Commons Sitting of 18 April 1946

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps are taken to check that subscribers on automatic and semi-automatic exchanges always quote their own numbers when asked to do so by operators on TRU, TOL, and TEL services.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): A regular check is made of a proportion of the subscribers' numbers given to the exchange operators.
  Mr. Erroll: In view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs as revealed by that answer, can the hon. Gentleman say why the Post Office is so autocratic in the presentation of Post Office telephone accounts?
  Mr. Burke: I answered a question about that some time ago and I do not agree that the Post Office is autocratic.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the note on form FAM. 2 that no claim is to be made in respect of a child receiving a pension under the Orphans', Widows' and Old Age Pensions Act; and if he will clarify the position as this is causing concern to widowed mothers who have read paragraph II of leaflet FAM. I and some of whom now believe that they are debarred from claiming a family allowance.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): The note to which my hon. Friend refers speaks only of orphans' pensions, that is, pensions paid to children who have lost both their parents. It does not apply to cases of children whose widowed mother is still alive. As to which I would refer to paragraphs 11 and 19 of F.A.M. I. Moreover, every such widow who has two or more children should have received direct from the Department a special explanatory letter and form of application.

    Publicity
    Mr. Skeffinģtonasked the Minister of National Insurance what publicity methods he intends to use to make known the full details of the National Insurance proposals.
    Mr. Lindģren: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) on this subject on 14th March, a copy of which I am sending him.

    Uninsured Persons
    Mr. Skeffinģtonasked the Minister of National Insurance whether any arrangements exist to cover that class of person in the community who has not been previously insured and who, therefore, is still outside the scope of the present National Insurance proposals.
    Mr. Lindģren: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 18th March to the hon. Member for Colchester (Captain C. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.

  VICTORY CELEBRATIONS (BONFIRES)
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will discourage the lighting of bonfires in the Metropolitan area during the Victory celebrations as, in the absence of adequate police supervision, they entail the destruction of valuable salvage and extensive damage to road surfaces.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In a circular letter which I issued to local authorities on 18th February last, I said that the Government trust that, where it is decided to light bonfires, only material with

  2867
  no salvage value will be used, and that arrangements will be made with the National Fire Service to guard against any possible spread of fire. I would take this opportunity of appealing to the good sense of all concerned to see that bonfires are lit only in conditions in which no damage or loss will result.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no burning desire for bonfires on the part of ratepayers in the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth, where in last year's Victory celebrations bonfires caused damage to road services costing £2,750 to repair?
  Mr. Ede: I hope that the populace of Lambeth will be more restrained on this occasion.
  Mr. Skeffinģton-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is practically no material for bonfires nowadays which is not salvage material and that all material is valuable for that reason?
  Mr. Ede: I do not think it is necessary for me to bear it in mind, but I hope the public will bear it in mind.

  PRISONERS (TRAINING AND TREATMENT)
  Mr. Hector Huģhesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps, with the aid of psychiatrists, scientifically to distinguish between the type of criminal offender who is likely to benefit by curative and reformative treatment and training and the type of criminal offender who is unlikely so to benefit; and will he emphasise discriminatory treatment between the two.
  Mr. Ede: While I should be reluctant to accept any suggestion that certain types of offenders should be entirely excluded from reformative methods of treatment, the importance is fully recognised of developing scientific methods of classifying prisoners with a view to giving them the types of training best suited to their needs and capacities. The value of these methods has already been proved in the case of youths committed for Borstal training, and the plans for the future development of the prison system include the use of similar methods for the classification of prisoners whose sentences are long enough to make special courses of training possible.
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will carry that principle also into approved schools where, in many cases at present, there is a tendency to lump together those who would benefit more by being segregated from the others, and to reduce the common denominator to the lowest level?
  Mr. Ede: The principle of classification is already applied in approved schools. It cannot be applied as much as I would like at the moment owing to the large population that we have to deal with there, but as more schools become available or, as I hope also, the school population in these places falls, we shall endeavour to extend classification.
  Mr. Huģhes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the principle which he has enunciated, for which I thank him, applies to juvenile delinquents as well as to adults?
  Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, I think the answer to the previous supplementary indicates that.
  Dr. Morģan: Would the Minister ask the General Medical Council to encourage the tuition of psychiatrists for this purpose?
  Mr. Ede: I have no direct relationship with the General Medical Council myself, but I hope the scientific study of psychology will be undertaken by universities and other persons responsible for general education.

  POLICE EVIDENCE (METHODS)
  Mr. Donovanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in a recent case in the Leicester Police Court, evidence of the sale of alcoholic liquor outside permitted hours was given by two policemen who admitted that they had obtained such evidence on the premises in question by attiring themselves in R.A.F. and Army uniforms, respectively; and whether he will circularise chief constables as to the undesirability of such procedure.
  Mr. Ede: In response to inquiries by me, the chief constable tells me that he only resorted to the procedure in question when other methods had failed to score the evidence needed for enforcement of the law. As the subject was dealt with by the Royal Commission on Police

  2869
  Powers and Procedure and the Royal Commission on Licensing which reported respectively in 1929 and 1931, I see no occasion for a circular.
  Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling, not only in Leicester but elsewhere, in respect of methods of this description being used which might induce people to commit crimes, and will he see that something is done to prevent it?
  Mr. Ede: I have been very carefully into this case and am satisfied that nothing improper was done by the police. The premises in question are exceedingly difficult of observation, and the complaints received by the police were so numerous that it was necessary to take every step to see that the law was enforced.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing improper was done; surely it is improper for anyone to masquerade in His Majesty's uniform?
  Mr. Ede: The police officers concerned were all of them men who were entitled, within the law, to wear His Majesty's uniform.

  AIR-RAID SHELTERS (BASEMENTS)
  Colonel Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cellars are still requisitioned for air-raid shelters; and the total rent paid out for them since VE-Day.
  Mr. Ede: I regret that these particulars are not available. On 6th February, local authorities were given a wide discretion to release requisitioned basements without reference to the Department and it has not yet been possible to collect information as to the extent of the exercise of this discretionary power.
  Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that there is a good deal of anxiety that public funds are being unnecessarily spent in this country, and will he do anything he can to try to prevent that continuing?
  Mr. Ede: I will try to do all I can to see that economy is effected with regard to these matters.

  KENT COUNTY POLICE (COST)
  Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the cost of the police force of Kent for the year ended 31st March, 1939; and if he will give the estimated cost of the present police force of Kent for the year ending 31st March, 1947.
  Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question by him on 5th April.

  BORSTAL INSTITUTION (HOUSING LAND)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before the decision to use Latchmere House as a Borstal institution, consideration was given to the shortage of land available for building in the area; whether the Ministry of Health were consulted on this aspect of the matter; and whether he is prepared to make some of the land belonging to this property available to the Kingston - upon - Thames Council for building purposes.
  Mr. Ede: The question of the use of this land for housing purposes has been fully considered in consultation with the Ministry of Health, but I regret that it is not possible to make of the land belonging to the property available for building purposes. The hon. Member will be aware from my previous statements of the urgency of the need for a new Borstal reception centre in the London area, and there is no hope of getting any place in the London area so well adapted for this purpose as Latchmere House.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, prior to the action of his Department, a compulsory purchase order had been placed on five acres of this large estate? Is it not possible for his Department, in view of the appalling housing situation in the area, to surrender five acres out of this large estate to help in housing the unhoused thousands in that area?
  Mr. Ede: The compulsory purchase order was not made by the local authority before this property was handed over to me. I require the land in question for the purposes of recreational facilities for

  2871
  the inmates of this reception centre, and I regret that it is riot possible for me to relinquish any of the land.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that recreational facilities for inmates of a Borstal institution are more important than housing?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I have not made any such suggestion. There are other cases where houses can be built—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated dissent.
  Mr. Ede: It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: I knew his constituency long before he did. It is not possible in this case, owing to the fact that it is a reception centre, to arrange the recreational facilities away from the main property.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the first opportunity of securing the Adjournment.

  SERVICE ALIENS' WIDOWS (NATURALISATION)
  Mr. Driberģasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will consider sympathetically the inclusion within the naturalisation priority classes of widows of aliens killed while serving with His Majesty's Forces.
  Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir.

  HOUSING

    Poplar
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Health if he has looked into the case, of which he received information from the hon. Member for Mile End, with regard to a house of six rooms in Poplar which was requisitioned, and for a number of years has been let by the Poplar Borough Council to a family of two adults and one child; arid what steps he is taking, in general, to prevent such occurrences.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Yes, Sir. This house was requisitioned in January, 1941, and has been occupied since by a family made homeless by bombing, the previous occupier having evacuated. The house
    2872
    has also been used in part as a furniture store. I have no reason to think that the Council do not make the fullest use of the accommodation in their possession.
    Mr. Piratin: Has the Minister discovered, in the course of his inquiry, that the original owner of the house, who has a family of four children, has asked for the house to be returned to him, and that this has been rejected by the local council?
    Mr. Bevan: I understand that there are two members of the family of the person in occupation of the house who will be demobilised this year. It is a question of weighing the claims of one against the other I am having the whole point of reoccupation of houses by evacuated persons examined.
    Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister think it is a fair balance that a family containing only one child should occupy six rooms in a house which is in fair condition, in the circumstances outlined to him?
    Mr. Bevan: It would be undesirable to evict a certain person from a house and to have that family joined in a few months' time by two soldiers who have nowhere to go.

    Private Enterprise Building
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Health (1) how many local authorities he has instructed to stop building by private builders; and if he will place copies of any instructions which have been sent out in the Library;
    (2) how many houses are affected by his orders to suspend building operations by private builders; and what compensation he is paying them for expenditure incurred by them in their contracts and for loss of business.
    Commander Galbraithasked the Minister of Health whether he will give an assurance that licences granted to private builders will not be cancelled in respect of houses on which work has already begun or for which commitments have been entered into by the builders concerned.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer hon. Members to the statement which I made in the House on 11th April. In particular, I would repeat what I then said, that no licence should have been with-

    2873
    drawn where the house had been begun, and that in cases where my attention has been drawn to the fact that that has happened, I am in touch with the local authorities. Where such discussions have taken place, the position has been put right. If hon. Members know of other cases in which a licence was withdrawn where building had begun or a contract been entered into, I should be glad if they would send me particulars.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his policy is holding up the building of much needed houses, especially in the Orpington area? May I ask him to reply to the second part of the Question, namely, will he put copies in the Library? Also, will he compensate builders who have had to stop, perhaps not the building of houses, but contracts which have already been signed?
    Mr. Bevan: There is no obligation upon me to compensate anyone. The local authority have no instructions to stop licences where building had begun or contracts had been entered into, and. therefore, the issue of compensation does not, in fact, arise. Furthermore, as I explained on the other occasion, the revocation of these licences has not had the effect of preventing houses being built, because they were being built at the expense of other houses to let.
    Commander Galbraith: Can we take it as a definite assurance that building licences will not be withdrawn where building has actually begun?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. This is about the seventh time I have said it.

    Tenders
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the action of certain local authorities in reducing tenders for work submitted by their own works' departments after seeing lower tenders submitted by private firms; and if he proposes to take any action with respect to this practice.
    Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of this action. I should be glad if the hon. Member would supply me with particulars.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if supplied with these particulars, give an assurance that he will take action?
    Mr. Bevan: I can give no reply to a hypothetical question.

    Conversion and Reconditioning
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Health if he will grant the same financial assistance to local authorities for conversion and reconditioning of property owned by them into living accommodation as part of their housing schemes as is now allowed to local authorities for converting and reconditioning privately-owned property taken over by them for housing purposes.
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to grant such assistance, and I do not think it would result in many additional dwellings.
    Mr. Cooper: Is it not a rather unjust discrimination between the two types of property—if the corporation takes over the property now it gets the allowance for alterations, but if it is taken over already, I understand it cannot get the grants?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid the distinction exists, and it is a distinction in the law which I cannot change at the moment.

  PENSIONS AND GRANTS
  Major Haughtonasked the Minister of Pensions why the full cost of a major and urgent surgical operation performed on Mr. A. D. W. Greene of 97c, Addison Road, Kensington, after demobilisation and before his appeal for pension was allowed, has been withheld, liability having been admitted on 8th September, 1945, by the payment of the sum of £55 11s. 6d. towards the unavoidable expenses incurred.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mrs. Adamson): I am looking into this case and will write to the hon. Member.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  Mr. Thomas Lewisasked the Minister of Health the amount of financial assistance to be granted by him under the scheme outlined on 6th November, 1945, to

  2875
  individual county boroughs, boroughs and Metropolitan boroughs, in England and Wales, for each of the years 1946–47 and 1947–48.
  Mr. Bevan: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  Below are the sums which have been granted to individual local authorities in England and Wales as special financial assistance during the years 1946/47 and 1947/48. There are still a few authorities whose grant is not yet settled.

  Local Authority

  1941/47

  1947/48

  £

  £

  County Borough—

  Bootle

  80,000

  65,000

  Canterbury

  32,500

  17,500

  Eastbourne

  160,000

  40,000

  East Ham

  200,000

  100,000

  Exeter

  85,000

  38,500

  Great Yarmouth

  100,000

  36,000

  Hastings

  110,000

  50,000

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  285,000

  225,000

  Plymouth

  235,000

  200,000

  Portsmouth

  275,000

  100,000

  Southampton

  200,000

  100,000

  Southend-on-Sea

  60,000

  —

  Swansea

  120,000

  70,000

  West Ham

  205,000

  190,000

  Borough—

  Aldeburgh

  1,250

  —

  Bexhill

  52,500

  20,000

  Deal

  29,500

  14,750

  Dover

  50,000

  32,000

  Folkestone

  92,000

  48,000

  Hythe

  9,000

  —

  Margate

  56,000

  40,000

  New Romney

  1,000

  —

  Ramsgate

  48,000

  18,000

  Urban District—

  Broadstairs and St. Peters

  25,000

  7,000

  Clacton

  18,000

  6,000

  Felixstowe

  26,000

  7,000

  Frinton and Walton

  13,000

  4,000

  New Hunstanton

  950

  —

  Sandown—Shanklin

  15,000

  4,000

  Skegness

  7,500

  3,750

  Ventnor

  4,500

  1,000

  Metropolitan Borough—

  Bermondsey

  100,000

  85,000

  Bethnal Green

  47,500

  42,500

  Deptford

  65,000

  50,000

  Finsbury

  50,000

  40,000

  Greenwich

  25,000

  12,500

  Hackney

  30,000

  20,000

  Lambeth

  —

  25,000

  Lewisham

  80,000

  60,000

  Poplar

  80,000

  70,000

  Shoreditch

  50,000

  45,000

  Southwark

  65,000

  60,000

  Stepney

  95,000

  85,000

  Stoke Newington

  18,000

  10,000

  NURSING SERVICE
  Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many ex-V.A.D. nurses who would like to continue nursing are discouraged from doing so because their experience gained as V.A.D. nurses is largely ignored by the civil nursing profession; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that nurses who have been trained as V.A.D. nurses in military hospitals, and have gained experience during the war, will not be required to undergo more than a short training course in a civil hospital before ranking as fully trained civilian nurses.
  Mr. Bevan: V. A Ds with suitable nursing experience are already eligible for six months' remission in the period of their training for State registration. Consideration is being given to establishing a shorter course for those who have had nursing training and experience in the Services of a sufficiently high standard.
  Mr. Vane: Does the Minister consider that six months' remission is really satisfactory at this time when nurses are so short?
  Mr. A. Bevan: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member's point and am having it investigated.

  BOARD OF CONTROL (EVACUATION)
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health when his Board of Control Department at Lytham St. Anne's, where some of the evacuated civil servants have been absent from their homes for over six years, will be returned to their home areas.
  Mr. Bevan: This matter is receiving active consideration but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
  Sir. W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the patience of these civil servants, who rendered such splendid and loyal service during the war, is almost at breaking point, and will he do something about it?
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member will, I am sure, realise that I am extremely sympathetic to the application of members of my own Department to come back to London, but the claims of other Departments have also to be taken into account.

  EDUCATION

    Backward Children, Middlesex
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Education what special training facilities are available for mentally backward and deficient children in the Uxbridge and Hillingdon districts of Middlesex.
    Mr. Pearson (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. There is a residential special school for educationally subnormal children at Hillingdon, and the Middlesex Local Education Authority maintain several day special schools for these children in other parts of the county. They are further proposing to provide a boarding school at Fetcham. Provision is made for the special educational treatment of the less seriously retarded children in the ordinary primary and secondary schools in the area.
    Mr. Beswick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is one child at least in that area who comes under the category and who has had no training for seven years owing to the lack of accommodation? Will he have the matter looked into?
    Mr. Pearson: If my hon. Friend will supply the name and address to the Minister, I think the matter will have attention.

    Transport of Children
    General Sir Georģe Jeffreysasked the Minister of Education whether she will arrange for local education authorities to provide transport for children to attend private schools.
    Mr. Pearson: My right hon. Friend is grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving her the opportunity of adding to what she said in reply to a supplementary question on 4th April. The general arrangements of an authority for the transport of children may, and if he Minister so directs in any particular case shall, include arrangements for pupils attending independent schools. Also outside these arrangements an authority may pay the reasonable travelling expenses of any particular pupil to such a school. Some guidance on this matter was given to local education authorities in the Memorandum and Circular, of which my right hon. Friend is sending the hon. and gallant Member copies.
    Sir G. Jeffrey's: Is the hon. Member aware that this statement will give very
    2878
    great satisfaction and relieve a great many hard cases?.

    Falmouth
    Mr. Kinģasked the Minister of Education if she is yet satisfied that the educational facilities in Falmouth are sufficient to enable apprentices to fulfil the conditions necessary for deferment.
    Mr. Pearson: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer which she gave to my hon. Friend on 14th March.
    Mr. Kinģ: Is my hon. Friend's right hon. Friend aware that if educational facilities in one particular area in the country are not readily available, very real grievance and hardship will arise?
    Mr. Pearson: Whilst it is not admitted that it is impossible for an apprentice at Falmouth to qualify, I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the supplementary question

  CUSTARD POWDER (SHORTAGE)
  Mr. Driberģasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the general shortage of custard powder in the shops at Braintree, Essex; and if he will take steps to remedy this shortage
  The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): With regard to the first part of the Question the shortage of custard powder is not confined to Braintree but is a general shortage throughout the country. With regard to the second part of the Question there is at present a serious shortage of starch and I am unable to release extra quantities for the manufacture of custard powder, of which it is the chief ingredient. I am, however, making inquiries to see whether Braintree is receiving its fair share of total supplies of custard powder.

  ELECTRICITY POLES
  Colonel Clarkeasked the President of the Board of Trade why he has stopped the importation from Finland of poles for electricity distribution.
  Mr. Marquand (Secretary for Overseas Trade): We have not so far been able to secure any poles from Finland since the resumption of trade relations, but we are continuing our efforts to do so.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Requisitioned Premises, Leicester
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Supply why the promise made that the central furnishing department, being four floors at High Street, Leicester, of the Leicester Co-operative Society would he derequisitioned by March has not been kept; whether he is aware that these premises are being used as a dump for useless wading material at considerable expense to the country; and whether he will take immediate steps to give the society possession of the premises which they urgently need for the purpose of providing essential supplies to the public.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Woodburn): All the surplus wading equipment has been sold, but difficulty has been experienced in clearing it from the premises, owing to the shortage of railway containers and the fact that the construction of the building does not lend itself to rapid clearance. Two floors have already been cleared and every effort is being made to clear the remaining two and release the premises by the end of this month.
    Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend say definitely that he will release the property this month? Is he not aware that release has been promised on a number of occasions and it is expensive for the Government to keep this place as a useless dump?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry that the target has been exceeded a little but obviously my saying that it will be definitely evacuated by the end of the month would have no effect if it were not possible to do so. We will do our best.
    Mr. Janner: What is the ultimate target?

    Brick Kilns. Tamworth
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Supply why, although requested in September, 1945, he refused until 25th March, 1946, to release from requisition six kilns belonging to the Tamworth Brick Company, Limited; why he has taken no steps to reinstate, or enable the company to reinstate, these kilns for brick burning; whether he is aware that this has delayed the production of bricks: and when he
    2880
    paid the rent for the kilns due on 25th March.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Leonard): On 14th December, 1945, the company asked for the release of these kilns and an office by 25th March, 1946, and they were, in fact, derequisitioned on that date. I understand that a claim under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is at present being considered by the Ministry of Works, who paid the rent due up to 25th March on 16th April.
    Sir J. Mellor: How does the Minister expect the company to reinstate these kilns until they know what compensation they are going to get?
    Mr. Leonard: I am informed that on 5th April the company lodged a claim with the Ministry of Works and arrangements are being made to settle this matter as quickly as possible.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Aliens, North Africa
    Mr. Younģerasked the Secretary of State for War how many aliens who were enlisted into the British Army in North Africa are to be demobilised abroad; and what steps he is taking to assist them to resettle in a country of their choice.
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): Exact figures are not at present available, but all aliens enlisted in North Africa will be demobilised abroad except in a few very special cases of a compassionate nature to which consideration is at present being given. Resettlement in the country of choice largely depends upon the individual's securing admission to that country, but such steps as are possible are being taken to assist in this respect, particularly in the case of those aliens who are being sent to Italy from this country for disposal.
    Mr. Younģer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be lamentable if any of the men who served for some three years in the British Army were eventually to be left adrift in Europe simply to find means of resettlement through displaced persons' camps? Will he not consider setting up some organ-

    2881
    isation within the demobilisation organisation to assist these men in their dealings either with the British Home Office, or the Governments of other countries in which they might be settled?
    Mr. Bellenģer: I do not think it is necessary to set up any special organisation, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we are closely in touch with the Home Office and doing all we can in these cases.
    Mr. David Renton: Is the Financial Secretary aware that many of these gallant men are at present being made to report to centres a long way from their homes, and does he consider that that is the right treatment for them at this stage?
    Mr. Bellenģer: Of course, there are unfortunately many cases of people being far from their homes as a result of the war, but we are doing all that is humanly possible to assist.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Driberģasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Messrs. T. J. Evers, Limited, Builders, Tiptree, Essex, were notified on 11th January that the Class B release of 14346086 Gunner H. Ketley had been recommended; and if he will now expedite the release of this man, whose services as a builders' general foreman are urgently needed in connection with local authority building work now immediately impending.
    Mr. Bellenģer: I very much regret the delay in dealing with this case. I have given instructions that an offer of Class B release is to be made to this man immediately, and if he accepts it I hope he will be released within a few days.

  WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in consultation with Dominion Governments concerning the award of campaign stars and medals; how far these discussions have gone towards finding a solution to the anomalies which have arisen concerning these awards; and when he expects to be able to make a final announcement as to the decisions that have been reached.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I have been asked to reply. The scheme which is under consideration has been put to the Dominion and Indian Governments, and most, but not all, the replies have been received. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make an announcement shortly after the next meeting of the House

  GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL (CONSTITUTION)
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of a recent decision of the High Court, he will consider reviewing the present constitution and powers of the General Medical Council.
  Dr. Morģanasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend and reform the Medical Act of 1858, so as to give the General Medical Council a more democratic constitution, and especially to make provision for the hearing and investigation of unethical or unlawful charges against medical registered practitioners by an independent tribunal presided over by a judge, or consider the setting up of a Select Committee to review the functions of the present General Medical Council and consider any changes necessary in its constitution and procedure.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the General Medical Council itself appointed a Committee in November, 1944, to consider the consolidation and amendment of the Medical Acts. I can therefore assure the hon. Members that the whole position is being examined and that the possibility of legislation at a suitable opportunity will be kept in mind.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Whilst I make no reflection on the impartiality of this august body, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is grave doubt as to its competency to deal with the issues it has to decide upon? Will he inquire into the possibility of strengthening it on the general practitioner side, over which class of doctor it has virtually the power of ruin, on the uncorroborated evidence of neurotic women?
  Mr. Ede: I will pass the hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.
  Dr. Morģan: Is it right that the General Medical Council, itself the body which needs reform, should be asked to reform itself? Is this not a matter for the Government to take up to see that truant or errant doctors get full justice according to the law of the land?
  Mr. Ede: I should have thought self-reform was always a desirable occupation for anybody, but I will suggest to my right hon. Friend that my hon. Friend thinks that a little stimulus from outside might assist in the process.
  Mr. Hector Huģhes: Is it not wrong in principle that the General Medical Council should be allowed to be judge in its own cause and to wreck the careers of people, as the previous questioner indicated, on inadequate evidence?
  Mr. Ede: The general powers of this bock are, I understand, under review. I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member.
  Dr. Morģan: May I give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I propose to raise this matter as soon as I am successful in the ballot for the Adjournment?

  GERMANY

    Control Commission (Naval Officers)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the percentage of naval officers in the Control Commission of Germany as compared with the Army and the R.A.F.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Under 1 per cent. of the serving officers on the strength of the Control Commission for Germany are naval officers. The corresponding figures for the Army and R.A.F., including officers of the Women's Services, are 95 per cent. and about 4·5 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister satisfied with these figures? I stress that he should consider raising the number of naval officers so that Germany will note the importance of British sea power.
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid the pressure at the moment is all in the direction of reducing the staff to the minimum necessary.
    Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Will the Minister make representations to the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that the Navy should, as a matter of policy, take a greater share in the administration of Germany, certainly in the areas round the ports, where I understand they have a minimum of responsibility at present?
    Mr. Hynd: The staffing of the Control Commission in Germany must not be dependent upon matters of prestige, or other factors of that kind, but must be dependent upon practical considerations. The fact is that the naval side of the administration is very small in proportion to the other side.

    Taxation Yield
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the monthly yield from taxation levied upon the inhabitants of the British zone in Germany; and how much of the proceeds of this have so far been made available to reduce the cost to this country of civil administration in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: In February the yield from taxation in the British Zone of Germany was 241 million Reichsmarks; for March and April it is estimated at 385 and 37 million Reichsmarks respectively. All our Reichsmark expenditure in Germany is charged to the German budget; there remains our expenditure in sterling and other currencies which can only be recovered at present from such proceeds of German exports as are available.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Minister say whether it is the policy of his Department to increase the German contribution to the cost of their own Government in order to reduce the present level of reparations in reverse?
    Mr. Hynd: I am afraid I will have to have notice of that question which needs a little digesting; but the policy we are pursuing is to charge the whole of our Reichsmark expenditure to the German Government. Recently, as the figures I have quoted show, we have considerably increased the taxation for that purpose amongst others.

  WATER BOARDS (INCOME TAX)
  Mr. David Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the effect on ratepayers in areas which are controlled by joint water boards, in view of the decision to include precept income for taxation purposes and if he proposes to take any action to put this matter right.
  Mr. Dalton: The effect of the decision of the courts to which my hon. Friend refers is that, in the case of a joint water board, any income received under precept from the local authorities of the area is treated as a trading receipt of the Board for tax purposes, but any amounts paid by the Board under precept to other water undertakings are allowed as deductions. I do not think any amendment of the law is called for.
  Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the effect of this decision on those local authority areas that are comprised within joint water boards will, in fact, mean that the precept income from the rates will have to be doubled in order to meet this decision?
  Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a talk with me on how it works out in particular cases, but my personal opinion is that the law as it stands is fair.

  DEMOBILISATION

    Students
    Mr. Hector Huģhesasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the proximity of the beginning of a new academic year, he will now extend the release from military forces to all students

    Releases and Discharges from the Forces and Auxiliary and Nursing Services 1. Cumulative figures 18th June, 1945 to 31st March, 1946

    Service

    MEN

    WOMEN

    Programme

    Releases and Discharges

    Excess (+) or Deficit(-) on Programme

    Programme

    Releases and Discharges

    Excess (+) or Deficit(-) on Programme

    Royal Navy

    344,000

    359,700†

    +

    15,700

    42,840

    42,110†

    -

    730

    Army

    1,591,000

    1,580,050

    -

    10,950

    142,260

    136,250

    -

    6,010

    Royal Air Force.

    468,850

    482,390

    +

    13,540

    91,020

    91,260

    +

    240

    Total

    2,403,850

    12,422,140

    +

    18,290

    276,120

    269,620

    -

    6,500

    whose academic or professional careers have been interrupted by their call up.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I regret that it is not possible to agree to my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Huģhes: Will the Minister do anything to help such persons as those mentioned in the Question to resume their interrupted careers?
    Mr. Edwards: A Debate took place on this matter this week and I thought the information was available to the House.
    Mr. Assheton: Would the Minister consider especially the case of women?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

    Total Releases
    Mr. James Callaģhanasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the numbers released from the Forces, to the latest available date.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. I will with permission circulate a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The releases reported during March amounted to 370,450. The total number of men and women released and discharged from 18th June, 1945, to the end of March, 1946, was 2,691,760
    Mr. Callaģhan: Can my hon. Friend say whether we have overtaken the deficiency below the target which existed at the end of February?
    Mr. Edwards: I am very pleased to reply to that question. We have exceeded the target.
    Following is the statement:

    2. Analysis of Releases and Discharges 18th June, 1945 to 31st March, 1946

    Service

    Class A

    Class B

    Other Releases and Discharges

    Total

    MEN

    Royal Navy

    …

    315,320

    12,330

    32,060

    359,710†

    Army

    …

    1,318,210

    123,130

    138,700

    1,580,040

    Royal Air Force

    …

    405,480

    43,460

    33,450

    482,390

    Total

    …

    2,039,010

    178,920

    204,210

    2,422,140

    WOMEN

    Royal Navy

    …

    37,540

    230

    4,340

    42,110†

    Army

    …

    119,260

    2,340

    14,650

    136,250

    Royal Air Force

    …

    79,500

    670

    11,090

    91,260

    Total

    …

    236,300

    3,240

    30,080

    269,620

    TOTAL—MEN AND WOMEN

    Royal Navy

    …

    352,860

    12,560

    36,400

    401,820†

    Army

    …

    1,437,470

    125,470

    153,350

    1,716,290

    Royal Air Force

    …

    484,980

    44,130

    44,540

    573,650

    Total

    …

    2,275,310

    182,160‡

    234,290

    2,691,760

  MINE BALLOTEES (TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Cooper-Keyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has investigated the complaint, to which his attention has already been drawn, that young men conscripted into a mine in the Durham area are being intimidated into joining the
  2888
  Durham Miners' Association; whether there is any compulsion for such conscripts to join a trades union; and whether he will take steps to protect these young men from intimidation.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has undertaken to make inquiries into this case and to write direct to the hon.

  2889
  Member. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon Member to the reply given on 7th March to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd).

  MILITARY SERVICE

    Student Teachers
    Mr. Kinģasked the Minister of Labour why deferment is given to students in order to enable them to take courses at teachers' training colleges when they are under the age of 18 years on 1st October of the year in which the course commences, but is refused to other intending teachers who wish to commence university degree courses unless they are in the age group falling between 1st August, 1927, and 30th September, 1928.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Recruitment for teachers' training colleges is on a different basis from entrance to universities for degree courses and special arrangements have been necessary. In the case of university students it is not possible to make concessions for special classes.
    Mr. Kinģ: If the policy is to defer students from call-up so that they may go to colleges, how can it prevent a system under which teachers who take one form of training are deferred and others who lake a different form are not?
    Mr. Edwards: I thought the answer would have been obvious. Teachers who go to teachers' training colleges are going for a similar purpose, but the students who go to universities are going for dissimilar purposes. It would be unfair to differentiate in that class.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: is it not the desire of the Government that teachers should take university degree courses? This Question refers to intending teachers.
    Mr. Edwards: This matter has been gone into very fully with the vice-chancellors of the universities. Apparently there is agreement on this position, and in this matter we must naturally be advised by those authorities.

    Apprentices
    Mr. David Jonesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a considerable falling off in the attendance of apprentices at courses
    2890
    of study in technical schools and institutes, consequent upon the possibility of their being called up for military service in the middle of the apprenticeship period; and if he will consider granting automatic deferment to these people until their apprenticeship period is completed.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the question of the position of apprentices in relation to call up is under consideration.
    Mr. Jones: Would my hon. Friend have regard to the concern exercised both by educational authorities and the parents of these apprentices who are concerned at their attitude because of the fact that it is likely they will be called up before they finish their apprenticeship, and consequently they are not attending the technical institutes?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air made a statement on this matter the day before yesterday. I would refer my hon. Friend to that statement.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister consider the question of deferring those who have been encouraged by the Services to take courses of specialist study? Will he see to their deferment until they pass their examinations, particularly if it is only a matter of a few months?
    Mr. Edwards: On this we are advised by the university authorities and the joint university recruiting board. The steps that are being taken are the ones taken having regard to the vacancies in the universities. The House must keep this in mind. The vacancies in the universities must be kept for the men returning from the Forces.
    Mr. Janner: What about technical schools?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that is another question.
    Mr. De la BèreA very important one.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS

    International Labour Office
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the functions of the League of

    2891
    Nations being transferred to U.N.O., he will state the measures now in process for the continued work of the International Labour Office at Geneva.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. McNeil): The arrangements for the dissolution of the League of Nations and the transfer of certain of its functions to the United Nations safeguard the position and continued existence and work of the International Labour Organisation, which is to be brought into relationship with the United Nations by agreement in accordance with the provisions of Article 57 of the Charter. Among those arrangements, I may mention that the twenty-first assembly of the League which is just concluding its work has approved a financial scheme which will not only enable the International Labour Organisation to maintain its activities unimpaired in the current year, but in addition will facilitate the future financial administration of the International Labour Organisation. Further, the League Assembly has approved the transfer of the ownership of the International Labour Organisation building in Geneva to that organisation. Under the Common Plan relating to the transfer of League assets to the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation will continue to enjoy its right of user in the Assembly Hall, Secretariat offices and Library at Geneva. I would add that the negotiations for the agreement bringing the International Labour Organisation into relationship with the United Nations are expected to open in New York at the end of May.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister undertake to see that the efficiency of this very valuable organisation will be maintained at the same high level?
    Mr. McNeil: That is a conception very dear to His Majesty's Government.

    Members' Contributions
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the dissolution of the League of Nations and its transfer to U.N.O., a statement will be issued showing the members of the League who continued to discharge their financial obligations during the war and those which have been in arrears; and if any action is contemplated to secure the payment of League contributions by member nations in default.
    Mr. McNeil: As the answer is somewhat long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir P. Hannon: Would my hon. Friend say, just in a word, how many nations are in arrears?
    Mr. McNeil: I prefer to say that nine nations have made some payment in respect of their arrears, but, of course, other contributions have been made.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will any steps be taken to collect the arrears?
    Mr. McNeil: That matter is engaging the attention of the Government and of other paying Members of the League.
    Following is the answer:
    A statement showing the position members of the League of Nations in respect of their contributions at the end of 1945 has been placed in the Library of the House. Since the preparation of this statement, the question of the collection of arrears has engaged the continuous attention of the competent organs of the League and of the Assembly itself at the present session. Thirty-seven member States contributed during the war years, and 13 of these were up-to-date in their payments at the opening of the Assembly, namely:

    South Africa,

    India,

    Australia,

    The Netherlands,

    Belgium,

    Norway,

    The United Kingdom

    New Zealand,

    Sweden,

    Canada,

    Switzerland,

    Denmark

    Czechoslovakia.

    Nine other States have made payment in respect of arrears, and II others are negotiating arrangements for the same purpose.
    I should like to take this opportunity of stating that from 1919, the date of the inception of the League, to the end of 1945, no less than 90 per cent. of the budgeted contributions have been received, something over 4½ per cent. cancelled and about 1½ per cent. consolidated for payment over a period of years.
    The countries which have made payment during the course of this year are:

    Bolivia,

    Nicaragua,

    China,

    Portugal,

    Finland,

    Turkey,

    Honduras,

    Uruguay.

    Luxembourg,

    The countries negotiating agreements are:

    Argentina,

    Greece,

    The Dominican Republic

    Iran,

    Mexico,

    Egypt,

    Panama,

    Ecuador,

    Poland,

    France,

    Yugoslavia.

    The countries which have not initiated any negotiations are:

    Afghanistan,

    Latvia.

    Albania,

    Liberia,

    Bulgaria,

    Lithuania,

    Chile,

    Peru,

    Columbia,

    Rumania,

    Estonia,

    Siam,

    Ethiopia,

    Venezuela.

    Hungary,

  HUNGARY (U.N.R.R.A. HELP)
  Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what measures U.N.R.R.A. is adopting to alleviate the present sufferings of the people of Hungary in view of the lack of food and clothing and the spread of disease.
  Mr. McNeil: As I have informed the House on previous occasions, U.N.R.R.A. is authorised to provide Hungary with medical and sanitary aid and supplies and other emergency relief supplies for persons in greatest need, such as children and nursing and expectant mothers. The value of the goods so supplied is limited to four million dollars. U.N.R.R.A. representatives are already in Hungary and I understand that the first goods have reached Trieste now on their way to Hungary.
  Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister keep in mind the pitiable condition of a large section of the population and do anything he can to help them?
  Mr. McNeil: We have been most anxious to meet these desperate needs, but we can only bind ourselves to the most limited and more desperate categories.
  Mr. Assheton: Is the Minister aware of the very serious reduction in the amount of food produced in Hungary due to the land having been cut up in small sections?
  Mr. McNeil: I cannot see that that relates to this question of U.N.R.R.A. supplies.

  FLYING-BOAT BASE, SOUTHAMPTON
  Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the cost of the work contemplated in providing temporary docks and other accommodation at Southampton, for any interim scheme at present proposed for the use of Southampton as a flying-boat base.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The estimated cost is approximately £80,000. This cost would be offset by considerable annual savings in respect of rents at Poole, transport of passengers, landing fees, and dead "flying between the operating base and British Overseas Airways Corporation's Maintenance Base at Hythe.
  Sir J. Lucasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he can now give an assurance that no interim move will be made to transfer the B.O.A.C. flying-boat departure base at Poole, where operations have been safely and satisfactorily conducted throughout the war, to the more hazardous conditions obtaining at Southampton, pending the final decision to develop Langstone Harbour as the new main civil flying-boat terminal in the South of England.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. In any case, my Noble Friend cannot accept the suggestion that operations at Southampton would be in any way less safe than those hitherto conducted at Poole.
  Sir J. Lucas: Is not the Minister aware of the declaration of the British Airline Pilots' Association, in which they say that Southampton Water can never be considered as a suitable seaplane base, that it can only be considered as a single runway area—and that area out of wind —and that the scheme is unsafe both for shipping and for planes?
  Mr. Thomas: I could not accept that as it stands. I would accept the fact that Southampton Water cannot be considered as a satisfactory permanent marine base.
  Mr. Thomas Lewis: Has the Minister had an opportunity of considering the scheme for a marine air base at the junction of Southampton Water and the Solent, and is he aware that, during the

  2895
  10 years in which flying-boats used the base, especially in 1944 and 1945, over 2,000 landings were made and there were no accidents?
  Mr. Thomas: This scheme was submitted only on 10th April, and I have not had time to give it proper attention.
  Mr. Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware that American operators have categorically turned down the use of Southampton Water as a flying boat base on the score of it being hazardous, and does he think that we can overlook such experienced opinion expressed by those who have used this type of aircraft extensively and have operated them in this country?
  Mr. Thomas: The United States are not operating flying boats in this country.
  Mr. Cooper: My hon. Friend misses the point of the question. This is an opinion expressed by experienced people, and I am asking him whether we can afford to overlook it. I might also ask him whether he would take into consideration this, that the fact that there have been no accidents so far at this base is not necessarily ground for taking undue risks.
  Major Bruce: Will the Minister give an assurance that the matter shall be considered only on the basis of the national interest and that parochial considerations shall not be taken into account?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir; I can give that undertaking.
  Mr. Boothby: Had not the lion Gentleman better stick to Prestwick?
  Mr. Beswick: Is the Minister aware of the argument advanced in regard to the temporary development of Heathrow, and will he see that there is no undue expenditure of public money on a project which, on his own showing, is only a temporary expedient?
  Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir. There has been the most careful examination of this question from all points of view, and I am satisfied that it is necessary and that there will be no undue expenditure.
  Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister say for how long the Ministry is proposing to use this base on Southampton Water?
  Mr. Thomas: I will answer the question in another way. No permanent marine base could possibly be developed in under two years.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CLOCK TOWER (LIGHT)
  Mr. Gallacher: Before we start the Business of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Can you give me any information as to why the lantern light over Big Ben was out last night at nine o'clock, when I came back from a meeting, causing me to go home, with a consequent shock when I heard on the radio at 11 o'clock that the House was still sitting?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Had not the hon. Member better ask his colleagues?
  Mr. Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member is suggesting that the light on Big Ben went out by mistake?
  Mr. Gallagher: Yes, at nine o'clock last night, as I came off the bus, I asked a policeman if the House had risen, and he said that it must have done, as the light was out, so I went home.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the answer to that is, but I can assure the hen. Member that I did not turn the light out.
  Sir T. Moore: Was it not a plot on the part of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues to ensure that he went home?
  Mr. Speaker: The light was on at ten o'clock, but whether it was out at nine o'clock I do not know.

  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY REPORT (PUBLICATION)
  Mr. R. S. Hudson(By Private Notice) asked the Minister of Supply, whether he will undertake to publish the Report of the Iron and Steel Federation on the reorganisation of the industry.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to say that, having now received the assent of the Iron and Steel Federation to the publication of their Report, I am proceeding to make arrangements for its publication as a White Paper.
  Mr. Hudson: Can the Minister say when it will be published, because sometimes the Stationery Office take a very long time? If we are going to have a Debate on this matter, we ought to know beforehand the contents of the Report.
  Mr. Wilmot: We will do so, as soon as it can be arranged.

  HERRING PRICES (FISHERMEN'S DEMAND)
  Mr. Boothby(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Food if he has any statement to make on the threat of the Scottish herring fishermen to tie up their vessels unless he agrees, by Saturday next, to higher prices for herring than he has proposed.
  Sir B. Smith: At meetings held in Edinburgh in March the following proposals were put to the various associations concerned with the herring industry:
  A reduction for the coming season in the maximum firsthand price of herring for the home market from 91s. to 88s. 8d. per cran: the fixing of a price of 70s. per cran for herring sold for quick freezing: and no change in the price of herring sold for pickle curing, which, during the past two seasons, has been 55s. per cran.
  The reasons for proposing the small decrease in the price of herring for the home market were that it was necessary to increase from 9d. to 10½d. per stone levy made to cover transport costs and also to make a new levy of ¾d. per stone to meet the expenses of the Herring Industry Board. I understood that these proposals were in general accepted at the time by the associations concerned. On the 16th April: however, I received a telegram from representatives of the Scottish Herring Producers saying that unless I agreed by Saturday, 10th April, that there should be no reduction in the home market prices this summer and that the price of herring for curing should be advanced by 5s. per cran to 60s., they would decline to continue fishing and would recall all vessels at present engaged.
  They have been invited to meet my officers forthwith to discuss the matter, but they have declined. In my opinion, having regard to the profits made last season by the herring producers, the prices I proposed to them are reasonable, and while I am perfectly prepared to discuss the matter with them, I do not think that I should allow a threat of this kind to influence my decision. I can hardly believe that at a time when all food is
  2898
  so badly needed the fishermen concerned will persist in their present attitude.
  Mr. Boothby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that this ultimatum by the Scottish Herring Producers' Association, coupled with the threat to tie up the fleet at a time of acute world food shortage, is deplored and deprecated by Members of all parties? May I ask him to give an assurance that any fisherman who decides to ignore the edict of this association and who goes to sea will receive the full protection of His Majesty's Government?
  Sir B. Smith: I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the All-Party Fishing Board in this House, for the firm stand which they have taken with their own constituents; and to give an affirmative answer to the last part et his question.
  Mr. John Paton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Herring Producers' Association actually represents the fishermen, or is it an association of middlemen? Can he give us some information about the composition of this body?
  Sir B. Smith: They are not 100 per cent., if that is what the hon. Member means. Nevertheless, they are the representative body.
  Mr. Scollan: I think that, on a serious matter of this kind, the House is entitled to know exactly who is responsible for holding up very necessary food at a time like this. It is not good enough to say that the Association represents 50 per cent. Who are they, and whom do they represent? Whom are you dealing with? That is what we want to know.
  Sir B. Smith: They are the various herring associations in Scotland. I cannot give the titles of them offhand, but I will be willing to circulate them.
  Mr. Edward Evans: Will the Minister say whether East Anglian producers are concerned in this?
  Sir B. Smith: These people will fish off East Anglia as the season goes on, but, at the moment, this is confined to Scotland.
  Mr. Hector Huģhes: Can the Minister say whether the people who are threatening the Minister in this way are masters o, men—owners or fishermen?
  Sir B. Smith: There are all parties concerned.

