to the Chancellor that he should consider the idea of progressive indirect taxes; a higher percentage tax upon higher price goods."—
  and then he went on to say:
  " One should have progression in indirect taxes in the same way as we have it in our direct taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1972.]
  2170
  I really must dissent from that point of view, because there are two kinds of expensive articles There is the kind of article which is expensive because it is rare, or eccentric, or because, for some perfectly good social reason, the Government do not desire to encourage the consumption of that particular kind of commodity. It may well be during a period of stringency that some Purchase Tax or prohibitive tax should be imposed on such a commodity. But there is the other kind of article which is expensive because it represents a large amount of valuable human endeavour. There are works of art and other articles of an expensive nature, which working people desire to purchase, and it would be monstrous if the Purchase Tax were to be graded highly upon higher priced commodities of this particular kind. It would mean that the ordinary working man would have to save far more for an expensive article than he would otherwise have to do. In the long run the Purchase Tax question will largely be solved by that which has been touched upon in all quarters of the Committee. I refer to the question of increased production. There is no doubt that, progressively, as production increases prices will fall, and also to a large extent the necessity for taxation will fall We must remember that a good portion of the expenditure which is budgeted for in this Budget is spent not only on personnel, on wages, but on materiel, and also on goods. Progressively as production increases, the prices of these goods for which we have to budget will fall also; therefore, the necessity for taxation will fall and the necessity for Purchase Tax will fall likewise.
  My next point is concerned with Table 14 in the Financial Statement. At present there is no way of determining from this Statement exactly how much expenditure of a capital nature will take place and how much ordinary expenditure which has no residual value at the end of the financial year will be incurred. Indeed, by ordinary orthodox canons of accountancy, Table 14 is certainly not a revenue and expenditure account at all. At best, it is a summary cash account—a receipts and payments account. I think the time is coming when our accounts, or our estimates for the year, will have to show approximate estimates of how much

  2171
  money is to he spent on capital account, and how much is to be spent on ordinary revenue account during the year. because the existing figure of excess of expenditure over revenue of approximately£725 million is not an excess of expenditure over revenue at all. It is an estimated excess of estimated payments over estimated receipts, and, moreover, the estimated payments contain, as they must, millions of pounds which will be spent during the current year on items which will have a residual value in 20, 30 or 40 years' time, and it is, therefore, entirely incorrect from the accountancy standpoint to include all this expenditure on the expenditure side. Also it suffers from the normal accounting deficiency in that it does not take into account opening liabilities or closing liabilities, or opening assets or closing assets. I agree with the hon. Member for East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), who said it is high time we had some alteration in the form of accountancy.
  I was pleased that the Chancellor saw his way to grant to the working person exemption for tax purposes of his contributions to National Insurance. That raises the whole question of the amount of expense which an employee at the present time is entitled to charge under Schedule E as against the expenses which the employer of labour can charge under Schedule D. Under Rule 3 of Schedule D, which covers the majority of our enterprises in this country, the entrepreneur is allowed to charge for Schedule D purposes—
  " any disbursements or expenses…wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of the trade, profession, employment or vocation."
  These would undoubtedly include, from time to time, expenses for entertainment, and a whole number of expenses which are normally incurred in the course of business. In Schedule E, however, one finds that Rule 9 says:
  " If the holder of an office or employment of profit is necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of the emoluments thereof the expenses of travelling in the performance of the duties of the office or employment, or of keeping and maintaining a house to enable him to perform the same, or otherwise to expend money wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the said duties, there may be deducted from the emoluments to be assessed the expenses so necessarily incurred and defrayed."
  2172
  The operative word here is "obliged." An employee, to be able to obtain an allowance for tax purposes, has to prove that the expenditure he incurred was incurred in order to enable him to retain his job; in other words, that he was "obliged" to expend it if he wanted to keep his job. I do not think that is a very good way of encouraging the employees of the country at the present time. They ought to be brought more into line with Schedule D.
  I conclude by saying that, as a whole, the Budget is a first-class Budget, and one which will show, not only the Opposition but also the country, that there is at the helm a Chancellor who knows exactly what he is doing, and where he is going in regard to these financial matters.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Jennings: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) into the difficulties of Income Tax law. Having earned my living for some years, arguing the difficulties under Schedule E and expenses in Schedule D, I can tell him that it would take many days to explain some of the difficulties that exist in the various Schedules to which he has referred. However, I go with him in the suggestion that, if possible, a clearer statement ought to be given to the country and the Committee with regard to national income and expenditure. I know it is difficult, but I feel there is a good case to be made out for endeavouring to separate revenue items as distinct from capital items. The Chancellor said he has brought in certain terminal items in balancing his Budget, items such as war material. Some lines of thought may put those in the category of capital items being brought in with a view to balancing the Budget. The Chancellor called them "terminal items." I take it he means non-recurring items, items which once dealt with do not happen again. I hope the Chancellor will take the opportunity of bringing in the sale of war material and that sort of thing with a view to assisting him to balance the Budget.
  How are we going to balance the Budget in three or four years' time if we have the appalling taxation that we have today? Today we are suffering under an appalling taxation burden, a war burden which, in my opinion, has no justification at all in peacetime. That is the Govern

  2173
  ment's responsibility. A great deal has been said about economy. I venture to suggest that it would not take a very clever man to take a toothcomb through expenditure without touching Service pay or allowances, as has been suggested from the other side of the Committee. Millions of pounds can be saved in Service expenditure today. If hon. Members go into the constituencies and listen to what people arc saying, every day they will hear instances of waste, instances of buildings unoccupied, of buildings being paid for with nobody there. No Government Department will take the risk in saying, "We do not want that any more." Yet people are bursting to get into those buildings to carry on productive employment. Surely to goodness it does not take a very clever man to save millions of pounds by that form of economy. Last night we were challenged by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. He said they were entitled to know how to get economics —" Tell us how to get it." There is a suggestion for him. Put a toothcomb through all the Service Departments and Civil Departments. There are people in Service Departments, in my opinion, doing very little for the money they draw, and they would be far better employed in active, productive industry.
  I was very sorry to hear the Chancellor suggest that Purchase Tax might be a permanent tax. Purchase Tax was brought in for two purposes: to provide money for the carrying on of the war, and to stem the purchasing power of the people. It was a purely war tax; it was brought in as a war measure. This tax is finding itself in the same position as the Entertainments Duty. That duty was a temporary tax brought in during the last war in order to provide funds. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why I think the Government are holding on to these taxes. All the administration, all the accountancy, and the collection almost, of this duty, has been shoved on to the shoulders of the employers. The employers have to do all the clerical work; they have to debit the tax, and they have to account for it. In other words, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue are being saved a great deal of work in the collection of these taxes. They are easily collected, ready taxes. If that is a justification, it is a quite unfair justification for maintaining a tax. In my opinion,
  2174
  there is no sound reason for the Purchase Tax being kept on as a permanent tax, if it is merely to save labour, to save Treasury clerks and so on.
  I realise I have a limited time. In fairness to other hon. Members who want to speak I am going to be sharp and snappy. If I am a little too snappy I hope hon. Members will not mind. I want to make an appeal for the middle class people in this country. We have here a class of people which has borne this tax with great courage. They have spent almost everything they have of their incomes. They include hon. Members from the benches opposite. I know people who, with intelligence, initiative and brains, have risen to an executive position; they have to keep up a certain position in life in order to uphold that job; they have children, and they have had to pay this heavy tax and, in consequence, have had to draw on the savings they have been able to put away in order to live during the past few years. Those savings have now gone. I appeal to the Chancellor to make a greater difference between earned and unearned income, and not to break down these people This tax is bringing these people with brains down to the place from which they started, and all their initiative and enterprise will be worth nothing at all to them. I appeal on behalf of that section of the community, the middle class people.
  The taxation system and the taxation burden in this country is causing a great deal of feeling, resulting in the view that it is not worth while. Members on all sides may not agree with me. The Minister of Fuel and Power has appointed a Coal Board; the Minister has given certain salaries—if I may say so, quite large salaries from a Socialist Government point of view. I venture to suggest that there is not one man who has been appointed to that Coal Board who is interested in the salary at all, because there will be very little left after they have got it. What have they gone on the Board for? They have gone out of a spirit of patriotism, in order to give the benefit of their executive experience. I say that the time has passed when we have to ask brains and enterprise to give their services for patriotic reasons. We ought to be able to pay them proper salaries.
  I view with alarm the deficiency in our overseas payments. I urge the Chancellor to watch that very carefully, be

  2175
  cause that is a dangerous position having regard to the figure of the National Debt. I thought it was wry wrong of the Chancellor to say in his Budget Speech what he did say about private enterprise. All over the country lion. Members on the Front Bench opposite have been underrating private enterprise. I say this to them right now. It would have been "God help us" if it had nut been for private enterprise during the war. If we are asking for the cooperation of private enterprise for a production drive, let us hold out the hand of friendship to them; do not ram them down. as the Chancellor said. Although he did not use these exact words, he meant, "If they are not good boys I will put a tax on them. We will see how they go along."
  I can give the Chancellor many instances of new companies, formed at the beginning of the war, with fixed standards for E.P.T. purposes, in which, with the incidence of E.P.T., there have been practically no dividends at all. Therefore, there are two sides to this picture. When the Chancellor decries private industry and says they are paying out dividends, let him give the other side of the picture at the same time. Dividends have been in short supply in many companies during the war, and I can give him many instances if he would like to have them.
  Do not let us delude ourselves that inflation is not here. Let married Members on the other side of the Committee go home and ask their wives how much they will get for a pound. Inflation is with us. It has to be checked. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), do not let us be under the foolish misapprehension that it is not here, because it is. I beg of the Chancellor, in that respect, to watch the position with great alarm, because that, and that in itself, will cause untold trouble in the country, and untold anxiety to masses of the people. I thank the Chancellor for the crumbs from his table in the way of reliefs of Income Tax. From the Socialist point of view it was a good Socialist Budget; a Budget that will probably make fast the votes of the people who put the Government there. But in our finances we are past the stage when we can look upon a Budget for the purpose of vote catching. That applies to all parties. I appeal to the Chancellor to cut that out, and to let us have a standard
  2176
  of finance sound and proper, so that we can get back to a sound financial position.
  7.33 P.m.
  Mr. S. N. Evans: In the course of his masterly presentation of a splendid Budget the Chancellor used these words:
  " A much more serious and more anxious problem is presented by…the deficit in our overseas balance of payments. For the calendar year 1946, I put this deficit at£750 million. It represents, of course, the excess of our overseas expenditure—mainly on essential imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 5946; Vol. 421, c. 1819.]
  I propose to devote the few minutes at my disposal to the problem of bridging that gap. There can be little doubt that the British genius for craftsmanship finds its best expression in the fabrication of metals. From blast furnaces we get ingots, billets and pigs, which, by a series of manipulations—for example, forgings, castings, drawings, stamping and machining—we proceed to fabricate into locomotives, automobiles, agricultural implements, electrical apparatus and all the products of our engineering initiative. With the most skilled and amenable labour force in the world, with technicians second to none, it might be thought that our industrial future is well assured, and that the problem of bridging the£750 million gap is not a difficult one. Not so. There is a serious fly in the ointment. It is the restrictionist practices engaged in by a section of British industry. In this connection may I take the Committee back to the words of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson)? He said:
  " I warn the Committee that increased production is not the whole story. Increased productive efficiency is what is required, and that is rather a different matter. The increase of exports to which the Chancellor referred, is very gratifying. I agree that it has gone better than one would have expected, but those exports must be competitive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1953.]
  I accept that no per cent. My remarks will be strictly relevant to that all-important problem, but I would ask the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities to address his remarks to those whose political instrument the Conservative Party has always been. I refer to that State within the State, the British Iron and Steel Federation and its members. The pursuit of overseas markets, there can be little doubt, the expanding

  2177
  petroleum industry could and should provide a fruitful field for British-made petroleum mining equipment, which might thus help to bridge the gap. But, unhappily, the prospects here are not bright because in this field we fail to reveal any competitive force whatsoever. British production of petroleum mining equipment, castings, is wholly in the hands of one firm, Stewart and Lloyds, who, through their amalgamations, enjoy a monopoly. British petroleum producers, patriotically desiring to buy British, have to go to this firm, with what results I propose to recount.
  Towards the end of 1945 the Trinidad Petroleum Development Co., Ltd., invited tenders for oilfield equipment required for development. Two tenders were received, one from Stewart & Lloyds, the other from the Pittsburg firm of Spang, Chalfont Inc. Here are some comparative figures. For 5½ inch by 17 lb. casing free on board per ton Stewart and Lloyds wanted£33 The American firm wanted£25 13s. 1d., a percentage difference of 29. For 9⅝inches, 40 lb. casing, Stewart & Lloyds' price was £33 175. 4d. and the United States' price was£27 8s. 10d., a difference of 23 per cent. In the matter of line pipe Stewart & Lloyds' price for 1 inch was£31 11s 4d. per ton free on board, the American price£24 10s. free on board, a difference of 28 per cent. For 2 inch our price was£36 14s. 3d., the American price was£25. 7s. 9d., a difference of 44 per cent. For 3 inch our price was£33 12s. 10d. and the American price was £23 12s. 8d., a difference of 42 per cent. For 4 inch Stewart & Lloyds' price was£32 17s. 1d., the Pittsburg firm£22 10s., a difference of 47 per cent. For oil well tubing the British firm quoted £46 13s: 4d., the American £33 10s. 6d., a difference of 39 per cent. But it is when we come to bolted tanks that the position is revealed as really alarming. Here a British price per roo barrel tanks free on board was £110 per ton whilst Oklahoma quoted£57 10s. per ton, a percentage difference of 91. For 250 barrel bolted tanks we wanted£221 per ton and they wanted£93 15s., a difference of 135 per cent.
  It is often said, when complaints are made about the price of British steel, "Look at the price of coal." But here I am prepared to give them the coal and pay for the labour and then I will defy them to explain these discrepancies. Hon.
  2178
  Friends may well think that, in the light of these figures, the export-import gap will remain at a very large figure for a very long time if it is left to Stewart and Lloyds, and the Committee may well feel that the sooner the State takes over, the better for British revenue. I could give many instances of the serious disadvantages which British engineering industries have to endure because of the high prices they are charged for their raw material. Almost wholly this is due to the restrictionist practice of that relic of feudalism, the British Iron and Steel Federation. For that reason I should be lacking in political courage and honesty if I did not deplore present Governmental secrecy in the matter of steel policy. Steel is the basic raw material of our engineering. Unless it is going to be made available to industry at world competitive prices, we shall never bridge the gap to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred.
  Two reports are in the hands of the Government, one instigated by the Coalition Government in 1944, and the other handed in by the Iron and Steel Federation in December last. The findings of the Reid Coal Commission and the Platt Cotton Commission were broadcast to the world. Why should not the steel recommendations be made available likewise? I ask this because it seems imperative to me that a policy brought to birth by a body which has consistently put the interests of its members before the interests of the nation should be given the widest possible publicity and the most profound consideration.
  These must be my final words. I remember the Anglo-American monetary proposals when that which Congress took three months to decide this House was given 13 hours to debate. Of those 13 hours Front Bench speakers took seven. I trust there will be no repetition of that because that is really alien to our British Parliamentary democracy. Despite what I have said, I am not a defeatist in the matter of British industrial prospects. The problems confronting us are really infinitesimal compared with those which confronted our ancestors at the time when Tom—" Rights of Man "—Paine designed the 100 ft. cast iron bridge which spanned the Wear at Sunderland. What disciplined imagination conceives today can be made scientifically possible tomorrow, and to the end that this £750 million gap can be the more quickly closed

  2179
  I ask the Government to give every possible assistance to British engineering by providing cheap steel.
  7.44 P.m.
  Major Haughton: I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting a little weary, if not bored, by the compliments that have been paid to him, but as a new Member I should like to say how deeply impressed I was by the way in which he opened his Budget. Those two hours in which he made complicated figures seem almost simple, passed very swiftly, and this experience has whetted my appetite to see other Budgets, in which performance replaces prophecy and certainty replaces doubt; and from which threats are removed. I hope to live long enough to see them. The Chancellor has dealt such a shrewd blow, in the scale of the rates of Death Duties, that I think it is hardly worth while dying.
  There are many things I should like to say about the Budget, but I confine myself to two short requests, to which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give heed. The first is for an easement of the zoo per cent. tax on silk. I am not going to say that silk is as beautiful or as useful as Irish linen, but it is a very beautiful and a very useful fabric, and this no per cent. tax is harsh in the extreme. I know one firm, which has establishments in both the North and South of Ireland, which is suffering gravely from it; a company which, like the whole of the silk industry, would like to provide some production for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is, however, severely handicapped, and I would remind the Chancellor that if an industry like that is overtaxed, then even the silk worm will turn. My second request is for an easement on linen furnishing fabrics. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that into account as he does other furniture. I think he will agree that curtains and coverings for chairs are necessary parts of the equipment of the home. Those are the two requests I make, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give them consideration.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. Walkden: This is the seventh Budget speech to which I have listened since I became a Member of this House and I have always felt encouraged by the criticisms which have come from hon. Members no matter to
  2180
  what party they belong or in what part of the Committee they may sit. There have been many descriptions of the Budgets in the last six years. They have been described in sentimental terms, in popular terms and in abusive terms. I think this Budget will go down to history as a Budget which is a tonic for everybody in the country, and it seems regarded as such even by hon. Members on the other side—by some of our old friends who were with us in the last Parliament. They, too, recognise that this Budget is a tonic for everybody. I think it is our job, on whichever side we are, to be frank and honest and critical if we feel like it, so long as we are constructive.
  Sometimes, I may, perhaps, have been unpopular for being a little too critical. I would suggest, in connection with this Budget, that some of the "back-room boys" of the Treasury made a mistake in advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reliefs of the Purchase Tax. I know they have devoted a lot of attention to the kitchen sink. They have gone around the pots, pans and crockery, and so forth, but why, in heaven's name, have they left out those little things which make life comfortable for the housewife, such as an electric cleaner? Why should we continue to pay Purchase Tax on electric cleaners, when the Chancellor has exempted the old electric kettle and the other odds and ends which make life comfortable for the housewife? I hope that the Chancellor will consider exempting electric cleaners at a later stage. I was interested in what the Chancellor said about the anxiety he felt for offices and businesses in regard to typewriters. He is relieving businesses and firms of the obligation to pay Purchase Tax on these, but I wonder whether he knows that most of the typewriters which have been bought in recent years, have not cost businesses and firms a penny, because they have been charged to expenses, and in consequence the Treasury have provided them.
  Mr. Jennings: No.
  Mr. Walkden: It is so in the case of most of these typewriters. I have discussed this with business friends, and they honestly admit that the money did not come out of their pockets. I am not an expert on E.P.T., but what I do know—because my business friends have made it clear to me—is that there are folks who