  BILL PRESENTED
    CABLE AND WIRELESS BILL,
    " to bring the share capital of Cable and Wireless Limited into public ownership, to provide for the cost of making certain payments to that company in connection with reductions in its charges and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Parker; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 30th April, and to he printed. [Bill 112.]
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

COAST EROSION
11.59 a.m.
Mr. Medlicott: I am very glad to have this opportunity of bringing before the House the problem of the erosion of the coast of Great Britain, and the serious and increasing loss of valuable land and property into the sea. I understand that this Debate will be replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. We welcome his presence on the Front Bench as an indication that the Government are taking a broader view of this problem than they have done hitherto or than has been taken by any previous Governments, and we hope that he has been armed with the authority to take speedy and necessary action.
What is the problem to which this Debate is directed? All round the coast of Great Britain, there is a constant war between the land and the sea. At one point, or for one period, it has been the land which gains from the sea, and, at another point, or for another period, it is the sea which gains from the land. The tendency on the part of Governments and individuals in the past has been to assume that what is lost at one point is made up by what is gained at another point. I want to suggest that this is a misleading thought. Actually, over the last 50 years, what has been lost has been valuable land and buildings, whereas what has been gained is of little value, until vast sums of money and labour have been expended upon it. In any case, it
2900
is small comfort to those who have lost their land or their houses to be told that someone else, in some other part of Great Britain, has gained some land from the sea; it only serves to exasperate them still more.
This is no new problem. The sea has been eating into the coast of Great Britain for hundreds of years, but I suggest that the evidence seems to show that for the last half century, at least, and, certainly, since a Royal Commission investigated the matter some 40 years ago, the losses of land have been considerable, and, perhaps, greater than in any previously recorded period. These losses are certainly increasing at the present time. The problem is perhaps more acute upon the East coast, but nevertheless it is not confined to that part of the country. Erosion is taking place in North Wales between Rhyl and Colwyn Bay, and in South Wales between Llanelly and Kidwelly River; also in South Cardiganshire and North Pembrokeshire; on the South coast between Bexhill and Eastbourne and between Newhaven and Brighton and at many other points. Perhaps the actual loss of land on the Souh coast is not as noticeable as on the East coast, nevertheless the sea defences involve enormous expenditure. One has in mind the tremendous cost which has been thrown upon places like Brighton, Sidmouth and Seaford, in comparatively recent times.
When we turn to the East coast we find conditions becoming really serious. In passing, perhaps I might give one of the reasons why the position is so difficult there. The effect of the water upon the coast depends not so much upon the weight of the sea as upon its content. The Atlantic, while bringing greater pressure, is what is known as clean water, in this connection, whereas the North Sea and, to some extent, the English Channel, carry a vast amount of beach material. That is the real cause of the difficulty. It is the weight of the sea-borne material which causes erosion to be so serious. That is what is going on upon the East coast of England, and elsewhere. It is the North Sea which is causing us such anxiety.
I have no data in regard to Scotland, but I think there is considerable erosion in Durham, in the neighbourhood of Sunderland, and between Ryhope and Seaham Harbour. Some three years

2901
ago there were conferences of the local authorities concerned, but it was not found possible to provide any solution. At Holderness, in Yorkshire, there was, prior to the Royal Commission, more loss of land than anywhere else in Great Britain, but I believe that since about 1911 or 1912 the coast of Norfolk has had the unenviable distinction of breaking all records in this matter. There is ever present difficulty at a place called Eccles. Constant watch has to be kept at every season of high tide, against the danger of a costly break-through. When I mention Eccles, I refer only to a name on the map. Eccles itself is already under water. The site of it is about a mile out, and nothing is left except ruins, some of which can be seen occasionally at low tide. At Mundesley, in the adjacent constituency of North Norfolk, there is a most serious condition arising because the sea defences have already been outflanked. Hotels are having to be evacuated and, almost weekly during the season of high tides, valuable property slides into the sea.
At Lowestoft only last month enormous damage was done to the sea defences. Great steel girders were beaten out of position as though they were matchwood. At Walcot, in East Norfolk, the main coast road has had to be closed as it is no longer safe. It hangs over the water at high tide. At Horsey, the sea broke right through in February, 1938, and flooded large areas of agricultural land, doing immense damage. At a place called Caister there is the most serious erosion of all in modern times. At that point, since the beginning of the century, the water has gained no less than 500 feet of land, and 100 feet was gained by the sea in a short period of six months in 1942. If one goes to that little town the residents can take you and show you the location of places out at sea where they themselves, in their younger days, were able to live, work and play. They can point to the sites of playing fields, roads and highways which are now underneath the sand or the water.
What is not fully realised, even in East Anglia, perhaps, is that a great deal of the territory of East Norfolk was originally won from the sea. Its level is below the level of high tide. While not wishing to make any exaggerated statement I say
2902
there is at least the possibility it the sea breaks through on the coast of East Norfolk, that large areas of Norfolk certainly along the river valleys between Norwich and Yarmouth, might once again come under the flow of the North Sea. This is no easy problem, but even larger amounts of money are likely to he involved unless protective measures are taken at an early date.
I want to refer to the fact that there is considerable loss of rateable value involved in this matter. The amount may seem small when put against the cost of protective measures, but none the less, valuable rated property is going into the sea, and the cumulative effect of all that loss cannot be overlooked, especially at the rate at which it is increasing. The loss to individual propertyowners is also very serious and in some cases amounts to a tragedy. It does not affect only large landowners. Curiously enough, in my constituency, amongst the people most affected are the owners of small dwelling-houses. The loss falls upon them very heavily indeed. Those unfortunate people have no compensation of any kind. They have invested their life savings in property which, only a few years ago appeared to be quite safe from the sea. That property is now engulfed irretrievably and irrecoverably and there are sometimes tragic consequences to the individuals concerned.
When we consider the classes of people and of authorities who are affected by this problem, we come up against the great complexity of it, and realise the difficulty of finding a solution. When the Royal Commission took evidence on the matter between 1906 and 1911, it was contended before them that the responsibility for coast defence rested upon the Crown in virtue of its ownership of the foreshore, but that contention was not accepted. The position seems to be that the foreshore, legally speaking, is movable. It does not in theory matter to the Crown whether the coastline is here or there, or five miles in either direction. The Crown does not accept any liability for the protection of the coast itself. The law is, therefore, in an unsatisfactory state. It would be out of order for me to enlarge upon this aspect of the matter, but I can state that the effect of the present law is that the liability for coast protection rests upon the owners of the

2903
property or of the land which abuts upon the coast. The owners may be a railway company, a dock or harbour commission, a local authority or a whole series of people, or just the owners of small cottages or bungalows.
-File result of this is that sea defence scorns to be nobody's business. And when we turn from consideration of the various interests which are affected to the Government Departments and authorities which are drawn into the picture, we get an explanation of the confusion which exists. The Ministry of Agriculture is concerned as far as the problem affects land drainage. It gives considerable support to catchment boards, when there is a risk of a break through and the flooding of channels which are draining the countryside. The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport have an interest in regard to the foreshore, the removal of beach material and other matters, and where highways and railways are affected. The Ministry of Health is also concerned whenever the interest of local authorities are affected. Even the Admiralty is concerned as having great knowledge of the navigational factors which affect the drift of beach materials. One result of the diffusion of all these interests is that no positive action has been taken, at least up to the present time. There has been no concerted approach to the situation as a whole, no overall plan, no co-ordination of effort, no central fact finding organisation and no central source from which scientific and engineering knowledge can be obtained for the guidance of local authorities who are struggling with such an overwhelming task.
Forty years ago, the Royal Commission advocated, as an urgent matter, that there should be constant watch and investigation made of the movement of beach materials and sandbanks, which movement is the cause of so much of this damage along the East coast, but one cannot find that anything has been done to carry out that recommendation. One result of this lack of central co-ordination is that hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent upon local and, to a large extent, unrelated schemes in response to quite understandable local agitation. Not only is there expenditure on the coast itself, but also farther back on the building of roads and railways which later have to be
2904
abandoned. These small isolated schemes often fail where a larger and more scientifically based scheme might well he effective. This is not a party matter. All Governments are equally responsible for the neglect of this matter, and I must, on behalf of my constituents, voice a protest at the indifference to local anxieties which has been shown by the central authorities over a long period. This is, perhaps, partly due to the alarming cost of dealing with this problem, but if the cost is alarming to the Central Government, how much more impossible it must appear to local authorities with their very limited resources.
I wish to make four suggestions to the Minister. I would urge that, at an early date, a responsible and fairly senior Minister should come down to see some of the more serious examples of what is going on. We did once have a visit from a fairly senior official who was staying with friends in the neighbourhood. We took him to see the coast, and he asked if he might get his bearings by studying the shore from the hotel where he had at one time stayed. We took him to the shore and pointed to some bricks and mortar sticking out of the sand and said to him, "That is your hotel." We should like a Minister to give some assurance in this way, by a personal visit, that the Government are really anxious to help local authorities in this matter. Secondly, I would suggest that the Government—and I hope the Minister may be able to give us an assurance on this point today—should concentrate the responsibility for coast defence in the hands of one department, so that we may know to whom we should address our questions and from whom we may seek help. Thirdly, I would suggest that some effort should be made to assist local authorities on a short-term basis with regard to the financial cost of some of the more urgent schemes. The Treasury have, to a large extent, been helpful already, but even when they contribute 80 per cent. of the cost of a scheme, the remaining 20 per cent. on, for example, a scheme costing half a million pounds, is quite beyond the capacity of the average catchment board or other local body.
Fourthly, I suggest the setting up of an inter-departmental Committee to examine the whole problem, taking as its starting point the Report of the Royal Commission

2905
and investigating the many serious instances of erosion which have occurred since the date of that Report.
In conclusion, I wish to say that this is a very human problem as well as one involving valuable land and property of the nation. Up and down the East coast of England, good property, rich agricultural land, treasured homes and pleasant amenities are being washed into the sea, and the time may come one day, or, perhaps, one night, when there may be loss of life as well. Therefore, I beg of the Government to take action in this matter while yet there is time.
12.15 p.m.
Mr. Edward Evans: I rise to support the able and eloquent plea made by the hon. Member for Eastern Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott). This is not a party question and those of us who are concerned with this problem have been at pains to set up—

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having re-turned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1946.

2. Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946.

3. Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946.

COAST EROSION
Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
12.26 p.m.
Mr. Edward Evans: As I was saying, I was supporting the plea made by the hon. Member for Eastern Norfolk and expressing the concern felt on this question by so many Members in all parts of the House for some time, so much so that we joined together and formed a nonparty committee to examine this problem without any party bias at all. As has been said, this is no new problem; it has been with us for centuries. Until the war it had been kept rather in the back-
2906
ground, but war conditions so aggravated the position that it is now catastrophic in a great many parts of the country, particularly on the East Anglian coast. Many hon. Members will recall that about a fortnight ago the picture papers illustrated the extent of damage done on part of the coast in the Division which I represent at Lowestoft, where a great sea wall has been scoured under by currents. It has been due to the fact that access to the beaches has been denied to local authorities, with the result that the position has deteriorated and the channel has been able to reinforce itself by currents undermining the sea wall. It is very important that that aspect of the problem should be tackled, and tackled immediately. Indeed, I could have wished that the subject of this Debate, instead of being "Coast erosion," which is rather the negative aspect of the problem, had been called "Coast defence." We are concerned with the defence of the coast, and we are taking all the steps we can to urge the Government to take such measures as are necessary to prevent what is literally the washing away of the land.
It is only when spectacular damage occurs that people realise what a problem this is, unless, of course, they live there. I suppose our second National Anthem is, "Rule Britannia, Britannia, rule the waves." Very often it is misquoted, but it should be, "Britannia, rule the waves." Now, however, the waves are ruling Britannia. In stressing the point of Britannia ruling the waves, a great many of us consider that this matter is Britannia's responsibility. It is not the responsibility of Caister, Lowestoft, or the Isle of Wight. We think it is Britannia's responsibility to rule waves and to protect her shores, and, therefore, this should be a national responsibility, carried cut on a national basis. With very great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health—and I can assure him that I am one of his most devoted supporters and admirers—I am rather sorry that this has been relegated to his Department to reply for the reasons which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastern Norfolk, that the repercussions of this problem and the importance of the steps necessary to tackle it effectively have for so long devolved upon so many Departments. It is necessary, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other Members of the

2907
House, that there should be an overriding authority to co-ordinate the work of so many Departments. The Departments involved include the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health—with their close relations with local authorities—the War Office—with their grip on the beaches—the Admiralty, and, ever present in the background, the Treasury. I strongly support the suggestion that an Interdepartmental Committee, or some such authority, should be set up to examine this problem as it affects each one of those Departments. Sporadic activity in this connection can do a great deal of harm. Sometimes one authority goes in for extensive sea works and diversion of current, and adjacent areas suffer. It is, therefore, very important that this problem should be tackled on a much wider scale.
I would like to refer to the great strain imposed on local authorities through expensive sea works on coast defences. In my own locality, the town of Lowestoft has to bear a financial burden of almost £20,000 a year for this work. The little port of Southwold is very much in arrears with its sea defence work, because it has been denied access to the beach during the war. It would cost a 7s. 8d. rate. for 20 years to do all the work that requires to be done. The recent catastrophe at Lowestoft, which affected the sea wall, will cost in the region of £100,000. I know that local authorities get generous grants, but the strain of meeting the cost in these hard hit East Anglian towns, whose main industries suffered during the war, is intolerable. The Government should approach the problem in the widest manner, and delegate powers which would co-ordinate the work of saving agricultural land and dwellings, and provide employment.
12.35 p.m.
Major Tufton Beamish: I am very glad to have this opportunity of making a brief contribution to this Debate, and of supporting fully what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott), and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans). This is an age old problem which interests many of us, and which is, I am glad to say, above party politics It is a problem which no Government in the past has really faced. It has suffered
2908
as much as anything else from the "Passed to you" habit. Indeed, until this very Debate I believe I am right in saying that it was not known who would reply. At one time we thought it would be the Minister of Agriculture, then the Lord Privy Seal, and now we find that it is to be the Minister of Health. That is one example of the divided responsibilities from which this problem has always suffered.
The Minister of Agriculture is interested, in particular, in those parts of our sea defences where drainage areas, or catchment boards, are affected; the Service Departments, particularly the War Office, are interested, and perhaps not much less, the Admiralty. The Board of Trade has a great interest in our groynes and breakwaters; the Minister of Health has always had a paternal interest, which has never been clearly defined, but which I hope he will define a little more clearly today; the Secretary of State for Scotland is interested because Scots will be Scots if for no other reason; the Minister of Transport is interested. particularly where main roads run along the top of sea defences, which they frequently do; the Treasury has a hand in it, naturally, and the Ministries of Supply and Labour are not disinterested. Lastly, the Lord Privy Seal has recently been given an interest in the matter, because of his appointment as the Minister responsible for our coastal areas. Some of us hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep a keen eye on this problem. The local authorities, of course, are interested. The Sea Defence Commissioners, known in my constituency as the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Commissioners, are composed of the Southern Railway, the Seaford Urban Council, the East Sussex County Council, and the Ouse Lower Navigation. All this goes to show that it is quite unnecessary to give any further explanation as to divided responsibility.
During this Parliament, a number of Questions have been put to the Prime Minister on this matter, but little satisfaction has been given to Members on either side of the House by the answers. On 11th April, I asked the right hon. Gentleman a comprehensive Question on this subject, and he replied:
"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

2909
which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton) on 27th February last "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 2096
That did not get us very much further. It was disappointing to many of us who felt that the urgency of the problem was, in some sense, lost on the Government.
I would like to say a word or two about the problem as it affects my constituency, not because I am parochially minded, but because Sussex, in common with other parts of the country, has suffered from the effects of the sea. Seaford, which is in my constituency, has suffered worst of all Sussex towns. I am doubtful whether any town in the country has suffered so badly as the result of the winter gales—although there may be competition from other Members on this point. During the winter, the seas frequently came over the parade. The sea wall was smashed, scoured, and undermined in five or six places. Huge blocks of concrete were whipped out to sea as if they had been pebbles. Roads were flooded, and the main road from Brighton through Newhaven, and Seaford to Dover, A259, was closed for a considerable number of days. There was a serious threat to the Southern Railway embankment, which runs a few hundred yards inland, and a considerable number of low lying houses were flooded. Great discomfort was caused to the inhabitants, who were looked after mostly by the efforts of the W.V.S. Large parts of the town were actually saved by a main sewer which runs along under the main road. The damage which would have resulted had the sea gone through at two points, where it nearly did, would have been very heavy. The total number of properties which would have been affected by flooding, or by the cutting off of water supplies, is 1,762.
The question of local finance has been unsatisfactory for many years. Through no fault of their own, local authorities have suffered in this respect. I will quote briefly from a resolution passed at a meeting of the Seaford Urban District Council on 12th November:
" The information disclosed was that £13,000 was expended during the year ended 15th September. 1945; also the total income of the Commissioners was £2,812, and their present liability to the Southern Railway Company amounted to £29.000."
2910
That shows clearly that what I have said is correct. As further proof, I wish to quote a few lines from a most helpful letter from the Ministry of Health, dated 22nd January, in which, among other things, they said:
" As the Council will be aware, the position at Seaford as a result or the recent gales is very serious. For some time, it has been apparent that extensive rebuilding of the sea wall may be necessary at a very substantial cost, and this may have been necessary quite apart from the recent damage. This long-term programme may entail the complete revision of the financial basis of contribution and other arrangements of the present Sea Defence Commission as set out in the Commissioners' existing Acts of Parliament. Quite apart from the long-term programme, the necessary repairs to make good the recent damage and prevent even further damage may entail very considerable sums and may amount to 630,000 or even more.—
In fact, the figure is nearer £50,000—
" It is clear, however, that the expenditure upon immediate repair may far exceed the resources of the Commissioners "
The Minister of Health showed commendable energy, and gave great help to Seaford, in January, when conditions there were particularly bad. I am very grateful to him for the way in which he tackled this job which he took on, in his own words, as a blitz job. I hope I have shown some aspects of this urgent national problem. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health a few definite questions, although they may be of a somewhat general nature. Is one Minister to be appointed to take charge of the co-ordination and examination of the many questions which arise in this connection? Who is he to be, and when is he to be appointed? Is there any point in the Government delaying any longer over this question? Do the Government realise the urgency of this problem? Are they aware that there has never been more need of a solution than there is today, and that this is directly the result of the lack of labour and materials during the war? Are they going to daily over this problem, or face up to it? Who is to meet the very heavy costs that will be entailed? What percentage of those costs can reasonably be made a national charge, and what percentage can more properly remain a local liability? I shall be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will give answers to these somewhat general questions and also give us an assurance that the Government will handle the whole problem with energy.
12.44 p.m.
Sir Stanley Holmes: The constituency which I have the privilege of representing is on the East coast, South of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans). Probably no part of the coast has suffered more from erosion than the part between Harwich and Clacton-on-Sea. It was because, every time I went along that sea coast in my constituency, I saw the ravages of the sea, that I ventured, in 1939, to introduce a Private Member's Bill entitled, "The Coast Protection Bill." I did not get a place in the Ballot, but by a piece of extraordinarily good luck I was able to get a Second Reacting for the Bill one Friday afternoon, with the result that the Bill obtained the Royal Assent and went on to the Statute Book—the Coast Protection Act, 1939—in July, 1939.
That Act gave to the Board of Trade the right to make orders to prevent coast erosion. Most of the coast erosion in this country has been caused by the removal of sand, gravel or other substances by the owners of that particular part of the coast, with the result that the sea has either rushed into that part or, as a result of a change in the coast, has attacked the coast some distance away. The Coast Protection Act gave the Board of Trade the right to make orders to prevent the removal of substances which had caused, or was likely to cause, erosion.
One hon. Member said that no Government had done anything towards this problem. I would, however, remind the House that the Labour Government of 1929 made an attempt to do so. The late Mr. William Graham, who was then President of the Board of Trade, brought in a very comprehensive Bill in that year. If that Bill had become an Act, the effect would have been undefined financial liability on every local authority which was concerned and also upon the National Exchequer. Every local authority in the country that had territory on the coast protested against the Measure, and I believe there was a protest also from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The result was that the Bill was dropped. The Act that was passed in 1939 was Clause 3 of Mr. William Graham's Bill. In 1929 no objection was raised to the provisions of Clause 3 of that Bill of that year, which would probably have gone through in 1929 if it had been the only Clause In the Bill, as it was in my Bill in 1939. I
2912
want now to say a few words about the division of authority with regard to coast erosion. My hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) intended to raise this matter on the Adjournment about a month ago, but it was postponed. On that occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was to have replied. A fortnight ago I put a Question with regard to the Coast Protection Act, 1939:
" To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he is using his powers under the Coast Protection Act, 1939, to prevent coast erosion.—
I was asked by the Clerk at the Table to direct this Question to the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Transport gave me an answer on Tuesday, 9th April, which commenced:
" The Act to which the hon. Member refers empowers me to prohibit, restrict — OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April. 1946; vol. 421; c. 304..]
When I received that answer, I addressed a letter to the Minister of Transport and asked him by what Act or Order had the power in the 1939 Act been transferred to him. I have not heard from the Minister of Transport, so perhaps the Minister of Health will be able to tell me today. Other hon. Members have mentioned different authorities who deal with coast erosion. So far, nobody has mentioned the Minister of Transport. The Board of Trade seems to have disappeared as an authority in this matter, although it was the Board of Trade that was mentioned in the 1939 Act, and it was the President of the Board of Trade who brought in the Labour Party's Coast Protection Bill in 1929. If in 1929 that Bill had gone through, undoubtedly a tremendous amount would have been done to save very valuable parts of our sea coast. But 17 years have passed since then, and, savagely and inexorably, the sea has been attacking the coast and, particularly, the East coast. I join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) in asking the Minister of Health, who is to reply today, to tell us that one Minister is to he responsible for coast erosion, and that something is really going to be done to prevent any further damage by the sea.
12.51 p.m.
Mr. Gooch: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this Debate and to thank my hon. Friend the