  2181
  adjust their accounts, and the Treasury allow for typewriters. The reason I emphasise this is because Members of Parliament, journalists and indeed people in nearly every homestead in the land require fountain pens. One might say that a fountain pen is a necessity to earn a living. Why has the Chancellor then insisted on retaining Purchase Tax on fountain pens? We cannot afford typewriters, but "John Citizen" needs a fountain pen. My pen is nearly seven years old, and I do not knout what it would cost to purchase a new one with Purchase Tax included.
  My final point relates to watches and clocks. When my right hon. Friend was at the Board of Trade, he did his best to bring watches and clocks, particularly alarm clocks, into the country. The result is that today movements are being brought into the country, and we can no longer buy the 5s. watch. Recently, the Central Price Regulation Committee allowed something to be done, of which I do not think my right hon. Friend would approve. In prewar years, the most enterprising firms for cheap watches worked on a margin of profit of 22½ per cent., but now the Central Price Regulation Committee have agreed to a margin of 100 per cent. as between producer and consumer. In addition, there is the Purchase Tax at the wholesale stage. Before the war this country used to have 5,000,000 watches per year. Admittedly, the cheaper watches lasted only six months, but they only cost 5s. or 2s. 9d. —they were just the thing for a present for little "Johnnie." Due to the incidence of this new margin of profit, and due to the incidence of Purchase Tax, the 5s. watch will be the 15s. or 20s. watch, and ultimately, perhaps, the one guinea watch. I make this appeal to the Chancellor that help should be given to the watch and clock industry in South Wales, and in those other places to which he;s attracting new industries. In the case of rolled-gold and chromium-plated watches, it costs as much to produce a rolled-gold case as it does a chromium-plated case, and yet the Mir-chase Tax in the first instance is 33⅓ per cent., and in the second instance 100 per cent. Working folk like to have something which looks nice, even if it is not as good as it ought to be, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into this question, as well as the other
  2182
  little things which I have raised, affecting every homestead in the land and to give "John Citizen" a chance to enjoy these benefits.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: We are coming now towards the conclusion of what I consider has been a most interesting Debate. On all sides of the Committee we have heard speeches which display great knowledge, and although I disagree entirely with many of them, all of them, with one exception, to which I shall refer later, have been directed towards the realities of the case. The main exception I make to that rule is the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), which appeared to me to have no contact at all with reality. His solutions for the financial difficulties of the country were very simple. They were, first of all, to maintain and if possible to increase expenditure, and then to reduce, or if necessary to abolish, taxation, and then everybody would be happy. I must confess in my innocence, owing to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was connected with the executive direction of one of the large combines, that for many years I have been prepared to regard him as an economic authority, but after this afternoon I shall have to revise my view.
  Whatever has been said from one side of the Committee or from the other about the matter of the Chancellor's speech, everyone has combined to throw him bouquets upon the manner in which he introduced the Budget. In fact, for two days he would have been covered with blushes. if he had not obviously lost that art many years ago. I should like to add my tribute, although I shall be critical of the matter, to the manner in which the speech was delivered. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for two hours, and during the whole of that time he held the Committee to a closely reasoned speech full of figures, which was no mean performance, for the listeners, unlike the speaker, did not have the advantage of being fortified at intervals by refreshment, which I regret to learn from the Press was, like the Chancellor himself, not as innocent as it appeared.
  Of course, to some of the great predecessors in the office of the right hon. Gentleman this speech of two hours would have been nothing—a mere exercise

  2183
  canter; a few preliminary remarks thrown off as a prelude to a substantial contribution to the Debate at some later stage. But we must judge modern achievements by modern standards, however degenerate they are. By that standard, the right hon. Gentleman certainly gave a fine feat of exposition and endurance. During the course of his speech, he covered a great deal of ground. Of necessity, or perhaps of choice, he also had to leave a great deal of ground uncovered. It has been naturally the object of the Debate of the last two days to try to put to the Chancellor the points upon which the Committee still require to be satisfied.
  Several speakers have pointed out that there is a considerable difference between the Budget discussions of today and the Budget discussions of, say, the last decade. In those days, both the Chancellor himself and the Committee who listened to him were thinking much more of the actual figures of the Budget. Sufficient for the year was the Budget thereof, and the main role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, having revealed the surplus or deficit, to explain how, with the least inconvenience or with the greatest advantage, he was going, either to fill one or distribute the other. He was, in fact. appearing before the Committee in the role of an accountant. Today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to appear also in the role of managing director. He has not only to deal with the actual out turn of the year and the surplus or deficit, as it may be, but he has also to explain to the Committee and to the country how he is laying the foundations for the economic future of the country in the years well beyond the actual Budget year. Therefore, any speech upon the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer falls naturally into two parts. First, the discussion of the actual Budget proposals for this year, and, second, the foundations which are being laid now, for what may well be more important and more critical Budgets in the years 1947 and 1948.
  I will deal, in the first place, with the proposals for 1946. I agree with hole. Members who have spoken that, in themselves, these proposals, with certain criticisms which I am going to make, are likely to prove popular in the country, in that they bring relief to a great many people, housewives and hairdressers,
  2184
  company directors and old age pensioners. All come up before the right hon. Gentleman for his benefits, and, in front of all, is the stalwart guard of honour drawn from enthusiastic but short sighted stockbrokers. I am not one who takes any pleasure in the rise of capital value referred to as a result of this Budget, because I feel that, to a great extent, these rises are inflationary in character and rises, therefore, which rather than welcome we ought to be afraid of.
  These reliefs, of course, are small, but they are certainly widespread. The right hon. Gentleman referred, during the course of his speech, to the song in his heart. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) has told him that the symptoms which the right hon. Gentleman observed came more from medical than musical reasons. But if, in fact, there is—I will not say in the Chancellor's heart but in the left side of his breast—a song, I have no doubt that the title of it would be "Pennies from Heaven," because it is true that seldom in budgetary history has one man given so little to so many. It is obviously impossible tonight to go over all the details of the Budget. We shall have ample opportunities to do that on the further stages which Parliamentary procedure allows. I want, therefore, to confine myself to a few main items only.
  The reliefs which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers, fall, first of all, into a group with which we on this side of the House are in wholehearted agreement. They include the earned income allowances, the repayment of postwar credits to aged persons and the reduction of Entertainment Duty on athletic sports, including, of course, chess All these alterations have one thing in common. All of them were most persuasively proposed in October by hon. Members on this side of the House, and all were then sternly rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget and all were decisively defeated by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the Lobby. We realise, from the enthusiasm with which they agree with them now, how their consciences must have pricked them during those dreary walks into the Lobby last October. To us, on this side of the House, that is extremely encouraging. It does show that what the Opposition think today, the

  2185
  Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to think next April, and, therefore, we shall persist and, during the course of this Debate, have many suggestions to make. We shall have no hope that they will be accepted now, but we shall look forward with every confidence that, after a suitable period of gestation, they will reappear next April as the Chancellor's own ideas.
  The Budget contains certain alterations with which, in the main, we agree but on which we have some comments and criticism to make. I take, first, the abolition of the Excess Profits Tax. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of that tax today. All on this side of the House are delighted that it has now been removed, but why was it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, having done that with the object, no doubt, of its incentive effect, to spoil the effect, to a large extent, by these vague comminations and threats with which he clothed the withdrawal of this tax? He must remember that industrialists are simple minded folk. They are not men of the world as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury claimed that all of us were, including himself. They are so simple minded that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says a thing like that they really believe him. They have visualised the Chancellor since last October, day after day and night after night trying to work out some alternative to the Excess Profits Tax and, not having succeeded by 9th April, they fear that, some time before next April, he will spring out of his bath, with the shout "Eureka," and a new tax will be born. We men of the world in this House know that that is not the case at all. We know exactly why the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it in that way. It is, first of all, because of his own back benchers. When the right hon. Gentleman announced the abolition of the Excess Profits Tax, the natural gesture of most hon. Members behind him was to put their hand in their pocket and to pull out a well-thumbed copy of "Looking Ahead" — [Interruption.] — "Facing the Future "—
  Major Bruce: The title is "Let us Face The Future."
  Mr. Stanley: It probably reads the same under any name. Of course, the first thing hon. Members did was to open that book
  2186
  let and see whether this was in the mandate. Had they got a mandate to abolish Excess Profits Tax? No, it was not in the mandate, and the Chancellor had naturally to satisfy anxious purists with, at any rate, the vague hope that this departure from the rule of the mandate might not be permanent. The second reason, of course, was that strange dualism which characterises the whole of the Government's dealing with private enterprise. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in a racing simile which, nevertheless, I understood. The Government know that, in fact, over these five years, they have to depend to a large extent on private industry; they have got to encourage private indusry, and they have got to help it; but yet they cannot ever do it wholeheartedly. They must always try somehow or other to damp down the encouragement and make the help of less value. Cannot the Chancellor set a precedent to his colleagues? Cannot he, for once, give this help and incentive to industry without having to try to spoil the effect of it afterwards by vague threats and comminations? I quite realise that the right hon. Gentleman must be concerned with the dividend policy. It is a matter of great interest, but it is a policy which, he will agree, has to depend on individual cases. No one will suggest that, if this is a bad tax, he is going to reimpose some alternative just because one or two industries have not carried out a dividend policy which he would like. If he wants an alternative, if he wants to punish them, let him give them a working party; that will teach them not to think about dividends, or, indeed, about profits.
  The next thing is the reliefs given in the Purchase Tax. Again, we welcome such reliefs as the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give, but we regret that he felt it necessary to say that this Purchase Tax was to become a permanent part of the Budget of this country. I support the Purchase Tax now, because I think that during a period of inflationary danger it is one of the best anti-inflationary taxes one can have, but I can quite see circumstances in which that would be quite different. It is in any case a hard tax; it discriminates, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out, very unfairly sometimes between different forms of purchase. The Chancellor went to higher levels for his examples, by dealing with Bernard