2913
Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) for initiating it. I am very much concerned with the problem of coast erosion, and in my constituency there is a long stretch of coast line which is affected. These front line towns and villages have many problems. They are concerned with rehabilitation and want to get going again. They want to get their hotels and boarding houses restocked and to recondition their premises. But in many areas, and in my own in particular, the relentless enemy, the sea, is still doing its worst. There are many places on the Norfolk coast where the sea threatens to destroy very large areas and may prove a menace to the county's capital, Norwich.
Coast defence at Mundesley has deteriorated to such an extent that there is a danger of irretrievable disaster unless erosion is checked. The defences have gone during the war years, and many properties and the main road through the village will soon go. I have had the opportunity of reading some observations of the chief engineer of the East Norfolk Catchment Board, who is very familiar with the problem in my county, and he says in his report that at Mundesley the position is worse than at Caister. The defences of the hotels have been recently completely smashed up. The whole front, he says, is in imminent danger. The whole village is outflanked on either side. The Erpingham Rural District Council was warned, and advised to carry out works to cost £31,000, but have been able to put in only one temporary groyne, which is, of course, inadequate. Farther North there has been constant attrition of the cliff edge to Overstrand, where the southern flank of the village is in great danger.
The residents of those parts have been enduring trials for six years of war, and I think they should, if at all possible, be spared the horror of seeing their homes and means of livelihood disappearing over the edge of the cliff. The prospect is a very real one. The whole county feels the Government should know of its plight and agree, if possible, to the principle of making sea defence a national charge.
May I say a word about the difficulty of getting any one Department to face up to this problem? I have had extreme difficulty in getting any one Department to consider the problem with a view to
2914
doing anything. I have tried in an individual capacity to secure the interest of four Government Departments and four Ministers. I welcomed very much the decision earlier on of the Minister of Health, in response to an appeal I made, to send one of his engineering inspectors to visit and report on the position at Thundersley. I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would consider incorporating the whole of the area in question in the jurisdiction of the East Norfolk Catchment Board. The Minister replied he would arrange for certain districts to be inspected but if he found that any land drainage interests were involved he would bring the matter to the notice of the drainage authorities concerned. The chairman of the East Norfolk Rivers Catchment Board has stated he would like to see the whole of the area incorporated in the Catchment Board's jurisdiction so that the Board could get a national grant.
I did try later on to interest the Lord Privy Seal who, I understand, takes on all sorts of odd jobs for the Government. He suggested I should write to the Lord President of the Council, as he believed that his office would be dealing with the subject. The Lord President of the Council sent me back to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture, in a letter I have here, has sent me back to the Minister of Health. I am glad the Minister of Health is here today to answer the points put up. But this has been going on too long, and I hope we are going to get some very definite statement from the Minister today with regard to the intention of the Government in this connection. I welcome very much the announcement that the Government are considering the question of greater concentration of responsibility in regard to this matter, and I hope a decision will be reached so that the homes of the people and the livelihood of the people in many parts of Britain can be preserved, and that huge chunks of old England will be prevented from falling into the sea.
The Highways Committee of the Norfolk County Council have appointed a representative sub-committee, with power to consult other authorities, with a view to obtaining Government assistance; and by a recent decision of the Catchment Board, the Board is to convene a conference of representatives of the authorities concerned, with local Members of Parliament, and

2915
Members of the Norwich City Council. Can this conference have an assurance that their representations will be considered by the responsible Minister, and that there will be no further "passing of the baby" from one Department to another? Such an assurance will, at least, give heart to a large number of people who are up against a tremendous problem.
12.58 p.m.
Mr. Baker White: Like other hon. Members who have spoken I should like to stress the urgency of this problem. The fact that it is hundreds of years old does not make it any less urgent. It does seem of paramount importance that there should be one Minister responsible for dealing with coast erosion and coast defence in all its forms and aspects. May I illustrate the point by telling, very briefly, the story of what is happening in a place in the constituency I have the honour to represent? It is called Studd Hill, between Herne Bay and Whitstable. That piece of land was first developed for human habitation in 1932. The land was sold in 20-ft. plots for building weekend bungalows and chalets so that people of modest means might have their own little places by the sea. Sewers were put in. Studd Hill has ceased to be just a weekend resort. Under the stress of the housing shortage it has become a place of permanent residence for a large number of people, with a permanent, stable community. Erosion in the shape of cliffs falling has been accelerated by the draining of the surface water from the cliff, and has become a serious problem. Year by year, month by month, and now almost day by day, it has increased in gravity and extent.
Before the war the following facts were established: first, that it was not the responsibility of the local district council to deal with this coast erosion. Even if it had been they could not possibly have found the money It is calculated that to deal properly with this erosion will now cost something in the neighbourhood of £300,000. The second point established was that, as it was not in the Kent Rivers Catchment Board area, it was not their responsibility, though Studd Hill pays the catchment board rate. The Kent County Council did not commit themselves to any responsibility in the matter, and a most important point in the situation is that the Minister of Health could not then see
2916
his way to give any assistance to deal with the problem. The war came and stopped the building of groynes, which might have given some relief, and erosion has continued. Today it is worse than ever. I had a telephone call last Saturday to say that another 500 tons of cliff had fallen.
I was in London during the worst of the bombing. I had three V.2s within Boo yards of my house in Essex. I have seen damage and destruction through North Africa and the Middle East, and I suppose by now I should be hardened to it, but I cannot help being moved when go to a place like Studd Hill or any other part of the East coast and see houses falling to pieces over the cliffs. The last time I was there was a fine sunny day. The houses were tidy and well kept. A lot of people had got busy with paint pot and brush to make the best of it. The gardens were bright with daffodils and spring flowers. The lawns were well kept and well mown. But down at the edge of the cliff, bungalows were being taken down because otherwise they would fall over. If one looked over the cliff, one saw pieces of brick, mortar and wood which represented what had been somebody's house. All the time there is hanging over that community of people, like a dark shadow, the fear that tomorrow morning, tomorrow night or the next day somebody else's house may go over. They are hoping against hope that this Government will do something to help them. There is something much more than just houses going over the cliff. Life savings are going over the cliff. It is easy to say that those houses should never have been built, because that was not a suitable place—it is always easy to be wise after the event—but the fact of the matter is that these houses are threatened more and more, every week with destruction.
May I illustrate that by giving one figure? The average speed of erosion of the cliff at Studd Hill is 12 feet per month. That may not sound very much here, but it is a lot if it is 12 feet a month off somebody's garden, or measured in length across the living room of somebody's house. I hope the Government realise the urgency of the problem, that they will appoint a Minister to be responsible for it, in all its aspects, and that he will go round our coasts and see for himself what

2917
is happening and take urgent steps to prevent what I think is in danger of becoming a national tragedy.
1.4 p.m.
Squadron - Leader Kinghorn: I want to speak for a few moments on this national problem. I hope that the shades of the ancestors of my constituents will not think I am showing gross ingratitude when I speak in favour of measures against coast erosion, because if it had not been for the carelessness of Governments in the days of the early Britons, Yarmouth, which arose from the sea owing to coast erosion, would riot be here at all. However, despite the fact that we in our little peninsula have arisen from the sea, there is a danger in these days that the sea is going to reclaim its own. I cannot narrate to the House harrowing stories of neighbours of mine watching their garden utensils disappearing over the cliff, but only yards away from my constituency—in East Norfolk, North Norfolk, Suffolk and Lowestoft—the sea is rapidly reclaiming its own. The figure of 12 feet a month which we have just been given is staggering, and it must be staggering to all Members if we think that bits of this great little island of ours—in one of its finest agricultural districts and one of its most important fishing districts—is receding into the sea at that rate each month. Obviously it is a great national problem, and it is no consolation to ask what previous Governments have been doing That does not allay the feelings of our constituents who see their houses disappearing over the cliff, as has been happening during the last few weeks. Constituents have come to see us in the Lobby and have told us harrowing stories.
Something must be clone, not only for these people whose houses are disappearing and whose land is falling into the sea, but for people in other parts of the country who, perhaps without knowing it, are in danger of invasion from the sea. It was enlightening to hear at the beginning of the Debate that this matter was first brought up on 27th February, when a Question was put, to the Prime Minister by, of all people, the hon. Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton). I rather thought Norwich was regarded as an inland town, and yet here an inland town
2918
is so much concerned about coast erosion that a Question was put by its Member to the Prime Minister. The fact of the matter is that if this coast erosion goes on without any measures being taken against it, the very existence of a town like Norwich is threatened by the sea, however far inland it may be. It is the same with my own town. I am told that last year when the sea was threatening the constituencies of my colleagues, there was danger to my own town. There might have been a break-through through the constituencies of my colleagues, and if the wind had kept up the velocity which it had at one time, and if the tide had been coming in instead of ebbing, there was every prospect of my own constituency being inundated. These are the perils and dangers facing towns which we regard as inland towns and which we consider to have very little to do with coast erosion.
That is another reason why I hope that other Members of this House, who may be far more occupied with other matters at this moment and think coast erosion does not concern them, will read the Debate and contact us, and realise that we need a big national effort supported by other Members of the House, who perhaps do not face the dangers of coast erosion as our friends in Norfolk do, but who later may be faced with the dangers that we in Yarmouth and Norwich now have to face. I reinforce the plea for a focal point where we people who are interested in coast erosion—and there are a lot—can turn to when we want some measures taken. We have all gone through the experience of contacting, say, the Ministry of Transport, then the Board of Trade, then the Ministry of Health, and then the Service Departments and so on, and finding that we cannot get any satisfaction because the machinery of Government so far is not focused at one central point. We have not got one Department which can deal with probably our greatest national danger—land disappearing into the sea from which it arose.
I hope we shall get an answer to the effect that there will be some centralising force, so that in future we shall know where we can go to tackle this great problem. The problem is a national one and requires national administration. We have catchment boards, but recently I talked to an important member of the catchment board in my district, and we

2919
realised after two minutes' conversation that this question of coast erosion is far too big for any catchment board. A catchment board may take all the measures possible within its own area, but the sea may come in 50 miles away, in the area of another catchment board and undo all the work, costing thousands of pounds, done by the first catchment board in their own district. It is as national a problem as national defence against the Luftwaffe, and we must have the administration centralised. The same is true of finance. There is no catchment board, there Is no county council—especially the rather poorer county council which has no great industrial areas—which can put its hands into the ratepayers' pockets and bring out anything like the amount of money needed to take great national measures to protect our natural fortifications against this great enemy the sea.
I suggest to the House that there is a great body of expert opinion and craftsmanship in certain parts of the world which could help us to deal with this problem. Staying in a house in my constituency last week, I was told that one of its former owners had been a Dutch-roan, who came over to Yarmouth at the request of Queen Elizabeth, at the princely salary of 4d. a day. He had begun to put right the defences of the town, and had helped us in our first efforts to combat coast erosion. We know what a wonderful job of work the Dutch have done in revitalising their country since the war, and we know that they are experts. If we have not enough competent people in our own country, we should call on them to help us to survey the land, and use them as we used them in days gone by.
We shall be discussing reparations in this House in the near future, I have no doubt. I do not know whether I am a heretic, but I have seen so much damage caused by our enemies during the war that I have formed the opinion that perhaps they might be expected to put right some of it, by such work as rebuilding our houses, and so on. I think we might use them for putting right our coastal defences as well. We have all seen on the films, if not in Germany, those great parades of German labour trained under the Nazis before the war—young men stripped to the waist carrying shovels. We have probably seen pictures of these men building up sea defences of Northern Germany, and making a good job of it. There is an
2920
excellent body of workmen there, and there must be expert individuals who organised that work under the Nazis in Germany. If we are short of labour and experts, and have not built up a tradition of that kind, then let us use those Germans who are still left.
Those are the points I wish to put before the House. I conclude by expressing the hope and conviction that, with this Labour Government, we shall have a centralisation of function, and perhaps the Minister will send us off with a good Easter present by enabling us to tell our constituents that soon, everything in the garden will really be lovely.
1.13 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I took care to be present at this Debate today because the constituency which I represent now has one of the longest coast lines of any constituency represented in this Parliament. It is quite true that the sea coast in County Down is not suffering from coastal erosion in anything like the way it is in a place like Mundesley, and I cannot understand the people of Norfolk having been so patient for generations. From the time I visited among them first, I think 50 or 100 houses at least have been swept into the sea, and the people seem to be content to allow the sea to take its toll. The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) mentioned the Nazi labour gangs before the war. I saw with my own eyes these boys stripped to the waist doing this work in Germany in 1933 or 1934. When I came back here, I made tentative proposals in this House that we should start seaside camps on a similar scale and idea here; the young men who were out of work should go down to the sea coast in the summer time and work on coastal erosion, getting good food and decent wages, and they would be doing themselves good in the sea air and also good to the country. The proposal was not well received. Even the good things about Hitler's administration were scorned, and it was not accepted. Soon after that, we had little unemployment and had to work as hard as we could to make munitions. Would the Minister of Health tell us who exactly is responsible for the coast in Northern Ireland? I have had complaints from my constituents that sand and gravel are being removed from the coast and they do not know to whom to apply to stop it.
Sir S. Holmes: Will my hon. and gallant Friend allow me to interrupt, and say that at the request of the Northern Ireland Members, the Coast Erosion Act of 1939 did not include Northern Ireland?
Sir W. Smiles: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I still hope that the Minister will spare a minute or two in replying to put on record in HANSARD very definitely the answer to this question, because we were told to apply to the Board of Trade on this subject and to complain to the coastguards. If this is not the right channel of approach, I should be extremely grateful to the Minister of Health if he will let us know to whom we should apply.
As far as I have seen, a great deal of the coastal erosion in my own constituency has definitely started through people who wanted sand to help make mortar for a house, or some gravel for a road face, bringing their carts down to the shore. Eventually, one or two carts start a chain of vehicles and tons of material are removed. That is what starts coastal erosion, and leads to a great deal of expense in restoring roads which have been washed into the sea, and drains, and even houses. I think it should be made a civil offence to remove sand and gravel from any shore without a definite permit from the Board of Trade or some Government authority. I hope the Minister of Health will give me some information on the points I have raised.
1.17 p.m.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: This is not a subject that lends itself to a great deal of discussion. Most of the points I had in mind have been made by other hon. Members already, but no one has spoken in this Debate from the Principality of Wales, which is very considerably affected by coast erosion. The coast of South Wales is well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, and I need not say anything about it. North Wales which is, of course, by far the most beautiful coast in Wales, is very considerably affected. Flintshire, Denbighshire, Caernarvonshire and Merioneth —especially the town of Colwyn Bay, which was the headquarters of the Ministry of Food during the whole of the war—are witnesses to the depredations of the sea in that area. The borough of Colwyn Bay alone has spent thousands of
2922
pounds in recent years just maintaining the promenades, let alone any other sea erosion which takes place in the vicinity. I witnessed a short time back some of the depredations and havoc of the sea. I went into more than eight houses which had been flooded. I saw a whole subway track for a distance of about 400 yards washed away, and I was amazed by the damage effected in such a short time as two or three hours.
The North Wales authorities have combined but, as has been mentioned, they are quite incapable of completing the task which is so vast and expensive. I am not anticipating that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that we are to have another Minister. I hesitate to ask for another Minister. I ask for a centralised department which might come under the existing Minister. After all, there is not a local authority in the land which is not under his jurisdiction, and this matter primarily affects the local authorities. I have been in this House 17 years now, and this matter cropped up almost every year before the war, and even during the war. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some effective reply this afternoon in order to give definite encouragement to places around our coasts which are very much affected.
1.21 p.m.
Commander Maitland: I think the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) for raising this question today. The matter seems to divide into two main problems, erosion of cliffs, which is perhaps the more spectacular, and the breaking through of sea walls to land which has been recovered from the sea in the past.
I represent a constituency in Lincolnshire which has some of the most fertile land in England protected from the sea by a sea wall. In that area the worst devastation can happen owing to a break through in the sea wall. Although not so spectacular, the damage lasts for a longer time, and remains long after the water has been pumped away. Salt water backs up the drains and is probably drunk by stock: a great deal of damage is also done in that way. I entirely agree with the proposition that this problem needs to be dealt with centrally. I disagree with the hon. 'Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones).

2923
We need a separate Minister, and I hope he will not be the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, who has enough on his plate already. I hope we have a Minister to deal specially with this problem and that when he co-ordinates the system affecting various departments and considers the various problems he will remember the question of the sinews of war, finance. The fact that this has had to be raised from different sources has been one of the main difficulties in solving this problem in the past.
Centralisation is most important in controlling what the sea does. I draw the attention of the House to what was said during the Debate and would point out that the erecting of a breakwater may mean devastation 20 miles away. That is a most important point and a very strong argument for centralisation. I sincerely hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he may be able to give us the answer we are all wanting, that the Government are taking this matter really seriously and wish to help all who live on the edge of England.
1.24 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I believe all who have been present this afternoon will agree that we have had a most useful discussion and a very informed concentration of experience and knowledge upon a problem of considerable gravity and complexity. I appreciate very much the advice which we have received, and I also appreciate the anxiety that lies behind the speeches we have heard.
The defence of our coastline against encroachment by the sea must be a consideration not only for those on the sea coast itself, but for the whole population of the country. Parts of the country, of course, suffer very much more than others. East Anglia in particular is a very considerable victim in this matter. The Government are fully conscious of the seriousness of the situation. I was made conscious of it last winter, and shall probably be made conscious of it every winter, because whenever a break through takes place the local authority and the local Member of Parliament rush to the Ministry of Health for the purpose of getting them out of their difficulties. That, perhaps, is partly the reason why the responsibility has been placed on me to reply to the Debate today.
2924
There is a great division of responsibility—far too great a division. The Ministry of Transport are responsible for protecting roads and railways, catchment boards are responsible for protecting agricultural land, which represents about 53 per cent. of the coast line, and local authorities arc limited to the protection of their own property, while the landlords, the foreshore owners, are responsible for the remainder. Whenever one of these authorities takes a step to protect its own property, it may have the effect of imperilling property somewhere else. The very useful little Act to which reference has been made, which gives the Board of Trade power to make orders to prevent persons from taking material from the seashore which might result in inundation, applies particularly to this point. Not only would inundation be caused by the removal of material at that particular point but it might also have the effect of causing inundation at a distant point. Obviously, unless we have an overall picture with someone responsible for seeing to it that overall considerations are kept in mind, piecemeal defence is of no use at all. These considerations are very present in the mind of the Government. But, because these various authorities were responsible for this and that aspect of the situation, it was decided, in the meantime, that the first thing to do was to make a Minister responsible for answering Questions in the House, and it was decided that the Minister of Health should be responsible. That was because the Ministry of Health, having engineers and being responsible to local authorities, and having obligations at different points, was probably the most useful focal point available at the moment. But it does not follow that the Ministry of Health is going to be responsible permanently. An investigation is going to take place, and has indeed already begun, to see where responsibility should be placed. When that investigation is complete, it will then be the responsibility of whatever Minister is decided upon, to consider what action should be taken to deal with the problem.
The first consideration must be to establish responsibility, and that will need some inquiry. There are many interdepartmental considerations involved which will have to be determined before the House is in a position to call for action from a particular Department, or

2925
a particular Minister. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), I doubt very much if there will be a special Minister appointed for this task. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is anxious not to add to the number of Ministers.
Commander Maitland: I am sorry if I gave a wrong impression. I did not mean a special Minister, I meant that the responsibility should be the special responsibility of a Minister.
Mr. Bevan: That is the purpose of the inquiry which has now been set on foot in order to try to fix the responsibility. Once that has been done then the Minister, whoever he may be, will be answerable to the House of Commons for any action or inaction of which he may be guilty.
I have been trying to discover who is responsible for the defence of the coastline of Northern Ireland, but apparently the coastline of Northern Ireland is not known to the law. It may be when further attempts are made sometime in the future to include the coastline of Northern Ireland there will be Members from Northern Ireland who will be more receptive to the invitations of this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are always receptive."] They were rather distant on the last occasion when it was sought to bring the coastline under our care. When I came to the House first, I found a Coast Erosion Bill had been introduced, as an hon. Member reminded the House just now, by the late Mr. Willie Graham, who was President of the Board of Trade. The Labour Government of that time had almost as many preoccupations as the present one but amid those preoccupations they thought it necessary to defend the coastline of England against the sea.
A short Bill was introduced giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry of 1911. I was a Member of the Standing Joint Committee which considered that Bill. It received a not very enthusiastic reception from hon. Members opposite. I think we spent three weeks on the first line. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) batted very well on that occasion. He displayed the most extraordinary Parliamentary virtuosity. I have never known so many speeches
2926
made on so narrow a piece of territory as those which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman succeeded in making. The total effect was to kill the Bill The Bill was not withdrawn. We were anxious to get the Bill. But there were 325 Amendments, I believe, to the first three Clauses. The Bill was killed and nothing had been done since then. Indeed, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was anxious to follow up his victory because he put a Question at that time to the then Prime Minister asking if he had yet decided whether he intended to proceed further with the Coast Protection Bill. The Prime Minister said he could add nothing to what he had already said in reply to questions on this subject and that the position was still unchanged.
Captain Crookshank: That was very informative.
Mr. Bevan: Very informative indeed. The Prime Minister added that if there was to be a cessation of the opposition to the Measure, communications would be made through the usual channels. In other words, the Government of the day were prepared to discuss, through the usual channels, the dropping of the opposition to the Measure in order that it might become law. If I remember correctly, there was no great opposition to the general principles of the Bill but hon. Members opposite did not see fit to provide Parliamentary facilities to enable the Bill to go through. The result was that the Bill had to be dropped. I think that was a lamentable result. I admit at once that the report of the 1911 inquiry is rather dated. Even that Bill of 1929 would not have been entirely satisfactory but it would have gone some way towards meeting the position. It would have fixed responsibility. Local authorities would perhaps have been responsible and then the question would have been simplified into a matter of how much of the burden should he borne by local authorities and how much by the Treasury. Unfortunately, as I say, that was not done. I do not want to rake this up now merely for the purpose of being contrary but, as it was within my recollection and as it was my first experience on a Standing Committee of the extraordinary skill with which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough led his troops into action, I make no apology for recalling it at this moment.
Captain Crookshank: What was the date?
Mr. Bevan: It was in 1929.
Captain Crookshank: Could the Minister give any explanation of why the Labour Government did not reintroduce the Bill and try again in the next year?
Mr. Bevan: Because the same thing would have occurred again. This obviously was a case of blocking the Bill and, therefore, we could not proceed with it. However, I understand why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot recall the occasion. He had so many crimes of a similar nature to his discredit at that time that he cannot recall them all today. As hon. Members will appreciate I cannot give definite replies to considerations of policy. Policy has not been determined. I can, however, give them the assurance that this matter will now be given active examination. A responsible Minister will be determined upon and a general survey will take place in order to decide as to what measures should be taken to deal with the problem which gives natural anxiety to those in the areas affected and which ought to be the preoccupation of the country as a whole.
1.36 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I am quite sure my hon. Friends who have been concerned with this Debate will be relieved to hear that the Minister is now going to give serious thought to what is a serious problem and, as a result of the neglect during the war, a growing problem. We are all very grateful for that. I do not see why the Minister should have brought up the history of 1929 at this particular moment. When one does that kind of thing it is done to defend oneself against something and to try to put the blame on to somebody else. That is the usual procedure of the right hon. Gentleman. I wondered what sins of omission on his part he was trying to cover up by making this very vigorous attack. I waited to hear, and I can only suppose it is that in the months that he has been in office he has completely neglected to do anything at all about coast erosion. Having so neglected, he thinks it is a good excuse to try and make out that in 1929, I, and my hon. Friends who were working with me, offered opposition to what was no doubt a bad Bill. I cannot recollect the de-
2928
tails but, coming from the stable from which it apparently emerged and sponsored by a Labour Minister at that time, it could not have been all that good Therefore, having failed utterly to do anything to deal with this problem since he has been in office he has to reply in this manner. There was a complimentary remark by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) about what he had done for Seaford. I agree—but he did not do anything like enough.
Having practically ignored this problem for all this time, when challenged on the Easter Adjournment about it, all he can say is that the Government are going to pay attention to it. For that remark, 1 say, we are very grateful. In order, however, to make it a little easier, the right hon. Gentleman takes it upon himself to attack the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough. I am very pleased to think he has had a little bit of fun at my expense. I look forward to the many occasions on which I shall have far better grounds, far stronger reasons, for returning the compliment.

VICTORY CELEBRATIONS
1.40 p.m.
Sir John Mellor: I am glad to be given the opportunity of referring to the arrangements for 8th June, because I have been asked by many of my constituents what precisely it is proposed that we shall celebrate on that occasion. On VE-Day we celebrated, and rightly celebrated, the brilliant victory of our Forces in Europe and on VJ-Day we celebrated, and rightly celebrated, the equally remarkable achievements of our Forces in the Far East. To try to celebrate anything a second time always results in an anti-climax, and, therefore, I ask what has occurred since the defeat of Japan that would justify us, at this time, in embarking upon fresh celebrations. So far as feeling in the country is concerned, I do not appreciate any desire for such celebrations; on the contrary, there appears to be prevalent an acute disappointment at the slow progress made at home towards reconstruction and equally severe disappointment at the slow progress towards the solution of the many difficult problems which confront our Government overseas.
When this proposal for 8th June was first made by the Government, it

2929
appeared to me to be a mistake, and I added my name in support of a Motion put clown on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) protesting against the Government's proposals. None the less, I was quite ready to believe that there would be many people throughout the country who would not share our views, but who would desire to partake in these celebrations. I have made very exhaustive inquiries throughout my constituency, and among hon. Members in this House and elsewhere, and especially have 1 inquired of members and ex-members of the Forces, and I have not yet met one single person who disagrees with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Orpington and those hon. Members who supported his Motion.
Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary, in view of this widespread lack of interest, to put it no higher, in the Government's proposals, who initiated them, where did the idea spring from and what steps have the Government taken to ascertain public opinion on this subject So far as London is concerned, these arrangements are being imposed upon it and Londoners are going to suffer a good deal of inconvenience. To quote only one instance, at the present time, Kensington Gardens which, at this time of the year are usually so lovely, are being rendered hideous by miles of barbed wire and rows and rows of latrines. So far as local authorities throughout the country are concerned, toe Government urged them to join in these celebrations. But they are, with the entire acquiescence of the local inhabitants, proposing to do very little, and many of them propose to do nothing at all except provide some fun for school children.
This summer, it is quite impossible for us to provide fitting hospitality for guests and for contingents from the Forces throughout the British Empire who will, no doubt, be invited to join us here. If this sort of thing is worth doing at all, it is worth doing well. I am sure that nearly all of us thoroughly enjoy a military spectacle, and that we look forward to the day when we can again witness such wonderful scenes as are provided in Trooping the Colour. It would be refreshing for us to witness a grand military spectacle. But is it possible to stage such scenes at this time? Surely it would be a most lamentable affair if this pro-
2930
posed V-Day ended in a flop. If the Government were proposing to facilitate the expression of a spontaneous outburst of popular rejoicing, well and good, but: in my submission, that is far from the case now.
It is proposed that there shall be one day's holiday with pay on 8th June. I do not think that that is going to gratify anybody. Although the Home Secretary laughs, I think the people of this country are sufficiently intelligent to realise that, if there is a day's holiday with pay all round, it means that every one pays for some one else's holiday. (Laughter.) That is not an extravagant proposition. I submit that this proposal is ill-timed, and is not consonant with the Dunkirk spirit, for which the Prime Minister is so arduously appealing at the present time. The Government should reconsider the matter afresh, try to ascertain the real state of public opinion, and revise these proposals.
1.47 p.m.
Sir Waldron Smithers: I desire to support the request made by my hon. Friend and to ask the Government, in all seriousness, whether they will not reconsider their decision to hold these celebrations on 8th June. In order to be as brief as possible and for the convenience of hon. Members, all the information given by the Government is contained in the replies to two Questions—in Column 158, on 2nd April, and in Column 2485, on 16th April, of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Some of my hon. Friends and I put down a Motion a few weeks ago asking the Government to reconsider their decision. It was signed by about 15 or 20 Members of Parliament. Since the Motion was put down, I and my hon. Friends who signed it with me have received letters from all over the country supporting us and saying that these celebrations on 8th June are out of place. I have heard that many cities and towns and several of the London Boroughs have refused or declined to take part in the celebrations, and, though I have said nothing to my own local authority of Orpington, they do not see fit to have any celebrations there at all. What will the world think of us in the present appalling political and food situation if we have this belated celebration which no one seems to want? We are now actually waiting for the news

2931
of the approval or disapproval of the American Loan and, surely, the Americans will say that we came to them cap in hand for a large loan to help to see us through our troubles, yet we can spend £168,000 of the Government's money on these celebrations, which is the figure, so far as I can extract it, from the answers to Questions—£135,000 for civil expenditure, and £33,000 for the War Office. To spend that is a waste of money and a waste of time.
In addition, there will be all the expense of people crowding into London, putting London to great inconvenience; and the shortage of food will create very serious difficulties. How can we in this country, with any good heart, enter into these celebrations, when millions of people, all over the world, are faced with starvation? This is not the time to stage a parade; it is out of place, and it is incongruous. I am told, from responsible quarters, that VE-Day and V J-Day cost us tens of thousands of tons of coal in production, and several scores of thousands of pounds in the iron and steel industry. One day's celebrations of this kind means more than one day's loss to industry. When the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers are appealing for more production it seems altogether out of place to encourage people to spend money and to waste time on celebrations. I would ask hon. Members to read the first leading article in "The Times" of this morning. It is one of the most brilliant articles that I have read for many a day. It gives good reasons why we should not hold these celebrations on 8th June. Instead of these celebrations, now is the time to pray for health and strength to face the grim period which lies ahead.
1.52 p.m.
Mr. Paget: I do not think that any of us would object to the school children having a holiday, and, perhaps, some celebrations on this day. After all, they have lived through very stirring times, they have suffered the hardships which those times involve, and I do not think that it is unreasonable that there should be a commemorative day for them. Equally, I feel that for the working population, as a whole, there is a lot to be said for a day's holiday in the summer. I do not follow the point of the hon. Member who opened this Debate that none of them would really enjoy
2932
their holiday, because they would realise that a holiday with pay was a holiday in which everyone was paying for someone else's holiday, It is not everybody who will be paying It is the employers, who are a somewhat small minority, who will be paying, and it is the employed who will be enjoying themselves. I do not think that the ordinary people in the factories have any real objection, or would have their enjoyment marred, by feeling that it was "the boss" who was giving them that day.
Sir J. Mellor: Would not the hon. Member agree that it all ultimately falls upon the consumer?
Mr. Paget: No, I would not agree. I do not want to enter into a difficult, economic argument, but I should be very surprised indeed if a single day's holiday in a year was, in fact, reflected by an increase of a single farthing in the price of any article. I think that it would come out of profits, and I can well believe that there are sufficient profits to pay for this one day's holiday. I rather hope myself that the Government will reconsider the proposals for pompous military parades and ceremonies of that kind. When we went into this war we said that it was not a war in which we were merely fighting to defeat another nation; it was not merely a conflict or—to use what used to be a current phrase—imperialistic rivalry, or anything of that sort. This was a war in which we were fighting to try to achieve a better world, a more decent world, a world in which people might live in peace and security. Some of us who were in the Forces believed that, and thought that we were fighting for a better world. Have we achieved it?
When we look across the water and see mass starvation—starvation not merely in the countries which were our enemies, although even there I do not think that the conception of Europe as being a series of sheep and goat pens is a very satisfactory one, but starvation among those who were our comrades in arms in this great struggle—is it really a time to rejoice? Is it a time to make a public parade of a victory which, in the largest sense, we have yet to win? Let it be a day's holiday, but let it also be a day in which we think of the sufferings imposed by this war on people who are not as fortunate as ourselves; a day when we should try to set aside something to alleviate those

2933
sufferings. I believe that that would be a more dignified and humane manner of marking the termination of these great events.
1.57 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): We have had three speeches raising this issue, and personally I do not complain of the tone that has been adopted, although I find myself rather more attuned to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) than to the two speeches delivered from the other side of the House. The hon. 'Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) asked me who initiated these proposals. The initiation came from his side of the House. So long ago as October of last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was being pressed by hon. Members on the other side of the House to initiate some parade in London which would enable the people of the capital, and the people of the country generally, to pay their tribute to the troops, and other people, who have been responsible for the great deliverance which was achieved during the course of 1945. I want to insist that that is the spirit which has animated the Government in preparing these proposals.
Sir W. Smithers: Surely, the position at home and abroad has materially deteriorated since then, and circumstances have altered.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) was down in the depth of the dumps even before the dissolution of Parliament, and was foreseeing far worse evils than, in fact, have yet befallen us. He is one of those people who is never happy unless he is miserable. The spirit with which we approach this matter is that there was a very large number of people, some in the Forces, others in civil defence forces, others in the factories and workshops, and even in the home, whose united efforts enabled this country to achieve the greatest deliverance vouchsafed to us in the course of our history. Surely, it is desirable that there should be an opportunity for the community to pay its tribute to those people ho were responsible, under God, for that deliverance. That is what we want to secure.
2934
VE-Day and VJ-Day were, to borrow a phrase of the hon. Member for Orpington in the nature of Mafeking nights. I am one who can, unfortunately, remember Mafeking night. I, as a Volunteer, was returning from a parade on Wimbledon Common on the night the deliverance was announced. For some reason the inhabitants of Wimbledon confused us with the troops who had relieved Mafeking. I am quite sure that those of us whose memories go hack to that night know that the spirit of VE-Day and VJ-Day was very different from the spirit of that time, and the spirit which, I am told, prevailed in England on the afternoon of 11th November, 1918. Even in the rejoicings of VE-Day and V J-Day there was a recognition of how near we had been to the pit. When this House went to St. Margaret's on VE-Day and we sang that wonderful metrical version of the 125th Psalm I am quite sure everyone of us felt it might almost have been written especially for that occasion. This is not a celebration of a victory in the way that, I think, some of the words we have heard uttered this afternoon might have indicated. It is a recognition an the part of the whole nation of what we owe—may I put it this way?—to one another, for what was done during the course of those six war years.
If, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, it is going to be a help if each pays for everyone else's holiday, then, perhaps, that is one way in which we can show this mutual recognition of what the most unexpected people did in the course of those six years. For, surely, one of the remarkable things we discovered was that ordinary humble civilians, whom one would never have thought capable of rising to great heights, did, in the stress of the circumstances, reveal a courage, a heroism and a devotion that entitles them to recognition by the rest of the community. We also, I hope, intend to recognise the proof that once again has been given of the wonderful doggedness of the British infantryman. I recollect speaking before the war on the Army Estimates, and complaining at the way everybody said that the next war would be one in the air. I said I was quite sure that the next war would be won by the indomitable British infantryman's once again refusing to know when he was beaten. It is well, I think, that we should make an opportunity for

2935
these characteristics of our race to be held in honour by the whole people. I do not, therefore, apologise for the fact that we have responded to the invitation that was put forward to us last Autumn to afford the people of this country an opportunity for showing their recognition of the spirit that was shown by the whole people.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton I say this will not be merely a pompous military parade. We propose to see that in the marching ranks there shall be representatives of every one of the civil forces and of the industrial forces who unitedly enabled us to achieve the deliverance which we have secured for all mankind. While it is true that there will be representatives of all the fighting Forces and of as many regiments as possible in the parade, there will also be a recognition of every one of the civil units, whether civil defence or industrial, which contributed to the achievement of our deliverance. Therefore, I hope that this explanation will do something to remove the apprehensions which the people who indulged in conversation with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield at present entertain, and I sincerely hope that in the course of his future wanderings about the country and talks with people, he will be able to give them a rather more balanced idea of what we propose to do.
Sir J. Mellor: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that up to this point he has said nothing to controvert the main proposition of my speech, which was, broadly speaking, that this further D-Day is not wanted by the people of this country?
Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman makes a dogmatic statement. The only thing one can do with a dogmatist is to contradict him, and I do not regard that as being very polite. I believe that, when the people of this country realise that our object is not to have a pompous military parade, a celebration of a victory—in that sense—but to give recognition to those people who saved us, their attitude will not be that as described by the hon. Gentleman. He raised one or two other points with which I want to deal—
Mr. Paget: Before the right hon. Gentle-ma n leaves that point, may I ask if steps will be taken also to recognise those who helped to save us and who are at present starving?
Mr. Ede: That, of course, is a matter that does not come within the scope of this Debate. I can assure my hon. Friend however, that nothing gives the Government more anxiety than the heavy responsibilities which we have to carry for certain of the people of Europe and the members of our Commonwealth of Nations; and that what we are able to do there will certainly not be hindered by anything that happens on 8th June. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield raised the question of Kensington Gardens. That is not a matter which comes directly under my Department but, clearly, it would be desirable that only one Minister should speak on this occasion. As far as Kensington Gardens are concerned, we propose to use them, as they were used on former occasions such as the Coronations, the 1919 victory celebrations and the Silver Jubilee, as a camp for the troops who will be coming from overseas and for our allies who take part in the procession.
The difficulty about Kensington Gardens is that the railings were removed during the war, and it is very desirable, not that we should prevent the troops from getting out, but that we should prevent certain people from getting in during the course of the occupation of the gardens by the troops. We have taken steps to limit the amount that is and will be shut off to the lowest possible minimum. I was a little perturbed at one time because it appeared likely that the children of the neighbourhood might be denied access to the Round Pond which I am quite sure every Member will know is a source of very considerable delight to the children who frequent the gardens. We have been able to take steps whereby the pond will remain open for the use of the children.
Although we have to erect barbed wire, we propose to leave as many gaps in it as possible until the actual arrival of the troops, so that the denial of access to the gardens shall be reduced to the very lowest possible minimum and that a complete exclusion from any part will only take place in the interests of, the troops when it is necessary to close the part of the gardens which has been allocated to them. It is also necessary to take certain steps to secure the Government property which is in use in preparation for housing the troops and for the construction of the various erections to which the hon. Member alluded. I am sorry to say that our efforts to keep the area

2937
enclosed as small as possible have resulted in some loss of Government property. It may be that some people think that some of this material is not even fit for salvage and are carting it off for bonfires. I hope that further depredations will not occur and that the people using the gardens will recognise that we are endeavouring, as far as possible, to allow them to retain access as long as possible, but that we shall only be able to continue to do so to the extent we are now doing if that concession is treated in the spirit in which it is offered.
I accept to the full all that has been said about the present condition of the world by the three hon. Members who preceded me in the course of this Debate. But that does not detract, for one single moment, from what the ordinary citizens of this country did during the turmoil of the last six years. I sincerely hope that 8th June will be a day on which we shall recognise the tremendous heights to which the ordinary citizens of this country rose and at which they maintained themselves during those six years, and that when we see those representatives of the people who secured our deliverance we shall think not merely of them, but of those who laid down their lives. I hope that we shall find in this day an opportunity for rededicating ourselves to the tremendous tasks that victory in war throws on the victors. It is a terrible responsibility to declare war. Never let it be forgotten that in the last two wars we declared war; we did not wait to be attacked. Those few of us here this afternoon who were present in this House on the night of 2nd September, 1939, can well recall the very heavy sense of responsibility that rested on the House that night. It is a still more terrible responsibility to be the victors in a war and to be responsible for the framing of the future of the world. I believe that if we take this Saturday, which has been purposely chosen as the Saturday before Whit Sunday so as to interfere as little as possible with the ordinary life of the community, to recognise the work of those who fought and laboured in the conflict and to rededicate ourselves to make this victory really worthy of the sacrifices which the whole country endured, that this day may well be one of the most valuable in the history of our great country.

HOUSING (PRIVATE ENTERPRISE BUILDING)
2.18 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Whatever view the House may take of the matters which have just been under discussion, they will at least, I think, be agreed that the people of this country will have very little to celebrate on 8th June in regard to the progress of the housing programme. It is to that aspect that I wish to draw the attention of the House. I notice that we are somewhat ahead of schedule, again differentiating ourselves and our procedure very markedly from that of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in regard to their housing programme. The specific aspect of it, to which I wish to address a few observations this afternoon, is the recent revocation of building licences and the implications attaching thereto. It is my intention to address myself to the general implications of this matter in the hope that some of my hon. Friends will be successful in catching your eye, and will be able to adduce further specific local instances of the way in which this action is bearing heavily upon the various localities of the country.
This matter arises out of a letter and a circular sent by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to the local authorities. I think the House in general is familiar with these documents, so that I need only refer to them briefly. The letter was sent to 161 local authorities calling upon them to discontinue the issue of licences for private enterprise building, and to 32 local authorities instructing them to cancel certain licences already given. That letter referred to the Ministry of Health circular, and, in particular, to paragraph 3, which contains the following words:
" Inevitably during the months ahead resources of labour and materials will remain restricted in comparison with need. Applications for licences must therefore be considered in relation to their possible effect on building of new houses by local authorities. For the present, the erection of houses by private builders must be controlled so as to ensure that such work does not absorb a disproportionate amount of labour and materials. The number and proportion in each area will vary with local conditions, but it is clear that effect will only be given to the general policy if the housebuilding programme of the local authority is substantially in excess of the number of houses for which licences are issued."
The action of the Minister in this regard really means that private enterprise

2939
building is being still further restricted in an effort to maintain what I consider to be an artificial ratio between the rate of local authorities' building and private enterprise building. I think that a justification for the Minister's action must rest upon four premises. The first of these is that the demand for houses to let as compared with houses for sale is in the ratio of four to one; secondly, that the local authorities are a good instrument for the building of houses to let and private enterprise is not; thirdly, that the two agencies cannot properly, usefully, and profitably co-exist; and fourthly, that local authority building will benefit in proportion as private enterprise building is discouraged. It appears to me that all these four premises to a greater or lesser extent are false. I propose to deal briefly with each in turn.
The first question is that of the ratio between private enterprise and local authorities. On 6th March the Minister of Health attempted to justify in the House of Commons his fixing of the four to one ratio in favour of the local authority building. I quote from the HANSARD of that date:
" It certainly is not a figure based upon any strict statistical inquiry, because the facts are not available, but because it seems to me to bear the proper relationship to the social situation of most of our people, because four out of five in Great Britain need houses to let and cannot afford to buy them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 454.]
I propose to assess the value of that statement in regard first to the ascertainable position, which is not ascertainable since before the war and, secondly, in regard to the evidence of the wishes of the population at the present time. In regard to the statistical evidence which the right hon. Gentleman said was not available, there is, in fact, statistical evidence available for the year 1939 in a Report of the Fitzgerald Committee, which analysed the position in regard to eight million dwellings and issued a Report under the title "Valuation for Rates, 1939." That Report shows that at that time 35 per cent. of the houses were owner-occupied and 24 per cent. were let at an unsubsidised rent. It is common knowledge that there is no appreciable difference between the amount paid in unsubsidised rent and the amount necessary to make repayment to a building society for the purchase of a house. Therefore, taking
2940
these figures it would appear that not 80 per cent., as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, but 40 per cent. was the maximum need in this country for houses to let because people were not in a position to buy them. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has followed the old discredited policy of taking the number he first thought of and doubling it. That is a comparatively modest arithmetical project for the right hon. Gentleman, because I observe that he said on Thursday, 11th April, in this House, in answer to a question put to him by myself:
" 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 2092.]
I submit that that bears not the slightest relationship to the known published figures. In the three years after the last war the local authority built 51,153 houses and private enterprise built 22,919 subsidised houses and unsubsidised, an estimated figure for four years of 30,000. That is, a total of 100,000 houses, whereas under the right hon. Gentleman's policy local authorities for the first six months since VJ-Day built 445 houses and private enterprise has erected 1,600 houses, making a total of 2,045. So the right hon. Gentleman fixes himself a ratio of 50 to and makes that extraordinary statement in this House, the contradiction of which I am glad will now go upon the records. With regard to the evidence of demand at the present time, I should like to refer to the analysis of a cross-section of opinion in the Army and the Air Force, which was made by Mr. Arnold Whitley, lecturer on housing and planning to the Forces. The result of his analysis is set out in detail in a letter to the" Daily Telegraph "on 19th November last. I cannot refer to it in detail, but I may quote his conclusion, which is this:
" There appears to be a general desire to own the house one lives in; the gratification of this wish depends largely on economic security; and private enterprise was making a considerable contribution to this among the lower income groups in the years immediately before the war."
In fact all the evidence goes to show that between 1919 and 1938 there was a steady increase both in the ability and desire on the part of all sections of the community to own the houses in which they lived,