  2187
  Shaw, either in book form or in the projects during a man's lifetime, cases in theatre. I have an example of a sort which a man hesitates to undertake some-which had to be issued by the Customs thing, the return from which can come and Excise Office as an amendment to another statement which had been issued that he may never enjoy it because of before, in order to convey to an anxious public the exact diffirence between blousettes and ladies' fronts or modesty vosts, the fact being that you had to pay more tax if you bought a blousette than you would have to pay if you were content with a modesty vest. It is quite clear that if conditions change, if we pass, as we may well do in the next few years, from a seller's market, such as we knew before, the very tax which is now good because harmful because of its restrictive character. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be too dogmatic in this claim that, whatever happens, this tax has got to stay.
  I want now to deal with the question of Death Duties. We welcome that part of the Death Duties proposal which results in remission, and we regret that part which results in additions. The Chancellor opened his depence of this particular proposal with a pathetic picture of the poor little rich boy deprived of all stimulus and all incentive, and thus driven to lead an idle, pointless life, wasting talents and energies which might be so well employed to the national advantage. Of course, nowadays that story has a happy ending, as all stories should have, a safe and secure resting place on the socialist Benches in another place. The Chanceller went on to use, in support of his argument one of the most common and obvious dialectic tricks. He cited one case. He cited the case of an estate of£2 million, unusually and abnormally liquid, where, after the death of the testator, the heir walked away with£500,000 in bank notes. Of course, in that particular case, however much we may sympathise with the troubles of the heir, all of us would be prepared to assume them.
  But is that a typical case? Are there not, for a case of that kind, ten others of quite a diffirent character?—the sort of case to which my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities referred, of the private company, of agricultural land, numerous cases where, in fact, very heavy Death Duties do, and must, have a deterrent effect upon development
  2188
  projects during a man's lifetime, cases in which a man hesitates to undertake something, the return from which can come only after a long time, because he knows that he may never enjoy it because of death, and because after his death the only man who will enjoy it will be the Chancellor? The Chancellor called attention to the case of forestry. Is not that one typical case? How can you expect a private owner to invest large capital in forestry operations which he cannot hope to see come to maturity in his lifetime, when he knows that after his death not even the members of his own family will get the benefit? We shall, however, have further opportunities of discussing this subject.
  I conclude this part of my remarks with a general sentence;. I regard the budgetary proposals for the year as a gamble. It is a gamble with which I am inclined to agree. These reductions of taxation are based, not upon conditions as they are, but upon conditions as the right hon. Gentleman hopes they may become as a result of the reductions themselves. It is clear that this gamble can succeed only if, during the next few months, an ampler supply cf goods comes into the shops. The right hon. Gentleman's responsibility will be to ensure that that happens. If I may give him a word of advice it is this, "Get busy while the President of the Board of Trade is in India." I am terrified at what may happen when the right hon. Gentleman returns. After close contact with Mr. Gandhi for many weeks, heaven knows what new ideas on the subject of clothes rationing he may come back with.
  In conclusion, I want to deal with the question of the foundation which has been laid this year either in the actual Budget proposals or in the sphere of the Chancellor's mind for the financial structure of the years to come. We have had many speeches in the Committee in the last few days, which have referred to the danger of inflation. Indeed that must be a danger ever present to any Government, and most of all to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has the greatest responsibility. I think, too, that, having that fear, it is only right that we should talk about it. I remember nearly four years ago when for a short time I was connected with the National Savings movement it was laid down that in no publicity going out from that movement was the word "inflation" ever to be mentioned,

  2189
  although, in fact, the main object of the National Savings movement was then and is now not to build tanks, but to prevent inflation. I thought at the time that it was a silly ruling. I think it is silly today. I am not saying it still goes, but I think it is silly today to preserve that kind of secrecy. After all, the battle against inflation is a battle in which everyone can join, and in whim everyone must join. It is the inevitable experience of this country that people join more readily in a battle of that kind when they are told the truth about it beforehand.
  I plunge into these economic matters with a certain amount of fear, because the benches opposite, I know, are studded with economic pundits of varying degrees —professors, lecturers, graduates and students, all, I think, ultimately deriving their knowledge from that great Montessori of economic instruction, the Chancellor himself. I do not want to refer to the many points which have been raised about the economic inflationary danger. It is obviously impossible for me to traverse all that. I really want to refer to the point made so effectively last night by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in his excellent speech on behalf of the Opposition. Incidentally, I might say how much we on this side of the Committee appreciate the very graceful tribute which was paid to the hon. Gentleman by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If he were here, I would assure the Financial Secretary that when we have to chastise him in future we will do it more in sorrow than in anger. The hon. Gentleman referred to the belief which is held by many people, including myself, that there is a definite connection between the ratio of taxation to national income and the maintenance of the price level, that over a certain period, if that ratio rises above a certain amount, which the hon. Gentleman put at 25 per cent., it leads inevitably to a rise which may become an uncontrolled rise in the price level.
  I do not want in the time at my disposal to develop a theory which he put so well. I only want to make these two points. First, I should like to know whether that is the Chancellor's view and, second, as the whole of this sum under this theory available for expenditure depends upon national income, we should like to hear
  2190
  something from the Chancellor about what he believes are the prospects for the national income in this and future years.
  I confess that I was very astonished at this very buoyant estimate of this year's revenue. I am not questioning the figures—I am one of those who have too much experience of the accuracy of the Chancellor's officials to do so—hut I certainly was astonished to find that not in one particular of taxation but over the whole field, an estimate was made of a very buoyant character. It would seem to point to the national income not falling, but increasing, whereas I and most others anticipated that at the end of the war there would be some fall in the national income. For instance, a vast number of people, particularly women, from patriotic motives, went out of their leisure into employment, and are now returning to their leisure, and a great deal of overtime has ended. The result of these and other happenings, we thought, would be a decline in the national income. Although it is very difficult for the Chancellor to give a definite estimate, we should like to hear what he has to say on this point. On this depends the belief that we on this side hold, that the crushing burden of expenditure which the country now has to bear—and the Chancellor has given little if any sign of being willing to relieve it—is bound to lead, perhaps before too long an interval, to a rise in price structure which may well become uncontrollable.
  I would have liked to respond to the challenge made to Members on this side to indicate the particular lines on which we would like economy to be made. But I cannot do so now, as I promised to conclude within a certain time. I will say, however, that such a challenge is asking us to do the work of the Chancellor, for which he is drawing the pay, and that we hope to have an opportunity of developing this matter later. We are convinced that before long a stark choice will present itself to the Chancellor of the day. He will have to choose between a drastic reduction of expenditure—which, painful as it may be, is at least selective and allows the Government to choose the objects on which expenditure should be reduced—and a great increase in price level which, even if it can be controlled, will hurt and hit every one indiscriminately. I noticed that the "Daily