2941
and building society records show that in 1939 50 per cent. of their clients were drawn from the wage-earning classes.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the desire for owner occupancy is still continuing, but unhappily the ability to do so owing to the actions of the right hon. Gentleman is not. Indeed, during the years of the war the desire for owner occupancy has increased, because in 1945 Building Society advances were as much as 50 per cent. of what they were in the peak building year of 1936–50 per cent. in the period when there was no house building at all. What is the explanation of that? It is that many houses that were rented in 1938 and 1939 are now passing into owner occupancy. Therefore, on the first issue of demand my conclusion is that the desire for owner occupancy is deep-rooted in this country. The Minister is undermining the possibility of implementing that desire, but he is quite unable to exorcise the desire itself.
I pass now to the second false premise on which the Minister's action is based, namely, that the local authorities are a good instrument for building houses to let and private enterprise is not. It is a well known parrot cry of many hon. Members opposite that private enterprise did not or could not build houses to let and that the houses that were built were built only for sale. This is a contention frequently made in this House, but it does not bear examination on the facts and figures. During the five years before the war private enterprise produced unsubsidised 1,316,000 houses, a figure which will take the right hon. Gentleman some time to emulate at his present rate.
Mr. Bevan: How long did it take?
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is, I am sure, within the recollection of the House that I did say five years. If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the compliment of listening to me he would have heard me say "five years." If the right hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt me I will give way.
Mr. Bevan: In what period were those years?
Mr. Walker-Smith: In the five years before the war. The war started in 1939 and, therefore, it would be from 1934–39. Of those 1,316,000 houses, 481,000 were
2942
built for a rateable value of not more than 13, 672,00o were built for rateable values of £14 to £26 and the balance, 163,000, were built for rateable values of over £27. That means that the majority of the houses built were smaller houses, of which the community stands in dire need today. Were those houses built to let? In the two and a half years before the war, from April, 1937, to October, 1939, one-third of the houses built by private enterprise were built to let. Were they built only for the rich, and the well to do? No, because many of those 163,00o houses built to let were built for a low rateable value. Equating that in terms of weekly rent, they were able to be let, unsubsidised, at a rent of perhaps less than the 10s. at which the right hon. Gentleman aims today and which, as I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill—in figures which the right hon. Gentleman has not sought fit to refute—he may not attain without placing a grievous and undue burden on the ratepayers.
Now I pass to the other side of that issue, that is to say, the capacity of the local authorities. During the period of most intense building activity in the country only boo local authorities were active in the sphere of housebuilding. Appendix B of the right hon. Gentleman's February housing return shows that of approximately 1,500 local authorities 911 had not one house under construction by the end of February. This is after the encouragement and urging by successive Governments over a period of some three years. I am aware that they could not build until a comparatively late period, but the right hon. Gentleman will realise that they were urged to take preliminary steps a long time ago, by his predecessor in the days of the Coalition Government.
Mr. Austin: What about—
Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have an irresistible urge to put a point. If he cannot wait until he catches Mr. Speaker's eye I will give way to him. As I was saying, after all that encouragement not one house was under construction by 911 of these local authorities. The Minister of Health, who does not count among his admirable qualities the sovereign virtue of logic, thinks that because an agency is not building houses to let it is, on that account, building

2943
houses for sale. That is a pathetically false syllogism. Local authorities are not building houses for sale; they are not building houses at all. It is clear from these figures that the right hon. Gentleman is putting aside the substance in a vain effort to grasp and come to grips with the shadow.
Mr. Rees-Williams: Where were the large number of houses, built for a rateable value of less than £13, erected? My experience is that few such houses were built before the war.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am giving the figures.
Mr. Rees-Williams: I ask the hon. Gentleman to extend the information he is giving us, by saying where those houses were built. That is a perfectly fair question.
Mr. Walker-Smith: To tell the hon. Gentleman, or this House, where many hundreds of thousands of houses were built, to pin-point them, would require a much longer time than I feel I ought to take. I can well appreciate the surprise of the hon. Gentleman at the versatility of private enterprise, because it is one of the regrettable facts about human nature that when people become soaked in prejudice and error they become, to some extent, innoculated against the truth.
I pass to the third false premise, that these two agencies, local authorities and private enterprise, cannot work contemporaneously together. This question must depend, obviously, on the availability of labour and materials. I addressed myself to the question as fully as time allowed on 25th March, when we discussed building materials. My recollection is that the Minister of Health did not see fit to attend that Debate, although it concerned matters touching so very nearly the great task which has been committed to his care. I do not wish to repeat the various argument which I adduced on that occasion, and which are on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but what I would say now is this: Before the war, in the building industry, without the civil engineering industry, there were 1, 000,000 building operatives normally employed. Of those, normally one-third were employed on housing work, one-third on maintenance, and one-third on construction Other than house building. In January of this year,
2944
the returns showed that there were 755,000 building operatives available for work. They have been coming in at the rate of about 15,000 a month since then, and so the total is now about 800,000. As the Government has given, or pretends to give, priority to housing in the matter of construction there is no problem of labour. There is an abundance of labour, provided it can flow freely into the channels in which it can be used.
How about materials? On 25th March I addressed myself in this House to the problem of the brick industry. I do not want to repeat what I said then, except to say that there is no long-term difficulty about the production of bricks. That there is a shortage now is a grave reflection on the lack of prescience on the part of His Majesty's Government. They are choosing to punish, by this revocation of licence, private enterprise building, and, what is much graver and more important, the whole community for their own sins. The right hon. Gentleman imitates the genial practice of other despots of old, who chose to expiate their own offences by ordering a severe flogging for the innocent whipping boy. We now have a repetition of that frame of mind in the action which has prompted his revocation of these building licences.
Mr. Montaģue: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the only thing needed to build houses is bricks?
Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. One of the things required is bricks. One of the things that the present Government have neglected is bricks, and I say that an administration which could not foresee the necessity for bricks is sadly lacking in prescience. Perhaps I may carry even the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) with me when I make that proposition. I sum up that part of the issue by saying that the labour and materials position not only permits but positively invites combined and contemporaneous activity by both the agencies to which I have referred, and in so far as it does not, the fault lies at the door of the Government.
I come to the fourth premise, that local authority building will benefit in proportion as private enterprise building is discouraged. I believe that also to be a false premise. To some extent, I think it has already been refuted in the considerations which I have addressed to the House. The

2945
Minister's contention appears to be that, in so far as there is a shortage, the resources which are denied to private enterprise building will automatically be available for local authority building projects. That is a gross oversimplification of the problem. The local authorities' schemes are, in many cases, not ready, and they have not reached the point at which they can take on the labour and materials which might be released by the revocation of private enterprise building licences. I pray in aid the case of Wokingham, where I understand that 48 building licences were revoked out of 72. Looking at Appendix B to the February Housing Returns, I find that there are only four tenders approved for local authority building in Wokingham. What is to happen to the labour and materials of the other 44? That is the sort of practical question to which the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to direct his attention. He may say that if some particular local authority is not ready to absorb the labour and materials, some other local authority will benefit by the labour and materials.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how that labour is to be transferred. It may have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, in his romantic dreams and tempestuous perorations, that a change has come over the habits of building labour in this country. It is less mobile than it was, and it is less mobile for good reasons. Today, if a building operative cannot get wholetime employment near his home, he prefers parttime or casual employment near his home, or in some cases even a protracted holiday on his accumulated savings, rather than emigrate unwillingly to some other place in order to get only the exiguous increase in his earnings which the high taxation policy on earned incomes of the present Government allows. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get this mobility of labour by voluntary means. He has the right to direct labour under Defence Regulation 58A, but if he does that, then as a corollary he must schedule those works under the Essential Work Order. If he does that, we shall get back to the conditions that existed in wartime and which have been so rightly and so unanimously condemned—conditions of high costs, slow progress, and, naturally, extreme disgruntlement on the part of the building labour involved.
2946
I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman—and if he does not answer it this afternoon, I shall continue to put it on every possible occasion in this House and outside—Does he intend to make use of these powers to direct labour in order to get that mobility? If he does not intend to direct it, how does he propose to do it voluntarily? That is the question to which I hope I shall receive an answer from the right hon. Gentleman. Owing to our being ahead of schedule, I have addressed the House longer than I should otherwise have done. I am hopeful that my general observations will be reinforced, if my hon. Friends are so fortunate as to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, by local illustrations of which there are, of course, a great multiplicity, although we can hope to bring only one or two illustrations to the attention of the House. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is a little less stiffnecked and uncircumcised of heart in his building policy—
Mr. Follick: What does the hon. Member mean by "uncircumcised of heart "?
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry that a quotation from the Scriptures should meet with this curiously unexpected response in the House where, in the great days, quotations from the Scriptures were given on both sides as a normal part of Debate. I am sorry if our standards have gone down. If the Minister of Health does not take a more elastic and practical view of his policy, I do not see how we shall get the houses. To cancel and revoke building licences for private enterprise is a negative thing; of itself it yields nothing, except to minimise the production of houses. If the right hon. Gentleman continues that way, he will find that confidence, progress, houses are lost—all is lost save office; and, after a bit, that will be lost, too.
2.47 p.m.
Mr. Sparks: I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in the action he has taken in revoking a number of licences for private building in certain selected local authority areas. I think it absolutely essential that he should have taken such action. The position obtaining in many of these areas is that they are local authority areas where land is available for housing development and in most cases, although not in all cases,

2947
they are controlled by a Conservative majority. Many of these local authorities are refusing to exercise the housing powers which are placed at their disposal. Not only are they refusing to exercise their own housing powers, but they are preventing other local authorities, which have to go outside their boundaries to develop housing schemes, from acquiring land in their areas. The policy they are following is very largely a dog-in-the-manger policy. They refuse to exercise their own housing powers, they refuse to allow another local authority to come into the area and develop housing schemes; they are simply holding the ring for private enterprise to utilise the land to build houses for sale.
I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) that there is a great demand for owner occupancy. I do not believe that the bulk of the people who are in need of homes desire first and foremost the ownership of a house. What they desire is accommodation for themselves and their families, and nine people out of ten would prefer to become the tenant of a decent house in a decent locality. I have had experience of this problem in my own area. During my 14 years' membership of the Acton Borough Council, I have served for 13 years on a Conservative controlled local authority. My experience—and it is the fairly general experience wherever the Conservative Party controls local authorities is that on matters of policy and principle they do not agree with the local authority exercising powers to develop housing schemes and to provide houses to let, but they centre their policy mainly on the principle that houses should be built by private enterprise for sale.
In the borough in which I live there was a time before the war when, if anybody wanted to live there, they could not get a house to let, although there was land there at the time. They had to buy a house at an inflated price. Many cases have been brought to my notice in which families have been persuaded to hang around their necks a burden of debt for 20 years, buying houses, incurring heavy mortgage costs, and denying themselves food, clothing and a decent standard of life in order to provide the mortgage charges on the houses which they were supposed to own. It is all very well to tell people to run into debt for 20 years to buy a house. Many such people
2948
have had to come out of the houses after a few years because they have not been able to maintain their mortgage payments and they have lost their deposits, together with practically all they had. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend sees that danger. We do not want a repetition of that situation. I appreciate the difficulties with which he is confronted at the present time. In many cases he has had to face local authorities, controlled by the party opposite, refusing to exercise their housing powers and holding the ring for private enterprise and speculators to build houses for sale at inflated prices which, in my view, is not in the best interests of the country or of those who need homes.
The people of our country want to see the maximum number of houses built as quickly as possible. I believe that my right hon. Friend is going about it in the right way. He has had to meet considerable opposition from some local authorities, but in the last few months the composition of many of them has changed. My right hon. Friend will get far more co-operation in the days to come from those authorities than ever he has had in the past. I am satisfied that he is adopting the right policy in seeing that building materials and labour shall he placed at the disposal of local authorities who are anxious to exercise their powers to the full to provide the maximum housing accommodation for the ordinary man and woman desiring a home.
If my right hon. Friend did not pursue the line which he is adopting, but acceded to the wishes of hon. Members opposite and merely continued the old Conservative policy of building houses by private enterprise for sale, he would not touch the fringe of the housing problem. People who prefer to buy a house and take a mortgage are only a fringe of the population now badly in need of housing accommodation. Average working class people do not want that type of house. They want a house of which they can become tenants at a rent that is reasonable. The local authorities are the only authorities in a position to provide houses of that type. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that on this side of the House we think his policy is good and wise. We want to see local authorities have the maximum of power at their disposal to get ahead with building the maximum number of houses for

2949
average families, who want houses to let at a decent rent in decent localities, and not houses to buy on a 20-year mortgage, which would deprive many of them of the fuller and better life to which they are entitled. At the end of 20 years such houses have usually been worth nothing near what they paid for them. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but it is a fact that quite a number of jerrybuilt houses, especially in the West London area, have developed cracks and serious defects in the structure after the first ten years.
Those of us who have served on local authorities are aware that many families are not able to maintain their mortgage payments and have had to get out of their houses. The houses have been put up for sale over their heads. There has always been a great difference in the price. It has always been estimated that a house automatically depreciated by at least 10 per cent. immediately it was sold, and more often by 15 per cent. That was regarded as the builders' normal margin of profit. It is in the best interests of our people that they should not be forced to take on these burdens of mortgage payment which they cannot afford but should have the opportunity of the tenancy of a decent house at a reasonable rent, which can be provided only by local authorities exercising their housing powers to the maximum. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see that local authorities exercise their powers.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is fair when he says that for every four houses built by local authorities one should be built by private enterprise for sale. That is a very reasonable proposition and the ratio is good. I do not believe that more than one person out of five would prefer to buy a home than to rent one. My right hon. Friend is on absolutely right lines and I hope that he will stick to them and will take care that local authorities exercise their housing powers to the widest possible extent to provide homes for the people who need them.
2.58 p.m.
Briģadier Low: I do not intend to follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). The hon. Member started upon a general attack, based on one particular
2950
case, upon the local authorities. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister of Health associates himself with that attack, particularly upon the Conservative local authorities. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is ruled by a Conservative local authority. It did not change its composition in the recent election. It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister expects to receive the co-operation of that local authority or whether he will associate himself with the allegations which the hon. Member for Acton has just made. In this matter I want to avoid any kind of delay, even the smallest, in building houses in my own constituency. There are 4,000 families who have applied in Blackpool for houses, and we are naturally—
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Will the hon. and gallant Member tell me what that figure represents?
Brigadier Low: That is the total, which includes applications to the local authority.
Mr. Bevan: What is the number on the local authority list?
Brigadier Low: I regret that I have not that figure with me at the moment.
Mr. Bevan: Exactly.
Brigadier Low: The implication which the Minister of Health is trying to suggest does not affect my argument for one moment. Perhaps he will let me continue. In the Minister's circular of 6th March—I hope the House will remember that date—he made two particular points. The first was to wish that everybody would hurry on with building. The second was about the terms of the licences. He said that the proper proportion between licences for private builders and for the local authorities' housing programme would vary with local conditions. Then on 2nd April—I hope the House will remember that date, too—he comes along with a cancellation of that permission. No revocation of licences in this case; just cancellation of the permission.
I want to know, and a great many other hon. Gentlemen want to know, what inquiries he made between the time when he thought fit to issue his circular on 3rd March and 2nd April when he cancelled the permission for licences to be

2951
issued. Did he make inquiries to find out what were the needs of the people applying for houses? Has he any idea how many families wish to be owner occupiers? Has he any idea how many of the houses to be built under these licences were to be built for sale or to let? Has he any idea of any arrangements the local authorities may have made, or may have had in mind to make, with the owners of these houses to be built under these licences? Has he made any inquiries to see what would be the effect from the labour manpower point of view of stopping the use of the building labour in the future on houses built under these licences? Has he any idea whether that labour would immediately be available and immediately be wanted for bundling houses under the local authorities' programme? Is he quite certain that there is a definite hold up in the local authorities' programme?
If he has not made these inquiries, and if he really is alleging, as I have no doubt the hon. Member for Acton would like him to allege, that the local authorities of Blackpool are wilfully obstructing his wishes and his programme, then surely he is guilty, to say the least of it, of a form of injustice. He may argue that to be completely just in this case would cause delay, and that delay for making up his own mind on this point would be bad from the point of view of his own programme. What would have been the result? Merely licences going to private builders to proceed with the building of more houses.
I want to make a point on the dates of these two documents to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) referred earlier on. The first, the House will remember, was dated 3rd March. It was therefore after the date of the Housing Return, Appendix B, which is dated 28th February, 1946. If the Minister will consult this document, and if he has also available the number of private licences granted up to 31st March by the Blackpool Corporation, he will find that on 28th February, 349 licences were issued, and on 31st March, 376, an increase in the course of that month of 27. Why should it be that, as a result of 27 extra licences issued over and above the 349, he should have completely altered his mind? It seems extremely difficult to justify that on any rational basis, and one can only fall back
2952
on some kind of assumptions to which my hon. Friend referred. It is indeed difficult for us to understand why a circular should have been issued on 3rd March, bearing apparent signs of sanity, and then the good effect of it completely undone on 2nd April. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions I have put to him, so that perhaps the constituency I represent will understand why the system that their corporation have worked out to do their best to get houses up, which is what the Minister asked them to do, should have been stopped—on what seemed to be purely arbitrary grounds.
3.5 p.m.
Mr. Rees-Williams: When I saw that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) intended raising this subject today, I did not anticipate that we should hear anything new. I believed it would be the old, old story once more, very ably put across, as the hon. Member always puts his arguments across, but still the old, old story. I must admit, however, that I have had a considerable surprise, because he told us today that a number of houses were built before the war at a rateable value of £13 or less. From that, he went on to argue that because they were built at a rateable value of 13 or less, they were built to let. That, in my view, is a non sequitur.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I did not say that. What I said was that some houses were built of a low rateable value and some houses were built to let. I did not say that all the houses built of low rateable value were built to let.
Mr. Rees-Williams: Then I do not really see why the point was made at all. Every one knows that some houses are built at a less rateable value than others. However, even if his argument is that those houses were built to let, it would take a very great amount of argument on the part of the hon. Member, unsupported as yet by facts, to convince me that it was so. For some years before the war I was the Clerk to the Cardiff Assessment Committee and, as hon. Members will know, all new houses within the city and county borough must have their rates agreed to, as it were, by the Assessment Committee, which acts as the judicial body between the ratepayer and the rating authority. In my experience, the average rateable

2953
value at which houses were assessed before the war was £19—that is, the type of house of which the hon. Member was speaking. The subsidy type of house is rated at £19, and I do not believe that between the war years there was any house in the whole of that city and county borough, where the rating assessment was as low as £13. I can only imagine that if there were any assessments in any part of this country at the low rateable value mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, then the rating authority and the Assessment Committee were not doing their jobs because they were not making proper assessments.
The argument of the hon. Member for Hertford in favour of private enterprise is one that is really at the present moment quite out of our consideration. There is no argument whatever between the local authority and the private enterprise builders. What happened in private enterprise building between the wars was that the average builder borrowed the money and built a house Before he could build a second house, he had to sell the first one, or he had to get a further supply of money on the basis of having completed the first one. There was no other way in which he could do it. The average builder could not afford to build houses to let because, in order to build more houses, he had to sell the houses he had already built or had almost completed. That is what happened all over the country. When I first went into the law over 20 years ago I remember my old principal saying to me, "Whatever you do, never have anything to do with lending money to builders. There have been more solicitors ruined, and more solicitors have committed suicide over builders, than over anything else." The hon. Member for Hertford having left the arid slopes of the Temple for the fleshpots of Fleet Street—
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is not correct to say that I have left the Temple for Fleet Street. In point of fact, I do my modest best to combine the two. I would not like the hon. Member to go on record as having said that.
Mr. Rees-Williams: I apologise to the hon. Member. Most of the activities of the hon. Member are now, I think, centred in Fleet Street, but I hope that
2954
more and more we shall see him back in the Temple.
The real case which the Opposition should adduce against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is not private enterprise against local authority building, but national building against local authority building. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would come out with a big scheme of national building, concentrating all building labour and direction in one hand, his own hand. He has not done it in that way—I have no doubt he knows more about it than I do, and his reasons are perfectly good and sound. But this is the only real argument on housing. Shall we do it by a big, national, corporation, concentrating everything in one big centre and able to allot building materials, labour, and finance when required, or through the agency of local authorities? When hon. Members talk about private enterprise coming into the building programme by means of the jobbing builders and I remember their menace to the local solicitor, it really makes me laugh. If they cannot bring up better arguments on which to attack us than this, then we are here for good.
3.7 p.m.
Colonel Wheatley: I wish to support the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and to speak for a body of men who have been greatly disillusioned since the facile promises were made by the Party opposite and who are exasperated by the conditions in which they have to live. I am referring to the ex-Servicemen. The Minister, as in so many cases of planning of which we hear, gives orders without regard to the interests of a great many people. As in many Government arguments, generalities are used by which to cover their actions.
A great many ex-Servicemen are exasperated by the conditions in which they have to live and because they cannot get houses. I speak with great feeling about this. As an Army Welfare Officer for five years, and a member of a local authority for a great many years, I know the conditions in which these people are living. Many of them do not mind how they spend their gratuities so long as they can be provided with a house. They go to a small builder—the class on whom the right hon. Gentleman casts aspersions. I regret that he should cast aspersions on

2955
a very skilled and hardworking class of people who are not all speculators but who include honest men out to do an honest job. Many are quite small builders employing one or two men who have worked for them for years. They have the materials, and are willing and ready to put up houses for ex-Servicemen who want somewhere to live, away from the terrible conditions in which they are at present.
I ask the Minister not to generalise over Orders, counter-orders and disorders, but to try to think of these people and by some means evolve a scheme whereby ex-Servicemen can employ small builders to put up houses for them. They are quite willing to put down gratuities and any savings they may have in order to own their own houses. From my experience I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Actor} (Mr. Sparks), who said he believed there are hardly any people in this country who want to own their own houses. That is entirely news to me and—
Mr. Sparks: On a point of Order. The point I was trying to make was that people, if given the choice, would prefer a house to let, rather than a house to buy, simply because most people have not the money to put down to buy a house. They would have to run into debt and they prefer a house to let rather than do that.
Colonel Wheatley: My impression of Englishmen generally is that they would all like to own their own houses if they could. I point out that there is the saying about the Englishman's home being his castle. That is because he owns his own house. I may be wrong but I have a suspicion that the Minister of Health, if he could get people into houses to let, would like that because he can move them about with more facility than if they were in their own houses. I cannot help feeling, having that suspicion, that there must be something behind the Minister's desire, excluding his own theories and ideas. He must have something in his mind when he is so hard upon anybody who wants to build a house of his own in which to live.
Mr. Paģet: Has the hon. and gallant Member any experience of the security of tenure in fact enjoyed by people who were buying their houses through building societies before the war? The percentage of people who got to own their own house was quite small. A very large number of
2956
those houses were not houses at all by the time the payments had been made. There were a number of big fraud actions involving large estates in which the alleged fraud was that the erections had ever been represented to be houses.
Colonel Wheatley: I have a good deal of experience of this. The hon. Gentleman, like many other hon. Members on his side of the House, is generalising. We all know there have been jerry builders and people who have lost their houses. We all know there were cases where people lost money when they came to sell after the mortgage was paid. There are thousands living in their own houses now who have paid for them, and are proud of them. I make my appeal to the Minister to think of these disillusioned ex-Service men who want to do what they can on their own. They do not want to wait for five or six years, in the meantime living in one room with their families growing up under deplorable conditions. I ask him to remember those men and somehow to think out a plan by which he can help them to attain their desire.
3.18 p.m.
Mr. Bevan: I have spoken on the Motion for the Adjournment already and can speak again only with the permission of the House. The speeches to which we have listened from the opposite side have thrown no new light on this problem. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) speaks on this subject with considerable eloquence, but with an ingenuousness that astonishes me. He does, of course—as indeed hon. Members opposite always do whenever housing is under discussion—pay the Government the greatest of all compliments. They compare the housing record of this Government, after nine months of office at the end of a great war, with their own record after 15 years at the end of the last war. It is a very considerable compliment indeed and I am very grateful for it. An hon. Member stated just now the housing figures between 1924 and 1939—a period 15 years from the end of 42 years of war. I shall be perfectly prepared to face the comparison after four years of this Government, and to be able to show d building record far better than the one they showed at the end of 15 years. The position, surely, is this, and it has not been denied in any part of the House. What we need to do most at the present

2957
time is to provide houses for need. The hon. and gallant Member has made a moving and, I am quite certain, very sincere appeal for ex-Service men unable to find shelter for themselves. Does he believe that it ought to be possible for wealthy ex-Service men to build luxury homes for themselves while needy ex-Service men have no homes at all? Does the hon. and gallant Member believe that?
Colonel Wheatley: I am not talking about the wealthy ex-Serviceman, because he can probably find better accommodation. I am talking about the poorer ones.
Mr. Bevan: Exactly, so I have carried the hon. and gallant Member part of the way with me already—that there ought to be a limitation on the size of the houses, and the cost of the houses to be built. We are agreed so far. I think hon. Members will agree that there are far more ex-Servicemen and other people in this country who cannot afford to buy a house than there are of those who can. Will I carry hon. Members with me on that? I would like to know.
Briģadier Low: It may be so in this country, but it is not necessarily so in each local authority area.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member should postpone his chastisement; I shall reach Blackpool in a minute. I am in full agreement with the House, that there are far more people in the country who cannot afford to buy a house, than there are people who can. I think I should also carry the House with me when I say that there are not enough labour and materials in this country at present, to provide houses for everybody. Therefore, those who can afford to buy a house, ought not to be able to do so before those who cannot afford to buy can have a house to rent.
Commander Galbraith: It is all a matter of need today, and the man with the money may be in even greater need than the man without it.
Mr. Bevan: The question is whether the existence of money is the test of need. I thought we had already agreed in all parts of the House that a man ought not to be able to get a house merely because he can afford to buy it. He
2958
ought to be able to get a house because he needs it. We are agreed on that. As there is a shortage of labour and materials—the hon. Member for Hertford shakes his head. He made a most astonishing ingenuous statement just now—
Mr. Walker-Smith: Since the right hon. Gentleman does me the honour to refer to me, I shook my head because, on the figures I quoted, there is no shortage of labour. There is unemployment in the building industry.
Mr. Bevan: Even if there is no shortage of labour, materials go to the building of a house, and hon. Members have not discovered that fact yet. If there really is no shortage of labour and materials for house building in this country at the moment, only eight months after the end of a war, we must have accomplished a miracle. Everybody knows that there exists, and must exist for some time, a shortage of materials, because, at the end of a war of six and a half years, and while we have been dealing with the problem of repairing bomb damaged houses, when all the pipelines of supply are empty, when factories have to be rebuilt, everybody realises that there must be a limitation of materials. Even if hon. Members do not realise it, the ordinary citizen understands it very well.
Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister not aware that there are numbers of little builders who have got the men and the materials and can build the houses?
Mr. Bevan: I will deal with that in a moment. Let us deal now with the main approach to the problem. Therefore, it is necessary that those persons who can afford to buy houses should not be able to build houses in excess of those who need houses to let. They must be rationed. I should have thought it was a perfectly reasonable proposition that a local authority ought not to allow more than one house in five to be bought, as against four to be let. I should have thought that proposition so reasonable, in fact, that it was much in excess of what hon. Members opposite succeeded in doing at the end of the 1914–18 war. As I reminded the House the other day, I am now providing labour and materials for houses to sell far in excess of what was done at the end of that war. There-

2959
fore, the situation made it necessary—I think there is no doubt about it—to limit the number of houses built to be sold. Hon. Members opposite have not yet committed themselves to the proportions. I should have thought that a proportion of one in five was reasonable in the circumstances; in fact I sometimes take the view that it is too generous in the circumstances Some local authorities—I hope that I am still carrying all the Members of the House with me—have, in fact, exceeded that proportion. Are we to permit local authorities, by their own behaviour, to thwart and frustrate the intentions of Parliament? Exactly, I carry the House with me again.
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Silence is not always consent.
Mr. Bevan: Then I take the opposite conclusion, that hon. Members opposite believe we ought to permit the local authorities to do this. The situation is this: Now I come to Blackpool. The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) referred to the housing situation there but his researches do not seem to have carried him very far. He did not even know how many applications there were on the local authority's list. I doubt if there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who do not know the number of applicants on their local authorities' lists.
Briģadier Low: The local authority's list includes all the applicants. I have referred to my notes since I made my speech, and I find that there are 4,000 applicants on the local authority's list. That is the total number of applicants for houses in the whole of Blackpool.
Mr. Bevan: Many of those applicants would, no doubt, rent houses if they could get them. All they want is shelter. Even those who could afford to buy houses would often take one to rent if they could find one. Let us look at the Blackpool record. The number of houses for which tenders were approved at the end of February was 60. The number of houses under construction, 26. That is the local authority of which the hon. and gallant Member said there would be no change whatever in its composition. That is very much to the distress of the citizens of Blackpool. They issued licences to the number of 349. Only two, of course, have been completed. Com-
2960
pare the record of a small local authority, Rotherham, which has a majority of a different kind. The number of tenders approved in Rotherham was 406; the number of houses under construction at the end of February, 196; the number of licences issued, 38. The conclusion I reach is—
Hon. Members: How many completed?
Mr. Bevan: Eight at the end of February. And in Blackpool, none.
Briģadier Low: The right hon. Gentleman said two, before.
Mr. Bevan: I said the number of houses completed for sale was two. By the local authority, none. [Interruption.] I know hon. Members do not like it, but they must take it. A great, wealthy town like Blackpool has a record not sufficiently—
Sir William Darling: Basically, Blackpool is well housed compared with Rotherham.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman should listen. There are 4,000 poor people in Blackpool—
Sir W. Darling: How many in Rotherham?
Mr. Bevan: A large number. It is poorer than Blackpool. The answer is that if Rotherham had issued more licences to build houses for sale, it would have diverted labour and materials from its own housing programme.
The situation, as we see it, is perfectly clear. I know it varies in different parts of the country. I ask hon. Members to realise some of these facts. A very large number of the licences revoked were licences that were already legally dead. In other words, the condition attaching to the licence is, that unless work is started in two months the licence is automatically dead. A very large number of the licences which I have cancelled by my circular were dead. The circular merely called attention to the fact that more than two months had elapsed and the licences were, therefore, legally invalid. So, the very considerable amount of indignation which has been caused has been caused quite unnecessarily, because these licences were inoperable, anyhow. But what we should not have, is a very large number of licences in excess of the

2961
labour and materials in that particular locality; and, furthermore, what we cannot have is, as has happened in some parts of the country, local authorities neglecting their own housing programmes and diverting labour and materials from neighbouring authorities to build houses for sale. [Interruption.] I cannot give way again. I really must finish.
The situation, therefore, is as I understand it, perfectly clear. Some local authorities, quite foolishly, have cancelled the licences of those who were already building; and this, indeed, has been done by the same local authorities that had already issued an excess of building licences. I have not been able to understand why action of that sort was taken, because there was nothing in the instructions sent out by the Ministry of Health, to give rise to the impression that work on the houses under construction should be stopped Wherever that action has been taken, the position has been examined and the building has been renewed. Where it has not been, as I said in an answer to a Question today, I hope hon. Members will tell me, and I will see that it is.
Something has been said by the hon. Member for Hertford about local authorities as instruments for building. There had been great scepticism about the use of the local authorities as a medium for tackling the housing programme.
Sir W. Darling: Quite rightly.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman talks too early. As the year advances it will be found that the local authority machine, slow to get into action, will, in fact, be building houses on a very great scale. I will tell hon. Members at once, quite frankly, that my main anxiety is that the local authorities should have more housing schemes started and more houses ready to be put up than the nation will be able to find labour and materials for. Indeed, we have already reached that situation. Hon. Members opposite must always realise that, so long as building is carried on in this fashion, there will have to be synchronisation between the number of houses going up and the supply of labour and materials for them. That is the very essence of the matter. Hon. Members opposite have been so accustomed to a neglect of labour and material that they cannot face the opposite situa-
2962
tion. They have not yet got into that state of mind, but we will educate them as Parliament continues. As the year advances, we shall see local building schemes well under way, but I want to point out to hon. Members opposite that they had better make all the Parliamentary sunshine they can now out of this situation because all over the country things are going well, and local authorities are doing the job as we expected them to do it. A national housing corporation would have suffered from administrative indigestion from the very beginning. To have to build houses in 1,469 local authority areas on very many thousands of sites and, in addition to that—
Sir W. Darling: There is a Housing Association in Scotland.
Mr. Bevan: There is a Housing Association in Scotland and there may be one in England just now. If we tried to build houses by a housing association it would be administratively wrong from the beginning. There are far too many sites and far too many schemes and, therefore, a decentralisation of the administration was an essential condition for getting the job done at all.
Hon. Members opposite have been trying to give the impression that the Government are against people owning their own houses. That is entirely untrue. On the contrary, what I have been trying to prevent is people buying their own houses with money provided at extortionate rates of interest by moneylenders. A great deal of the indignation of hon. Members opposite is due to the fact that we have thwarted that development. It will be remembered that, in the Housing Materials Bill, we raised the level at which people could borrow money from £800 to £1,500. Interest rates are falling, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a fall of interest the other day. Therefore, people will be able to borrow money from local authorities at Public Works Loan Board rates of interest of below 3 per cent. Indeed, people are able to borrow money at the present time at a higher value for the houses and at a lower rate of interest than at any time in the history of this country. So far from people being prevented buying their own houses, they have been encouraged to do so. But what we do not want and what we shall try to prevent, is the encouragement of ex-Service-

2963
men to use their precious gratuities, in order to line the pockets of moneylenders.
We said at the Election that we were not going to permit this scarcity market to result in people making vast fortunes out of the necessities of others. That is the policy we propose to continue and I believe, as the housing programme develops, that the principles of it will justify themselves to the people of Great Britain. It is hardly for hon. Members opposite to remind us of our housing needs and of the large number of people in this country who have no shelter over their heads. If they had done their duty in the last 25 years, we would not have hundreds of thousands of people in this country in that situation at the moment. Hon. Members opposite must remember their own miserable record and realise that the main sufferings of our people lie at the door of the most useless party that ever occupied Office.

AMMUNITION DUMPS
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Snadden: With your permission, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to pass from one form of explosion to another. I have no intention of keeping the House long, but I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the danger arising from the continuous presence of vast quantities of ammunition and explosives in many parts of the country, particularly in the counties of Perth and Stirling. As the House knows, on 6th April a devastating explosion took place in my constituency near the village of Doune, when 57,000 sticks of gelignite blew up. I happened to be very near at the time and was practically an eyewitness of this event. When I arrived on the scene, I found six craters, all of them as large as the smokingroom of this honourable House. Many farms were devastated and two villages were severely damaged. There were, admittedly, few deaths, but that was due to the fact that the explosion took place at a point off the public road where very few people happened to be at the time.
I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that Perthshire and the Northern part of Stirlingshire are at present one vast ammunition dump. I am credibly informed that there are 100,000 tons of ammunition and high explosives in that part of the country, that
2964
there are quantities of gelignite, T.N.T., and gunpowder and, in addition, 8,000 tons of gas. It is almost unnecessary to point out that at this time of year the danger of fires is very great. We are approaching the holiday season, and, as the House knows, this part of Scotland contains a very beautiful locality known as the Trossachs—a veritable Mecca of holiday makers. Cycling clubs from cities go there, and often they are in a care-free mood. They are liable to light fires, and violent explosions may take place at any time.
We have also to take into account the fact that in moorland country sparks from trains can cause serious fires. I am informed that last week a very serious moor fire occurred, and was stopped only within feet of 300 tons of ammunition. It is necessary to point out, too, that people in Perthshire and other parts of Scotland feel they are living on the edge of a volcano. During the war, they cheerfully accepted the risks involved, realising that they were particularly fortunate not to have to suffer bombing. But I think that they have now reached the stage where it is unreasonable to ask them to put up with these risks any longer. I think the Minister might relieve their anxiety today by telling us what he intends to do, by telling us when he expects to clear this vast area of ammunition. I imagine that thi; ammunition is stored in from 200 to 300 square miles of land, yet I am informed that there are only 12 military police to patrol the entire area. I happen to live in that part of that country myself, where there are sheds on my own property, and I cannot recall having seen a guard at any time since those sheds were erected.
The Minister may say that there are notices on the roadside, but I believe they are entirely useless because, as I have said, hikers and campers who go to that part of the country do so in care-free mood. I know of a case where the tarpaulin was taken off a shed, and where the campers made tea inside the shed, almost sitting on boxes of ammunition. The only solution is to remove this deadly menace lock, stock and barrel. That is the only thing which will satisfy the people in Perthshire and in other parts of Scotland. This is not a constituency problem; it is one covering vast areas of our country. I ask the Minister to see that the

2965
utmost vigilance is exercised by the military authorities pending the complete removal of this ammunition, and to give the widest publicity to this matter through the B.B.C. so that hikers and campers are fully warned of the danger.
There are other points I could make, but my time is limited, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) wishes to say something. I stress again, however, that a serious situation exists, and that the Government, particularly the War Office, must remove the anxiety which is felt by many people by taking away this dangerous ammunition, particularly the chemical munitions, which is stored on the moors. A little time ago, I asked the Minister if he could tell my why 100 cattle died in a particular part of the country. I am unable to say whether those cattle died as a result of breathing gas stored on a moor near the village of Kippen, in Stirlingshire, but I have good evidence to show that that particular form of chemical is somehow or other finding its way on to the moors in parts of Stirlingshire. I hope the Minister will not put me off by saying that so many tons of ammunition have been removed during the past week or two, or that the guards have been increased. The only solution is the complete removal, from the main trunk roads and other places, of these vast quantities of ammunition.
3.49 P.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to associate myself, with all the earnestness at my command, with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden). I do not wish to suggest that Perthshire is the only part of the United Kingdom which is affected, but it is affected out of all proportion to many other areas. I would like particularly to emphasise that this potential danger is not so much from ammunition and explosives as from chemicals or gas, in whatever form they may be. Leakage is beginning, and may increase as the containers are affected by the weather and other things, and the potential danger of cattle becoming infected on the hoof, and going over pasture lands, opens up a most alarming prospect. I hope the Minister will give some assurance about what is to be done with these deadly things which are lying about the County of Perthshire,
2966
and in other parts of the Kingdom, in such great quantities.
3.50 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): I am sure the House would wish me, on behalf of the War Office and on my own behalf, to say how sorry we are that this accident occurred and how much we sympathise with the constituents of the hon. Member for West Perth and Kinross (Mr. Snadden). I can well understand, as there is a great deal of ammunition in my own constituency, the apprehension that may exist among large numbers of people who live in the vicinity of these ammunition dumps. I understand that one civilian was killed and one injured in the explosion which recently occurred. Any loss of life among civilians, or danger to civilians, is to be regretted. I would like the House to believe that the War Office, which, after all, are only the agents of the Ministry of Supply in disposing of surplus ammunition, are doing their best, as quickly as they can, to remove whatever danger exists to human beings and to cattle.
The House may be interested to know that, long before the war ended, in 1944, plans were evolved at the War Office to deal with the possible dangers which we foresaw at that time. We have been clearing immense amounts with the limited facilities which we have at our disposal. One of the governing factors is the safety of those who are dealing with the removal of this ammunition. On the Continent, where a great deal of disposal of ammunition dumps has been going on, there has, unfortunately, been very serious loss of life. These operations have resulted in something like 700 deaths, and much material damage to railways and docks. The War Office must take into account the safety of the soldiers who are given the job of clearing the ammunition. In this respect we are fortunate in this country in that, so far, there has been very little loss of life in clearing ammunition by our own troops. The largest safety factor is the dispersal of ammunition. The accidents that have occurred have been confined in nearly all instances to the initial stack or group of stacks. We have a limited supply of manpower. Some of the ammunition has to be taken to the sea and dumped there. The Army is running down. Some of the personnel

2967
who have to deal with these things have to be skilled personnel. We have not always had the numbers necessary for clearing these dumps, but we are making great inroads into them. It may interest the hon. Member to know that not ail of these stocks are as dangerous as he led the House to believe. Actually, 70 per cent. of the ammunition stored in any one depôt in this country is not dangerous, for various reasons. Some of it has been made non-dangerous. Indeed, in some cases it would not matter if civilians sat on the ammunition, as I have done in the past, when I was in the Royal Artillery. Nothing would happen.
Mr. Snadden: Surely, the Financial Secretary is not suggesting that civilian, should sit on some of this ammunition?
Mr. Bellenģer: I am referring to 70 per cent. of it. What I am trying to do is to rebut the suggestion in the hon. Member's speech that there are stocks of ammunition all over this country which are of great danger to those who live in the vicinity of the dumps. It would have a very unfortunate effect on the minds of civilians if it were allowed to go forth that, wherever there are dumps, they are extremely dangerous. Seventy per cent. of the stock in any one depot is not dangerous. Of course, it is not with the 70 per cent. that we are mainly concerned. We are concerned with the 30 per cent. that is dangerous. Possibly the areas which should be given priority are those which are most densely populated. Although we are doing our best in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, the fact remains that we have had to give priority to certain areas like Surrey. Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, which are much more closely populated. We are clearing these areas a little more quickly than other areas where there is a bigger expanse of land, because of reasons which I have just given.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what we hoped to do in the future. We expect to dispose of 400,000 tons in 1946. I am told that 900,000 tons of ammunition are stored in sub-depots all over the country. Only approximately 65,000 tons of it is of what we regard as a dangerous nature. The hon. Member will realise that we have to tackle the very dangerous substances first of all. A certain proportion of those supplies will be taken into stock for our reserve. It
2968
will be put under cry close guard. Some of it is under guard, as far as we can possibly supply guards for it. I regret to say that we cannot possibly find all the guards that we require. Therefore, we do the next best thing, namely, exhibit notices where ammunition is stored, warning the public of the danger of being too careless or negligent. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the B.B.C. should broadcast a warning, I must say that that is not entirely within my province. It is a very good suggestion, and I will see that it is brought to the attention of the appropriate quarters.
Commander Galbraith: I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that he has had information showing that there arc only 12 guards in the whole of an area of 300 square miles. During the ensuing months, when hikers and campers may be all over that territory every weekend, surely there should be more guards on duty?
Mr. Bellenģer: It does not follow that we should guard the whole of such a wide area very closely and it would be impossible to do so if we are to carry out our demobilisation plan without deferring the release of troops in order to keep them to guard those areas as closely as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is not necessary to guard all those areas in such a detailed way, because, as I have said, 70 per cent. of the ammunition in each area is not dangerous. Three of the five central ammunition depots have fenced perimeters. We are trying, with the limited amount of manpower at our disposal, to have cyclist patrols, who are supposed to be constantly patrolling their area to keep the public as far away as possible.
All I can say, in conclusion, is that I have every sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman. There are ammunition dumps in my own constituency, some of them in very beautiful country. Often, as I motor through, I feel a little perturbation lest some spark from the car might set it off, but really there is no need to feel it, because the ammunition is not all as dangerous as that. We are doing our best. Within the next year this danger will be considerably diminished. I hope that we

2969
shall have no more explosions such as occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. After what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the general public will be reassured that the War Office are doing all they can to clear these dumps away as quickly as possible.
Mr. Snadden: May I ask one question before the hon. Gentleman finishes, because I think it is important for the people in my part of the country? Can he say whether 70 per cent. of the ammunition in the County of Perth is not dangerous? Does the figure he gave apply to that area? Can he also deny, or otherwise, the statement that ammunition is to be left in that area until the year 1949?
Mr. Bellenģer: No, Sir, we hope to deal with it before 1949, but I am not able without notice to say how much of the total stores of ammunition in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is dangerous. All I do know is that he mentioned a figure of 100,000 tons in his constituency, and I told him that there was a total of approximately 900,000 tons of ammunition in the country, of which 65,000 tons is of a dangerous nature; it therefore follows that all the ammunition in his constituency cannot be of a dangerous nature.
Mr. James Stuart: Would the right hon. Gentleman con-cider, in particular, dealing with dangerous ammunition which is stored on heath land, of which much of my hon. Friend's area is composed, because I believe that the fire risk is so much greater there at this time of the year than in other parts?
Mr. Bellenģer: I will certainly have that particular area closely looked into. As a matter of fact, I should imagine that, in view of the recent accident, the authorities at the War Office have gone into the matter very carefully, but I will give it my particular attention.