  2191
  Herald "yesterday had headlines describing the Chancellor's Budget. The epithets they used were "sound" and "far-seeing." Well, having given some attention to the subject, I can think of no two epithets which are less appropriate. Far from being sound and farseeing, I regard the Budget as speculative and short-sighted—speculative because it depends, quite frankly and admittedly, on conditions not as they are today but as the Chancellor hopes during the next few months they may become; and shortsighted because both in the Budget and in his exposition, the Chancellor merely postponed to future years the tackling of difficulties which will only become more formidable with delay, and which in the end may prove overwhelming.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I have enjoyed exceedingly the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). It was a most attractive speech and combined charm, wit and penetration in a degree which, I am sure, delighted the whole Committee. It was a most admirable conclusion—apart from what I am seeking to say now by way of final observations—to a Debate which has run along most interesting lines and has been characterised by most excellent speeches, in manner and in matter, from all parts of the Committee. I should be the very last person of all to complain of the general reception which my proposals have had. They have not all been wholeheartedly applauded by all hon. Members of the Committee, but such things do not happen in real Parliamentary life. Nevertheless, they have been very kindly treated and at any rate some of them have experienced little opposition in any quarter of the Committee. The opportunities that will come in the future stages —in the Report stage of the Resolutions next week and in the various stages of the Finance Bill—will enable many arguments to be developed at greater length, and tonight I think it is only expected of me that I should reply provisionally, leaving over, as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly suggested, certain more detailed statistical and other explanations. I will pick up a number of points which have been raised and seek to comment upon some of the observations that have been made.
  2192
  I should like to begin with that item in my Budget speech which came last, namely, my proposals to create what I called a National Land Fund. I was very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) welcomed that—though, naturally, he wanted time to examine the detail of it—and that other speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) tonight, also spoke well of the proposal. I am glad that at any rate it is not likely, as I see it, to raise any essential controversy, but it will be important and interesting to examine its administrative apparatus.
  With regard to other tax changes, a great many of the proposals I made are apparently almost universally agreed. It is true that hon. Gentlemen opposite claim a certain paternity for some of them. Well enough. In the discussions last October there were suggestions, which were made and supported bath from that side and from this, but which for the moment I did resist. It seemed then that the time was not ripe, and that it would have been even more speculative to accept them then than the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is to accept them now. With the passage of the months, the gradual improvement in the credit of the Government, and the increasing success of the release of great quantities of labour power from the Forces to industry, it has become possible to offer, with reasonable prudence, certain concessions, which last October it would have been very rash to make. I am quite prepared to justify accepting, now, many proposals which I did not feel it wise to accept then. I will not run over the list, but they are quite a substantial portion of the tax remissions which I now propose, and which are now universally accepted.
  I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and other speakers have emphasised that the danger of inflation is still exceedingly real and that it is not to be brushed aside as something that need no longer be feared. I think the danger is gradually receding as our productive machine gets under way, and, as I have said, I think—and the Committee has generally accepted this simple proportion—that the only real counter is increased production of goods, both for the home market and for the

  2193
  export trade. As we proceed along the path of increased production and absorption of growing labour forces in employment, the danger of inflation will gradually recede, and I hope that in a year or two at the most we shall be able to say, "Well, that danger is now behind us; we have surmounted it." So far as my contribution to these matters is concerned, I will seek so to guide the policy of the country that that shall be so. I can only make a partial contribution—success depends on many other elements. But so far as I can, I will do my best to assist, with any work which is necessary in the financial field, to carry us through this period of doubt into a world of security from inflationary danger. That means that there must be limits to the tax concessions now. That is one of the direct deductions from the proposition that the danger of inflation is still very real, that there must be limits to such concessions.
  It is very easy for hon. Members in any part of the House, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) —he is out at the moment—to run, as he did, through a long list of articles which he would like me to add to the Purchase Tax remissions. Of course, anybody can perform that sort of exercise. When something is offered, one can always say, "Why not add something more?" So, one would be led on from point to point, until confronted by an altogether excessive scheme of tax reduction, which would increase the danger of inflation to a very serious degree. That is why, when we come to the Committee stage—when I shall be very glad to consider proposals put forward from various sections of the Committee—I shall not be able to undertake substantially to increase the total of tax concessions which I sketched in my Budget speech. Here and there a little may be added, if it does not cost too much.
  If we are to safeguard ourselves against inflation we must hold this limit on tax concessions. There is the additional reason—this is putting the same thing in a different way—that we must continue to hold the position, which we have now reached, of being within striking distance of a balanced Budget next year. That is where we are, within striking distance of it. Whether we choose to strike or not when the time comes will depend upon our deliberate
  2194
  decision. We may decide, "Let us register a balanced Budget now," or alternatively, we may say, "No," having regard to the needs of trade and employment. In that case we shall postpone that particular achievement for a further year, keeping the deficit within due bounds. That decision must be taken in the light of the circumstances prevailing a year hence. I attach very great importance to this matter. I think there will be very general support in the Committee for the view that, having got within striking distance of that balanced Budget, we must not drift out of striking distance by excessive tax remissions now, and must keep the deficit well within control and within moderate bounds.
  The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who opened the discussion yesterday, and for whom I have the very greatest respect, in view of his long experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, before that, as Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, spoke of what he called the paramount importance of economy. That is a good phrase, but it must, I think he would agree, be rounded out, in terms of any practical financial situation, into a programme of economies, in definite directions. It is no good speaking in quite general terms about economy. I could easily make a whole series of debating points now—but I will not attempt to do so, not now, at any rate—by selecting particular items of desirable expenditure, and asking hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they really desired to effect economies in those directions. I could ask them, for example, whether they wanted to go back upon the great decision of the Coalition Government to establish family allowances, and save£38 million this year by doing so. Nobody has proposed it, and nobody intends it. So one could go on, all through that list, in the Budget speech, of the civil expenditure this year. I could take the items one by one and ask, "Who is against it? "No voice would be raised in any part of the Committee, in practically every case.
  If we are to speak of economy we must be clear what major economies are to be achieved. I am not thinking of the relatively small sums, which it is the traditional duty of the Treasury—performed with great assiduity which makes the Treasury unpopular in consequence—

  2195
  constantly to chase. They do it very well; but that is not the kind of thing which is in mind when people speak in very broad terms, in relation to national Budgets of this kind, of the need for economy. They must mean quite large reductions somewhere; and the question is, where is the somewhere? It is not fair, I think, to say, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), that I uttered no word in my Budget speech about economy. He said I never mentioned a word, but I did.
  I regret to find that no fewer than two columns of HANSARD of my speech were devoted to just this topic. I will not weary the Committee by quoting it, but I did say, immediately after indicating the increase in the civil expenditure to which we are committed, and which I am prepared, item by item, to defend, that there would be set against this expenditure big economies in various directions; and I cited in particular the Defence and Supply Services. I went so far as to quote the figure of nearly£500 million used in the days of the Coalition Government as being the figure down to which we might be able to reduce the total of Defence and Supply expenditure in peacetime—the best estimate that could be made, by the Coalition Government, some two or three years ago in different conditions— and I pointed out that if we could achieve this, in addition to saving the terminal £576 million on the Defence and Supply expenditure this year, we should save thereby a further£600 million a year—three times the increase in the Civil Departments' expenditure over the next two years. That is a very substantial figure. And it is here that the big money lies—in the large Defence and Supply Estimates.
  We must, of course, have regard always to the international situation, to the commitments we have undertaken in connection with the United Nations organisation, and to possible clouds on this or that part of the international horizon; and we must not be parties to forcing this expenditure down too fast or too far, until we see where the world is getting to. But, subject to that precautionary observation, it is in the Defence and Supply Services that the big money lies so far as economies are concerned—they are much smaller anywhere else—and that is the direction in which His Majesty's Government intend to pursue the path to
  2196
  economy, tempered by the qualifications I have just given.
  I mentioned£80 million for the Control Office. Some may think I went too far in inviting the Opposition to suggest a Debate upon it later on. It will be very interesting, though I will not develop any considerations relating to this subject now; there will be a lot to be said about the conditions under which we are working in relation to the occupation of Germany—what we get and what other people get and all the rest of it. Most interesting, but that is not for tonight. But there is the offer of a field for debating an economy which I hope will be pursued. I need not go into further detail as to possible economies. Evidently there is a great variety of possible economies; but it is no good deluding ourselves into believing that we are going back completely on the policy the country voted for, and to which this majority is committed; nor is it any good thinking you can make the most tremendous saving by a lot of economies Which might conflict with the essential policy we are all pursuing, very largely in agreement, in legacies—I quoted family allowances—from the Coalition Government. The big money lies in the Defence and Supply Departments. We shall have many further opportunities of discussing economy: but it is not a topic which I neglected to mention, and it is not a topic which can usefully be dealt with except in relation to concrete propositions. As a mere abstract phrase "the paramount importance of economy" is almost a meaningless symbol of language. It hardly means a thing unless one clothes it with concrete propositions—not to save pounds in the abstract but to save pounds on this, that or any other line of expenditure.
  With regard to the observations of the right hon. Member for the City of London, he made a very remarkable speech this afternoon; but he thought that I took too rosy a view of things, and several hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side have wondered whether those who have advised me as to the prospects of revenue next year have not been unduly optimistic. All I can say is that I have not influenced them in any way on this matter; I have merely asked them, as is their routine duty each year, to indicate to me according to the best of their powers what they think the revenue will yield at given rates of taxation. It

  2197
  would be very improper—and I should not think of doing it—when they present me with an estimate, to say, "You had better do this sum again, and work it out to suit something I have in my own mind." I take their estimates, as my predecessors have done, as being the best that skilful men can do in a very difficult situation, and have done, with very great success in the great majority of instances in the past, as in the year which has just ended, this most difficult year, in which they have come astonishingly close to accuracy. Therefore, all I can say is that I naturally hope that my advisers have been as accurate as usual. I do not think there is any rational ground why the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else should think that they have been unduly optimistic.
  Mr. Assheton: It was the more remote future to which I was referring. I specifically said that I accepted the estimates for the current year.
  Mr. Dalton: Well, we must face the remote future when we get through the immediate future. We cannot, naturally, in a world full of uncertainties, be too sure; but we are doing our best now.
  I thought that some of the right hon. Gentleman's observations showed that he was a little out of touch with his constituents in the City. I do not know whether he has been there in the last day or two: but last night I noted that on the tape was recorded:
  " Budget and Stock Exchange reaction. Industrial shares boom and gilts spurt."
  That is the language they talk in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. I also noticed in the City column of the admirable evening paper owned by Lord Beaverbrook, which I always read with great attention:
  " BIG MARKET JUMP ON THE BUDGET.
  Liked by the City
  It was a foregone conclusion that the City would like the Budget."
  That is very admirable, slightly unexpected, not easily predicted before the General Election. I draw great moral reinforcement from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency seems to be solidly behind me in the proposals which I have made. If we had a by-election in the City now, I do not know what might happen. Well, there they are, a great
  2198
  community of financiers in the City of London; and they think that, on the whole, this is not a bad Budget. That encourages the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Moreover, one of the purposes, which I sought to set before the Committee, was that we should continue to pursue the cheaper money policy, and nobody in these Debates has dissented from that as being a suitable aim. In the sort of development that is taking place, it is possible, of course, to say," Oh, well, it is like this now; what will it be like a week or two hence?" We will wait and see; but so far it has been most encouraging to me and to my advisers as regards the prospects of a further improvement in the national credit, and the possibility of being able to borrow more cheaply than in the past. So much for that.
  Reference has been made to the difficulty which it is thought we shall have in getting taxation down to what is called a tolerable or an endurable level. I think it is, therefore, permissible for me to offer to the Committee one or two figures. I will not offer many, for I offered, perhaps, too many in the main Budget speech. However, I would like to mention one or two figures, to show that, in the two Budgets for which I have so far been responsible—the one in the autumn and this one—both presented less than a year from this Government taking office, I have proposed to the Committee net tax reliefs totalling more than£500 million in a full year. I do not think that is a very bad beginning. The major part of that is in Income Tax; deliberately, I will briefly justify that preference. When I came to the Treasury, I formed the view that, of all the taxes which were causing irritation, were holding back production, and, in peace time, were increasingly difficult to justify, Income Tax, particularly on the smaller incomes, stood easily first. There is an old-fashioned saying that indirect taxation is worse than direct taxation. I have never believed it; I always thought it a slipshod way of talking and thinking. I used to tell Lord Snowden that I did not believe it. We have carried Income Tax down to very low levels. I am not complaining that what was done in the war was wrong as war finance, but the tax was, in fact, carried down to lower income levels than ever before, and brought in millions of people who had never paid before, who had very little taxable capa

  2199
  city, and who felt the burden acutely. There was a great agitation, which resulted in the P.A.Y.E. scheme. There is still an agitation, but it is not, in my view, to P.A.Y.E. that people object, but to P-A-Y-I-N-G. It would be the same under any system of collection.
  That is why I have attempted, in these two Budgets, to put the Income Tax payer first when it is a question of reliefs. In the£500 million a year it will be found—if the figures of the major Income Tax concessions of the autumn Budget and the further concessions I propose now are added up—that between two-thirds and three quarters of the total relief is given to Income Tax payers. That has been quite deliberate. I have deliberately postponed large reductions in indirect taxes, until I have been able to lift the burden from the general body of Income Tax payers. I believe—and there is no commitment in what I am going to say, one must look at situations as they develop—but my inclination is to believe that, in the future, as regards any further reductions of taxation, we should continue to give a prominent place to reductions in the Income Tax. Through lifting the personal allowance and by increasing the earned income allowance, I am making a beginning. I would like to go further but I cannot, because I believe the inflationary risk is such that we must go slowly. But I think there is ground for going a lot further in substantial reliefs to the Income Tax payer, before we do much more in regard to taxes on commodities.
  It was this belief which led me to make the observation, with which some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee did not agree, that I did not think the Purchase Tax should be regarded as a temporary tax—although to speak of it as permanent is an absurdity, as none can foresee the far distant future. But in the next few years, and I expect for considerably longer, it will, in my view, be advantageous to retain a tax on purchases—exempting wholly from the tax certain of the more necessary commodities, gradually extending the range of untaxed articles, and lowering the rate on a number of other articles, but still retaining a tax levied on purchases, not only for its great importance now as an anti-inflationary weapon, but also as a revenue-raiser to help to meet the large
  2200
  and desirable expenditure we are contemplating in future years.
  If one says to a man," Would you rather be relieved entirely of your Income Tax or be relieved of a quarter or a half of it, or have Purchase Tax taken off a few things which your wife would like to buy, if you gave her the money? "I am quite sure the majority of sensible, practical people would rather have the Income Tax relief. [Interruption.] I said the majority of sensible people. That is my view. I would be prepared to have that voted upon in any assembly of average sensible people. I have tried to make a start in providing incentive through these tax reductions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was kind enough to say that he thought the concessions made last autumn were already having an electrical effect. In the last few days, I have seen many smiling faces of people who apprehended that at last these tax reliefs were operating, after a delay of six months. It is not exaggerating to say that, in these next few weeks and months, a large number of people will be greatly encouraged by finding that they are paying less Income Tax than before. The 2,000,000 who will not have to pay Income Tax any more will be greatly heartened, and the further 500,000 who will gradually be wholly relieved under this Budget will be stimulated to work harder by this remission.
  There are one or two suggestions in this connection of which I should dispose. Proposals are made to exempt overtime earnings from Income Tax. I have never heard a proposition put forward which was more remote from any sense of administrative reality. It is a completely fantastic proposition. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would, of course, subsidise absenteeism. If one tells a man, "Come and do your ordinary work today and pay Income Tax, and then work overtime and you will not have to pay Income Tax," he will come on two days, work a lot of overtime and then take the rest of the week off; and there will be no tax paid for those days. It would be shocking, the right hon. Gentleman would agree; it would be the sort of thing that he and I would unite together to prevent. In addition, such an arrangement would tie the Income Tax machine to the terms and the vagaries of industrial agreements. One might find

  2201
  some trade in which it was agreed that there should be a standard working week of 20 hours, and that anything over that should be overtime. Then, where are you? The Revenue is had for a mug at once. The thing is completely impracticable. To give one more example of its absurdity, a large number of citizens who work hard and make a contribution to the national wealth do not happen to label as overtime any of their hours of work. It varies according to how one makes one's arrangements. I hope that that idea can be put to sleep.
  There are many suggestions which arise because people want to get out of making these heavy payments. They try to invent all sorts of ingenious formulae which will get them out of making them, while not doing violence to the principles of the tax system. Having said that, I think that P.A.Y.E. might well be looked at again at this stage. I do not think it is a case for a full dress examination by a Royal Commission or anything of that kind. That is too elaborate and would take too long. What is required is a speedy examination, which I will undertake to set on foot. Although I do not want to set up any formal committee or anything of that kind, I shall welcome advice and suggestions from any quarter in this House or outside, to help me to see whether, between now and next year, we can make any useful simplifications which, while safeguarding the Revenue, and doing reasonable justice between one individual and another, will avoid some of the difficulties we are meeting. I am sure that P.A.Y.E. is much better than the old system. It would be a very great mistake to contemplate for a moment drifting back into the pre-P.A.Y.E. era. I have spoken at some little length on Income Tax because it is, in my view, the essential point on which we should concentrate our efforts to reduce taxation.
  One of the few points on which there was some difference of view in the Committee was on Surtax. The Surtax payer also is better off this year than last. I must make that point, because the case is sometimes put as though these unfortunate men had been reduced to a lower standard of living than ever. That is not true. Everybody is better off than last year. We had these figures all put out in the White Paper last Autumn and debated; and it was, I think, made clear
  2202
  that even the richest people were better off. The increased Surtax rates, which were finally carried after vigorous debate, do not in fact begin to operate until next year. They are collected in arrear. Therefore, the Surtax payers really have no grievances this year. They get the full advantage of Income Tax reduction, and they are not yet called upon to pay the trivial and trumpery increase in Surtax which the House accepted last October. There is a close season so far as their complaints are concerned. With regard to Death Duties, we can discuss this question in detail later on; but I do not think it can be contended that it is an unreasonable rearrangement which I have suggested. I will not develop that point, for time is passing.
  I have deliberately introduced a great deal of delayed action into these arrangements. This is not to be regarded as a speculation, but rather as an act of prudence and foresight. I have deliberately introduced this element of delayed action, in the hope that, by the time the relief, as it were, explodes, things will be better and, in particular, that we shall have more goods in the shops and more production flowing along. We ought to have a very fine autumn. We shall have the family allowances starting on 1st August. That means that every mother with five children of school age will get an extra pound a week. That is a Coalition Government proposal. I make no concealment about that—the proposal of a Coalition Government, stimulated by some of its more active elements. I must not say anything about songs in my heart, because that is thought to be financially unsound; but I am very glad to think I shall have the responsibility of finding the money for what I believe was a very desirable and fundamental proposal.
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman has not found the money at all.
  Mr. Dalton: That is what we are doing in this Budget.
  Mr. Churchill: The money was found by the Coalition Government. The right hon. Gentleman is giving away very small portions of it, inch by inch.
  Mr. Dalton: Money is still flowing in Taxes devised under the Coalition Government are yielding us splendid

  2203
  results in this Government. As a result of the care which we are taking of the people, the taxpayers, they are responding splendidly and the revenue is rising rapidly. In this Government, as compared with the Coalition Government, we are doing much better. What I was seeking to offer to my hon. Friends opposite was the assurance that I shall never deny that this great Measure was the joint product of all parties in coalition. I ant very proud to think that upon me rests the responsibility of continuing to collect money to order to pay for it. Then we shall also have in the autumn the increase in the old age pensions to the higher scales of 26s. and 42s., according to the great National Insurance Bill, which is now passing through the House. That is a slight improvement on what was recommended by the Coalition.
  Also, the old people will be receiving in the autumn, for the first time. their share of the postwar credits Finally, at the same time, we shall have the effect of the increase in the earned income relief. I frankly wish it could be more; hut, if things go well, I hope to make it more later on. At any rate, it is a sign that the Government are anxious to assist earnings as against investment income. We are entitled to be reasonably confident about our future. I do not know any reason why we should not be. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) made an admirable speech tonight, full of confidence, and expressing the view, widely held in the country, that, if we could come through the war victoriously, we can come, also victoriously, through these dangers and perils of the peace. They are great perils, and we must analyse them clearly and face them with courage; and that we are seeking to do.
  Last night, I was returning home after the very interesting Debate we had here, and at the bottom of Downing Street met a gentleman, whom I did not know, wearing a very honourable uniform. He apparently recognised me, because he said: "Labour gets things done; that is the watchword." Greatly encouraged by this incident, I went to bed and slept soundly.
  Mr. Stanley: What was he—a policeman?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  " That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL DEBT (PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE)
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  " That it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of four hundred and ninety million pounds for the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year, instead of the sum of three hundred and fifty-five million pounds;

  (b) the provision out of money borrowed for the purpose under the National Loans Act, 1939, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, of the sums required for the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph(a) or paragraph (b) of Subsection (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment."—[King's Recommendation signified.] [Mr. Dalton.]

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  FINANCE (POSTWAR REFUNDS OF INCOME TAX)
  Resolved:
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums ascertained and recorded under Section seven of the Finance Act, 1941, falling to be credited to a man of sixty-five years or upwards or a woman of sixty years or upwards, in respect of income tax for the year 1941–42, the year 1942–43, or the year 1943–44;

  (b) the borrowing of money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing the sums so issued."—[King's Recommendation signified.] [Mr. Dalton.]

  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  FINANCE (NATIONAL LAND FUND)
  Resolved:
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise the issue during the

  2205
  current financial year from the Consolidated Fund of the sum of fifty million pounds to a National Land Fund to be established under the said Act and used to make good any duty satisfied by a transfer of property under section fifty-six of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 5910, and for such other purposes as Parliament may hereafter determine."—[King's Recommendation signified.] [Mr. Dalton.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  FINANCE (EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT)
  Resolved:
  " That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise the extension of the purposes for which the Exchange Equalisation Account may be used so as to include the conservation or disposition in the national interest of the means of making payments abroad."—(King's reconimendation signified.)—[Mr. Dalton.]
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  HOLIDAY RESORTS (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Robens: The matter I want to bring to the attention of the House this evening—that of food supplies for holiday resorts—is one which not merely concerns hon. Members who have seaside resorts in their constituencies, but is of public interest and of great importance to those Members who represent industrial constituencies.
  It being a Quarter past Nine o' Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  Mr. Robens: This year we shall see, for the first time since 1939, a greater movement of people to holiday resorts, and it will mean that seaside resorts will probably double and even treble their populations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other clay, in winding up his Budget speech, in very picturesque language, described the beauty of our land. One appreciates that, and so will those people who have been denied holidays for so long appreciate their
  2206
  holidays this year. But, no matter how beautiful the vista, or how nice a holiday resort might be, if the people who go there for their holidays are not fed and have to wait endlessly in queues, their holidays will, unless some action is taken, become just one long queueing session after another, and I am afraid those beauties will be seen through quite a different pair of spectacles. It is, therefore, to present this particular aspect of the problem which will be upon us in the coming months, that I take this opportunity of speaking tonight. I understand there are other hon. Members representing seaside resorts who will want to speak, and, therefore, I wish to direct my remarks particularly to the North-East coast and leave those other parts of the country to other hon. Members who will speak later.
  I wish to make a special appeal to the Minister of Food in relation to the North-East coast, because it is on that coast that the impact of food shortage is likely to be felt most. On the West coast, which was a comparatively trouble-free coast during the war, a place like Blackpool—and I am pleased to see the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) in his place—was filled with troops and with people able to get away. As a consequence, caterers generally have maintained their allocations, and will be able to obtain allocations of food based on a good period of trade which they have had during the war years. On the North-East coast 'the reverse has happened. People had to leave their homes. Some areas, in fact, were denied to the public because of the military position, and as a consequence catering establishments have not the advantage such as that which I have indicated in the case of Blackpool.
  To add weight to those observations, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a small paragraph in the "Manchester Guardian" of Wednesday this week, when Councillor J. Parker, the Secretary of the Blackpool Hotels and Apartments Association, said that the threefold problem they had to face was that of replacements, renovations and staff which would make the landladies' heads ache, and he went on to say that no difficulty was expected with food supplies. Landladies on the North-East coast will have those three problems to provide them with a headache, and they will have the problem of lack of food to

  2207
  provide them with a very severe hangover. I recognise, as does every hon. Member, that there is only a certain amount of food in this country, and it must be allocated in the best possible way; there is no magical way in which that pool can be increased. Nevertheless, I think some special efforts will have to be made by the Ministry to provide places on the North-East coast with adequate allocations of food.
  I would like to cite the case of Whitley Bay, which is in my constituency. It is the largest seaside resort in Northumberland and, although it is true it has a population of only 28,000 people, it is the playground of the Tyneside. It is also the natural place to which the great mining communities of Northumberland go for holidays and weekend outings. There is nothing so disastrous as to have a small place inundated with large numbers of people and no food to provide them with the essentials for the main part of a decent holiday. I hope that tonight the Minister will tell us something of what they will be able to do.
  I want to emphasise that the North-East generally has been very much worse off than other parts of the country, particularly the South. in relation to such things as fruit. For example, last year in London it was perfectly easy to go simply anywhere in the season and buy fresh fruit, plums and things of that nature. In Whitley Bay and the North-East generally—and I was travelling in those places—it was impossible for people to get any fresh fruit except in very small quantities, and for certain favoured customers. I agree there may be a problem in regard to transport in this respect, but that should be eased considerably during the coming months. Something else must be done, namely the reallocation of things like meat for manufacturers, in order that supplies of cooked meat, pies, polonies, sausages and things of that nature that are unrationed, can be obtained. I have no fear about rationed commodities, because one recognises that the system operates to cater for a temporary enlargement of the population by the production of emergency cards, and by the steps which the Ministry have indicated they are taking in trying to get an ascertainment of the increase in population. It is the unrationed supplies, the goods that are in short supply, that are needed. They ought to be sent to resorts
  2208
  such as Whitley Bay and others on the North-East coast that have not been able, because of wartime conditions, to build up a trade which will give them an allocation to meet the visitors trade.
  The residents themselves will be in a very difficult position inasmuch as the supplies they need for their own homes are in very short supply at the present time, and they, having their domestic duties, will be unable to get to the shops. As a consequence, the visitors, because they will have the time, will be able to take supplies which normally would be for the residents' use. It has been suggested that that could he met by local traders serving only residents until 11 o'clock in the morning. I understand that has been done quite successfully in Blackpool. However, Blackpool is a very different proposition from the small type of seaside resort about which I am talking, particularly on the North-East coast, where transport is not quite as good as it is on the West Coast and in the Blackpool area. Thus it may be after 11 o'clock when goods in short supply are available, and as a consequence the serving of registered residents by a certain time would not be as effective as might have been thought when the suggestion was first made. Therefore, I hope the Ministry of Food will be able to do something about this very urgent matter. I cannot over-emphasise its urgency. Only those people who have had to go into the small seaside resorts, and people who have had to try to live off the ration, know how urgent it is.
  I was in that locality myself for a month last year, in connection with the Election. Because of the shortage of supplies there was no possibility of obtaining a substantial evening meal in my hotel; nothing was served after about five o'clock. I would come hack from meetings in the constituency at about a) 0'clock at night, wanting something to eat, as other hon. Members will know quite well. What was there to do? Only to go round to the local fish and chip shop. What did I find there? A long queue. On two occasions I stood in the queue, and it took from three quarters of an hour to an hour and a quarter to get served. Because I was not a resident I was in a somewhat difficult position in not knowing what to do with the fish and chips when I got them, whether to eat them in the street and be seen by my prospective

  2209
  voters who would say to themselves, "There is a low type of man, eating fish and chips in the street," or whether to take them to the hotel and possibly earn the odium of my landlady. I decided to earn the odium of my landlady and took them into the hotel, but I do not think she liked it, although she did not say anything about it. It is a problem which ought to be met. If it is not met, then hundreds of thousands of people who deserve holidays are going to have their holidays completely spoilt by this very great problem of food shortage.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Evans: I am emboldened by the eloquent plea which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens) made for his constituency to repeat a request which I have often made in this House, and to ask for the special consideration of the Government in regard to East Anglian coastal resorts. As has been said, the East coast has suffered as much as, and in some respects more than, any other part of this country. It is absolutely essential that that industry, which was cut off at one fell blow at the beginning of the war, should be rehabilitated. We have made strenuous efforts to get our resorts on the East coast and in Suffolk fit to receive visitors. It is essential that we should receive sympathetic consideration and help from the Minister of Food in supplying those visitors whom we hope to attract to that part of the coast.
  I wonder whether it is possible to effect a more efficient coordination between the regional food office and the food overseers in those areas. It should be possible to estimate the number of visitors there, and it should be possible for the local and regional food offices to be in such close contact with the coastal resorts as to know their necessities and to be able, in some way, to supply them, particularly with the unrationed goods which the hon. Member for Wansbeck mentioned. It is a very grave disability that the catering industry in these places has to start in from zero. I hope something will be done to help the people of these places to get this very important and seasonal part of their livelihood. It is a very short season. The holiday season on the East coast lasts only for six weeks. They look to that period to tide them over the very difficult times of the winter, when the fishing in
  2210
  dustry and other ancillary trades decline. One of our difficulties is the day tripper, who is unable to get food. All the amenities of the resorts have to be placed at his disposal. We have to spend a tremendous amount of money in keeping up our fronts and entertainments. Day trippers come into the towns without making any contribution to the cost of those amenities, which are there for them to enjoy. This has always been a great difficulty for seaside resorts. It is desirable these people should be encouraged to help the catering industry. We can do that only with the help of the Minister of Food. I hope that my constituency, Lowestoft, and Southwold and other small towns in East Suffolk, will receive the consideration to which their services during the war entitle them.
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Spearman: I am thankful to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food for offering to curtail her remarks in order that I may briefly support the case made so admirably by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens) about the hardships suffered on the North-East coast. I only hope the extent of her promise will be compensation to us for the brevity of her remarks. I am the more grateful to have this chance because I have had a long correspondence with the hon. Lady on this matter, which arose from the clamour—I think, the justifiable clamour—of representative interests in my constituency concerning the acute shortages of food in the season. I asked the hon. Lady if she would send me a letter which I could publish. I received one which I was going to put in the local newspaper, until I read in the second paragraph:
  " It is proposed that this year similar action should be taken to that which proved successful last year."
  In view of the clamour to which I have referred I think it would be adding insult to injury, and my constituents might, indeed, think that I needed a lesson in tact, if I put that letter into the paper. I am going to ask the hon. Lady now for something much more substantial than that. I realise, as we all must do, the terribly serious position in regard to food, and I am not asking for any increase in supplies, which is impossible. But I am concerned about the distribution of supplies. Inland resorts have an efflux

  2211
  of visitors; the seaside resorts have an influx. In the case of Scarborough the influx in the season is sometimes as much as 40,000 to 120,000 people. But the basis of these estimates is 1940, when visitors were banned. Consequently they really are having a very difficult time. Representative interests in my constituency tell me they visited inland resorts in the season, and found there supplies of food which could not be disposed of, owing to the fact that a large proportion of the population of those resorts had gone to seaside resorts. I realise the difficulty in administration which is involved, but I suggest it ill becomes a Government who think they can interfere in other people's business in every direction not to carry out their own affairs efficiently. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with me that, after many years of war, we want the workers in all sections of the community to have every possible facility for holidays. In the seaside resorts we cannot provide those facilities if her Ministry will not co-operate by the efficient sharing out of what food is available.
  9.32 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I should like to add the voice of Great Yarmouth to the protestations which have been made to the hon. Lady. In my constituency also we have the problem of the great body of day trippers. They come into a town of 50,000 inhabitants and bring the population up to 250,000. This year we have a great deal of clearing up to do now that the Army, Navy and Air Force have been withdrawn. May I put in a claim for a little bit of soap with which to clean up the place for our visitors? Last year the situation was pretty bad, and it will be the same this year, if we are to have large numbers of people coming in and presenting little dockets given to them by the Ministry of Food in their native places, and expecting their claims to be satisfied. They expect, for instance, milk, and find that there is no milk; and, perhaps, the poor inhabitants have to sacrifice some of their small supply of milk. This year is the first peace year, and we must, especially through this House, do what we cart to urge that our people in this country should have a holiday as nearly as possible like the normal holiday that they had before 1939 as they can.
  9.34 P.m.
  Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: I want to support wholeheartedly the plea of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens). I am grateful to him for having initiated this Debate. We have heard so far voices only from the North and East coasts. I think it is time somebody said something for the South of England, where we are confronted with the same problem but, probably, in greater force, because our experience is that people from the North come to the South when they want a holiday. Therefore, we are confronted in my constituency, for instance—and this applies to the South coast resorts generally—-with an enormous influx of visitors from the North. We also have our permanent residents to look after, and they are the people who, probably, will suffer most. We have the threefold problem of the permanent residents, the genuine summer-holidaymakers, whom we want to look after, and the daily influx of trippers, who come in thousands to the Isle of Wight, wanting food and purchasing in the shops. We welcome them as far as we can, but it makes a great claim upon the limited supplies of food and the consumer goods which are in the shops. I have communicated on the subject with the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, and she has been very sympathetic. I hope today she will be able to tell us that this year she is going to meet the demands of the seaside resorts for those three classes.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I feel that I should apologise to hon. Members representing holiday resorts who have been unable to speak, but if I waited any longer for the West coast to make its voice heard, I should not have an opportunity to make any remarks at all. I assure hon. Members that my Department welcomes this opportunity to tell them that we are going to do our best in the coming holiday season. We want to ease the burden of seaside landladies. We recognise that they and the owners of catering establishments are this summer going to render a great service to the nation by promoting the health, happiness and efficiency of hundreds of thousands of workers who, for the first time in many years, will be taking a holiday. Of course, the House will recognise that our stocks are limited. After the announcement made

  2213
  yesterday, the House will realise that I cannot come here tonight and say that hon. Members will have everything for which they ask. However, we hope, within the limitations which I have indicated, to deal as equitably as possible with every holiday resort, whether in the North, South, East or West.
  I must confess that once more I have been surprised to find that the North states it is worse off than the South, and then the South comes along and tells me it is being treated worse than the North. It is exactly the same in the Ministry. There we find hon. Members from the North, saying London has all sorts of delicacies, whereas Members who go out of London to make political speeches come back and tell me the North has everything they want to eat. It makes it a little difficult to solve this problem. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) did not publish my letter, because I took a great deal of trouble over it. He might have omitted the second paragraph—such things are done by politicians. The hon. Member objected to my statement that we are going to adopt the same arrangements this summer as we did for last summer, but I can assure him that the caterers experienced no delays last summer in obtaining supplementary rationed goods. Our reports show that these arrangements proved satisfactory, and hon. Members who have spoken would be surprised if they saw the reports, to discover how few have expressed complaint. Wholesalers and manufacturers again will be asked to do everything in their power to see that the seasonal needs of holiday towns for unrationed goods are met as far as is possible. To give effect to this arrangement, catering establishments have been requested to furnish to local offices their estimated additional requirements for rationed foods.
  I may say to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Robens), that I think he is under a misapprehension. He is under the impression that the amount of food which will be allocated this summer will be related to a datum period. That is not so. The catering establishments in his constituency will be asked to estimate how much food they require, and we shall try, so far as possible, to meet their requirements. I want to make clear that the necessary authorisation will be
  2214
  given in advance of the holiday season. If it should subsequently be found that the estimated quantities were not sufficient, caterers would be at liberty to apply for supplementary permits. I think that, in the past, holiday traffic has been very accurately estimated. It seems that seaside landladies have a pretty good idea of the number of lodgers they will be asked to accommodate. I think they recognise that, this year, it is possible, if the weather and other circumstances are favourable, there will be record crowds. We know that the crowds who come to the hon. Member's constituency and to other places, either daily or for a longer period, will tax the capacity of the catering establishments to the utmost. I, therefore, want to say this, and it is a very important warning, of which I hope the country will take heed: I would urge people who are starting their holidays at the weekend, or who are only going away for the weekend, to take with them sufficient food for their needs from Saturday to Monday unless they have made arrangements in advance for all their meals. This is particularly important at the Bank Holiday period, at Easter, when the shops are closed on Monday.
  Hon. Members have asked me for certain details, about soap for instance. I cannot promise that we shall give extra soap. I am afraid that we must tell visitors to seaside resorts this summer, that they must take their soap with them. I will answer other questions which have been raised by letter, but I think that I have covered the chief matters—rationed food and unrationed food—and how we hope to deal with them. I hope I have been able to convince hon. Members that we are giving this matter very careful thought.
  Sir P. Macdonald: The hon. Lady has referred to supplementary rations. Are the caterers to have them in arrears, or are they allowed to estimate beforehand for what they require?
  Dr. Summerskill: They can put in an estimate, and they will be given eight weeks' rations in advance so that, supposing a large crowd descends on the Isle of Wight, and the caterers find that they have used up their eight weeks' supply in a fortnight, they can then apply for a supplementary permit and, particularly, if it is rationed food, it will be honoured immediately. We are doing our best to

  2215
  ensure that the great holiday of the people this year will not be marred by lack of adequate food. I cannot guarantee that the food position will not worsen, but I want to assure hon. Members that we are giving our very special attention to a problem which we consider we are called upon to solve.
  Brigadier Low: The hon. Lady has referred to the holiday season. Can she say what her Ministry estimates as the holiday season?
  Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as the representative of a holiday centre, should be able to tell me that.
  Brigadier Low: It is important. The holiday season this year is likely to be bigger than ever before. Will the hon. Lady give us an assurance that she is allowing for that in her budget?
  Dr. Summerskill: I want to emphasise that it is not in our hands, but in the hands of the caterers. The caterers say, "It looks as though the holiday season is going to last two or three weeks longer; can we have more food?" We give them an authorisation, but that authorisation has no relation to any prewar entitlement.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Ten o'clock.