UNEMPLOYED EX-SERVICEMEN
4.2 p.m.
Air-Commodore Harvey: We were informed yesterday that time would be given after the Easter Recess to discuss the problem of unemployed ex-Servicemen. I am today raising the subject, and I do not apologise for doing so, because I feel that dealing with this important subject would not be out of
2970
place and that it would enable the Minister to reply in greater detail when he deals with the problem after Easter. My remarks, so far as officers are concerned, apply equally to the men in the ranks who are unemployed. I am most alarmed at the number of unemployed ex-Servicemen who have fought in both wars, that is, men who have reached the age of 47, 48 and anything up to 60 years of age. In my opinion, those are the most difficult cases of all to place in employment. A great number of these ex-officers have been promoted from the ranks, so there is no question of trying to do more for the officers than the men from the ranks. They should he considered on the same basis, and everything possible should be done for both of them.
I appreciate that during the last 25 years all jobs and appointments have become more specialised in industry. I think that is generally recognised, whether it is engineering, printing or whatever it may be. The individual must have a greater knowledge of his particular job than he did before, and this does not make it any easier to place the individual concerned. These men who fought in both wars have given something like 12 or 13 years of their lives to the State. They receive small gratuities—I say small—particularly after this war. It is not really enough to reinstate them in business after six and a half years of war. That is a very long time for them to give to the State, and then they find themselves without a pension and have to start life again at, say, the age of 50. After the last war—admittedly it was a shorter war—they came out from 1919 onwards and it took them one or two years or even more before they were settled into what might be a fairly secure job. I fully appreciate that the Government have difficulties in this matter. Everything these days is difficult—anything I say, I hope, will be constructive— and it is particularly difficult during the transition period from war to peace in industry, but there is no doubt in my opinion that further efforts are necessary to try and absorb these men into industry and, I might say, into Government Departments.
With regard to the Appointments Board, I am far from satisfied generally with the efficiency of the regional boards. Generally speaking, they are courteous and well laid out, but they need more

2971
imagination. They need men to go out to industry and sell these people into the jobs. I visited the Appointments Board in Tavistock Square the other day as an employer, asking to be given some names of men to till an appointment worth £600 and £700 a year. Needless to say I was received with open arms. I have since received a postcard from the Appointments Board which begins like this:
" It is desired to acknowledge receipt of your order for personnel."
What are we dealing with? If the Appointments Board tackle the problem on this basis, they are beginning wrongly—
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me for interrupting? Has he not since received a communication offering three men?
Air-Commodore Harvey: That is quite right. I have received a communication since, but I think the postcard could be better worded. It is a small point, I agree, but I put it forward as a suggestion.
My impression was that the Appointments Board was snowed under with work, though the gentleman in charge assured me that he was getting all the staff he wanted. I must say that he showed me everything I wanted to see and the visit lasted one and a half hours. When eventually I said that I was a Member of Parliament, then I was rushed upstairs. There was a strike of the lift workers that day and I had to walk up seven or eight floors, but he had to walk up after he had shown me round. It is the regional boards, however, that I am mainly discussing this afternoon.
I would like to refer to the Question which I addressed to the Minister on 19th March, when I asked him how many ex-Service officers were unemployed. He gave me the figure of 10,023 as being registered, and said that many of these ex-officers were asking for salaries of £1,500 a year. Unfortunately, that reply received great publicity throughout the national Press and it created a very bad impression among employers because they thought, "Well, this is just what I suspected—ex-officers asking for the moon." It probably put quite a number oft going to the Appoint-
2972
ments Board and asking for names. When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on 4th April how many had asked for £1,500 a year, I was told that 30 had asked for £1,500 and 241 had asked for £1,000 a year. I submit that those figures are really very small indeed, and most modest, because I should say that some of those men, at least, are worth more than £1,500 a year. I agree that they may probably have to start at a lower figure and work upwards, but, out of 10,023, 30 is a very small percentage. I was most disappointed with that reply, and I do not think that questions of that nature, which affect such a large number of officers, should be brushed aside with such an evasive reply, if I may say so with respect.
I have received a lot of correspondence from all over the country from these men who are in desperate plight, and the average salary asked for works out at about £400 a year, which I think is reasonable, because, after all, if you are working with your hands, with a little overtime it is not difficult to make £8 a week. I was told that there was one job going at the Appointments Board at £2,000 a year. There may be others coming along if we can get the Appointments Board to "sell" these men, the good men, and those who are not so good into less paid jobs.
Without wearying the House, I would like to quote a few cases where I think there is great hardship, and which show inefficiency on the part of the Appointments Board. One officer left the Royal Air Force in October, 1945. He registered with the Appointments Board and has not heard one word since. An ex-technical officer, late Royal Air Force, with 25 years' experience, applied to the Appointments Board, who did nothing for 14 months. He then wrote to the Ministry of Labour, was given an interview by the Appointments Board, and was told that as all his experience was practical, nothing could be done for him. In July, 1945, B.A.O.C., when they saw him, said they wanted a younger man. Here is a Government organisation with the offer of an engineering officer aged 50 who could quite well have taken on maintenance of aircraft at a base at home, or in a temperate climate overseas.
Another man, an ex-naval officer, unfortunately "axed" in 1922, took on a

2973
job as a garage mechanic at £1 a week. He served again in this war and was invalided out with tuberculosis in 1944. He cannot get a job, and did not even get a suit of clothes. That was before the date when civilian clothes were issued. Another man is a London exporter of rare books. He had a job open worth £400 a year and wrote to the Appointments Board who sent four men to him. One man was a water engineer. That shows that the matter had not been carefully considered by the Appointments Board who sent along a water engineer to deal with rare books. This employer went on to say that the Board were very amiable and polite, but that there were dozens of ladies running backwards and forwards with cups of tea. That is what he said. I did not myself see that. Although I was offered a cup of tea, I did not see them being taken round. The bookseller eventually advertised in "The Times" and had 60 replies, and is now fixed up.
The Government themselves should engage men in the Appointments Department who have had experience in industry. I do not think it is any good taking on a Regular officer who has had no experience in business at all, to sell jobs to business men. It may be that a few Regular officers would lose their jobs if this suggestion were put into effect, but I think that in the long run more jobs would be found for others. The employers have helped, but have not helped enough. If these men had failed to serve in this last war—most of them joined up right at the beginning of the war or before the war started— there might have been no industry left at all.
I think the Government ought to consider, when allocating contracts for materials or goods, the number of ex-Servicemen over a certain age who are employed by the firm concerned. After the last war, we had what was known as the King's Roll by which firms were called upon to engage 4 per cent. disabled men. Could we not have something similar for men who served in both wars, with a smaller percentage, of course? It would help to absorb some of the men. So much for the employers. The Government in turn must also help. Many of these men wanted to continue in the fighting Services, and I believe that if their cases had been given greater consideration many could have served for at least five
2974
or seven years and so completed 20 years in all, and then be given a small pension. Many could be absorbed into the Allied Control Commission. I know that a great number of officers who have been given jobs in Germany and Austria at very high salaries were in receipt of really good pensions. It may be argued that these men are most suitable for the job. I am prepared to believe that some of the 10,000 odd are suitable for some of these jobs. But a number of them are employed straight from the Army and Air Force and get the jobs because they are on the spot. I know that is so, and it is putting others serving overseas and in remote parts of this country, at a great disadvantage.
Likewise, the Government Departments should open up the ranks to take in more men by raising the age limit so that they can be used, particularly in clerical Departments. Many of these men have no specialised knowledge and that is perhaps the only job they could fit into. That is my suggestion in that direction. I have been told that there are jobs available as port fishery captains. Ex-naval officers would be very suitable for a job such as that but the upper age limit is 40. That limit could quite well be 55. A retired naval officer could do the job just as well as a younger man. The unfortunate thing is that these figures are increasing weekly. There are thousands of men who have not actually registered with the Appointments Board. As a result of my small interest in this matter, I have been able to fix up three or four men with a job because employers have written to me asking for names. If that could happen in a small way to me, surely the Government with all the resources they have at their disposal, could really tackle this job and put some imagination into it? In many of my letters I am told that the ex-officers are selling their wedding presents and furniture. They are absolutely destitute. These men must be given a real "break." I ask the Minister to consider setting up a Committee and calling for assistance in all directions. I am sure if the Government tackle this job as it should be tackled most of these men could be found jobs at the present time.
4.17 p.m.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Isaacs): First I would like to say to the hon. and gallant Member that there was not the slightest need for him to apologise for bringing this matter forward.

2975
He has served a very useful purpose. I thank him not only for the information he has given but also for the manner in which he has put that information forward. I will not go into detail at the moment with regard to several of the things to which he referred—Government service, commissions of inquiry and things of that sort—but they will be carefully noted, because I assure him and the House that we are very anxious about this situation. After the last war I was connected in an informal way with an association in London for the placing of ex-Army officers in jobs. I know what a heartbreaking job it was. I know how some of these men suffered. I, personally, am very anxious now that he country should do everything within its power to assist these men to get resettled after the service they have given to the country. As I hope to point out in a moment, this aid is not all within our power. We have got the men; what we want is to find jobs for them.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to further efforts being necessary to sell our service to employers. He mentioned in that connection that we should have people experienced in industry to go out to employers. Not long ago we had complaints in the House that we were not having these men contacted by ex-Servicemen. For that reason, we got ex-Servicemen into our offices feeling that a man fresh from the Service—
Air-Commodore Harvey: I think the Minister misunderstood me. I meant, not regular officers who have done nothing but Army and military service, but men who have served in the war, and who have had business experience between the two wars.
Mr. Isaacs: Of course, most of these people, except those who are ex-regular Army officers, have in fact had experience. The point is a good one. Our main point is to induce employers to come to this service and to take the men we have got. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself mentioned two or three inquiries about some men he was interested in, and for whom he got jobs. Well, the jobs were there. As a result of all the contacts I have had with employers in this matter, having gone round the country and visited our regional offices, I have not heard of any complaints from
2976
employers to any extent such as the one mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member. Obviously, there is here and there a "slip up." In the case that was mentioned, it was said that a firm wanted someone to handle rare books, and that a water engineer was sent. I would presume, on that basis, that there was nobody on the register who had any knowledge of rare books, and the idea of the service is to get the employers to try out somebody else. It was perhaps thought that this man might have the necessary background and qualifications and might be, useful. We do not know what "water engineer" means. He may have been a man who had been engaged in mending the mains in the street, or he may have been in the hydraulic station, but we are not going to quarrel about that. I shall be happy to cooperate with any hon. Member in this House in order to "push across" this service.
The hon. Gentlemen mentioned postcards. I got into trouble in this House a few weeks ago about "personnel ". I shall have a look at these postcards, because obviously we do want them to look human. We do not want to send out communications to indicate that we are handling this human material as we would pieces of wood or buckets of water. There are one or two facts and figures which I would like to give to the House, but, first, I join with the hon. Gentleman opposite in saying to employers, "Please do not drag up this old bogy of too old at 45, because it just will not do." There are men at 45, men in the Services and, in some instances, men who, like myself, hope they are doing all right in their new service, although considerably over 45. I am sure that employers will find that many of these men, though they may not be so quick on the uptake in their new business undertaking, are men who, because they are of middle age and want to settle down, are steady men who, having got a job, will appreciate it I appeal to employers to give these men a chance, because they have to live, and men of that age were found very useful in many ways during the war and will be very useful in industry.
I hope the House will not run away with the idea that this Appointments Service of ours, which is mainly under examination at the moment, is merely concerned with ex-officers. It relates to ex-

2977
Servicemen, and, therefore, other ranks, and to civilians, but at the moment, its main problem is, and will continue to be, that of the ex-officer. Unemployed ex-officers represent only a quarter of the registrations at offices of the Appointments Department. On 8th April the live Register was 42,491, which included 20,871 persons who are in employment A great number of them who register with us are in employment, hoping to find a better job with better pay and prospects. Like wise men, they are not throwing away the dirty water until they see some clean water coming in its place. Of that total, 21,620 were unemployed; and, of that figure, 9,690 were ex-officers, 3,333 were ex-other ranks and 8,597 were civilians. Therefore, the register of unemployed persons does not consist entirely of ex-officers or ex-Servicemen. Unemployment of ex-officers registered at Appointments Offices and on the Technical and Scientific Register has decreased steadily each month since January. On 14th January, the figure was 10,860, on 11th February, 10,497, on 11th March, 10,023, and on 8th April, 9,690.
It has to be remembered that officers are being released at the rate of 20,000 a month from the Forces and they register with us at the rate of 4,000 a month. Every now and then there is a sudden rush of registrations, which for the moment, inflates the register. On 14th January, there were 3,381; on 11th February, 4,518; on 11th March, 5,402; and on 8th April, 6,635 employed ex-officers registered at appointments offices. Up to 31st March, 1946, over 190,000 officers had been released from the three fighting Services. From 1st May, 1945, to 8th April, 1946, the number of ex-officers who had registered as unemployed with the Appointments Department rose to nearly 9,000, excluding about 800 ex-Merchant Navy officers. These figures show that about 5 per cent. of the demobilised officers are registered as unemployed. That is not a high figure as a percentage, but taken as persons out of work it is a considerable figure.
Air-Commodore Harvey: What about the number who are not registered?
Mr. Isaacs: As to that, we have no information. We would like to register them, but publicity for the men to come
2978
and register is one thing, and publicity to get employers to come with offers of jobs is another. Publicity with regard to employers is a matter to which I would like to pay special attention as soon as possible. Out of 9,103 ex-officers who were registered as unemployed on 8th April at the Appointments offices, the age distribution was as follows: Over 55, 584; 45 to 55, 1,758; under 45, 6,761. I am not quite sure whether I am on thin ice, but I think that consideration might be given to the possibility of retaining some of these ex-officers, between the ages of 45 and 55, without the "ex-," a little longer as Service officers and letting them go on for pension. I took advantage of the opportunity, when visiting a very famous military educational establishment, not so very long ago, to talk to some of the younger officers taking their staff course, about this idea, and —perhaps not surprisingly—they were rather reluctant to think that these old fellows were going to be in the way of their promotion. We have always to consider the other side of the question.
At present, we are placing ex-officers at the rate of 500 a month. That is not bad, but it is not good enough, and I should like to be able to place double that number. The only way to do that is to get employers to come to us and give us an opportunity to place these men. I have spent many years of my life grumbling about employers, when acting as a trade union official, but I have found on this occasion, a most ready willingness on the part of employers to give these men a trial. Many of them say that they have not a job immediately, but that they might have one in six months' time: "Send the man along, and let us have a look at him." A great problem is that a number of these men, especially the younger men, were employed in the commercial side of business, on the road as travellers, salesmen and the like, and while every effort is being made to get the wheels of industry and commerce turning again, until we can get adequate supplies of goods coming out of the factories and into the shops, there will not be many opportunities for them. In the meantime, we have a special business training scheme, so that young men who have no actual knowledge of inside business, managerial work, and so forth, may have an opportunity of receiv-

2979
ing training. That has started well, and some 700 applicants will begin this month to train for executive positions in commerce and industry.
I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised this matter, that we are not sitting still. We do not mind being prodded, because it will make us feel that we are making headway, even if other people think that we are not. Here is a service for those who have rendered service to the nation, and any Government which passes an Act of Parliament enabling things to be done for the people requires to see that it is implemented. I appreciate the manner and method in which the hon. Gentleman has brought this subject forward, and I promise that everything he has said will have consideration. We shall be very glad indeed to discuss it and to see if we can do anything about it. I do make my appeal to the employers to make a good deal of use of this service and to give it a trial. Then if they want to go somewhere else they can, but I do ask them to give it a trial.
Finally, I would say that I am glad the hon. Gentleman did not find people running all over the shop with cups of tea, when he paid his visit. I am glad to hear he was received with courtesy, because we do impress on our staff the importance of that, both as regards the men and the employers. We have improved our offices. They are rather different from the old labour exchange offices which were like public house bars. We have sought to make the men coming into them feel welcome. They can be interviewed in privacy. The people who do the interviewing are ex-Service men, who served, if not in the last war, then in the previous one. We want the men to feel that a helping hand is being extended to them and that we want to assist them. After full investigation, personally, in many districts I feel that the Ministry of Labour, in the regions, is served by a most loyal and devoted staff, by men who really try to do their job. They do "slip up" now and again. There are black sheep in every organisation. But I can assure the House that the purpose of the Ministry of Labour, acting for the Government, is to make these men welcome. I hope that all concerned will use this service and try to make it a success.
Colonel J. R. H Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman invited suggestions. Will he consider with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there might not be some sliding scale of taxation to induce employers to use this service? Will he consider the possibility of introducing taxation, in such a form that it penalises employers if they do not take the proper percentage of ex-Servicemen through this service, and so that they may have a remission of tax if they take more than the appropriate percentage?
Mr. Isaacs: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have a lot of problems of my own. Do not add to them one which really belongs to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVIL SERVICE (PENSIONS)
4.33 P.m.
General Sir Georģe Jeffreys: I desire to call attention to the position under the Pensions Increase Act, 1944, with special reference to the pensions of the Armed Forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will deal with the comparable, though not identical, case of civil servants and other civil pensioners. There are two schemes under the Act. The first, under Section one, grants an increase in the lower range of pensions which is not inconsiderable, and with that particular Section I do not intend to deal at all. It is as to the second scheme under Section two that I wish particularly to say a few words.
This Section two is applicable only to officers and not to other ranks and it provides—on pensions not exceeding £400 a year an increase of 10 per cent.; on pensions between £400 and £600 an increase of 7½ per cent.; and on pensions between £600 and £645 enough to bring the total up to £645. On pensions over £645 there is no increase whatever. In the case of officers who retired under the Royal Warrant of 1919 and corresponding instruments these increases are considered inadequate and, indeed, they are thought to amount to a breach of faith on the part of the Government, certainly by the officers affected, for reasons I will now outline. In 1919 new rates of retired pay were laid down. I will refer to these, if I may, as the basic rates of 1919. The Royal Warrant provided, and I quote:

2981
" The rates will be subject after five years to revision either upwards or downwards according as the cost of living rises or falls. After 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years."
What happened was that after a brief rise in the cost of living in the period from 1919 to 1922—a rise which was not taken into account because the period was less than five years—the cost of living fell steadily, and with it fall retired pay was reduced until, in 1923, it had been reduced to 11 per cent, below the basic rates. In 1934 there was a slight rise in the cost of living figure, and the reduction became only 10 per cent. Then the Government decided to consolidate and stabilise the rates of retired pay, and in 1935 this stabilisation was carried out at 9½ per cent, below the basic rates of 1919.
The position, therefore, is that on pensions below £400, the full amount was restored, on pensions between £400 and £650, 7½ per cent. out of the 9½ per cent. was restored, and on all pensions over £645 nothing at all was restored. I submit that, in fairness, the whole 9½ per cent. and the whole of the reduction in retired pay should be restored. The claim is not for additional retired pay, but for the restoration of reductions made. It is not to be wondered at that this action of the Treasury—this stabilisation in disregard of all that was laid down in 1919 —should be regarded as a breach of faith by those affected. I can assure the House that it is so regarded, and that the feeling exists very widely. Such a feeling does the Treasury no good. The increase in retired pay announced in the recent White Paper accentuates the grievances of those old officers who retired under the terms of 1919. If those terms, involving rises as well as falls according to the cost of living, had been carried out, the middle rates of retired pay, that is to say, of those about the rank of commander in the Royal Navy or of lieut.-colonel in the Army, would have approximated to those laid down in the latest White Paper.
I will now say a word as to the cost of such a restoration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a former Government stated that the cost would amount to, approximately, £850,000 a year. Surely, that is a small sum compared with our immense present day expenditure? It is an amount which I think we can well afford. Let it not be thought that this
2982
matter only affects old soldiers and sailors. Serving and prospective officers, some of whom the Minister of Labour said just now he had been interviewing and who had some doubts about their future, are watching and wondering, in view of the treatment of their predecessors, what their treatment is likely to be and what the value of present day promises in the White Paper is likely to be when their turn comes to leave the Service. In view of the very short time available, I will say no more now, but I hope that this matter may be further considered and that the restoration of the basic rates may be carried out in the not far distant future.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. W. J. Brown: It is now 22 minutes to five on the last day of a long Parliamentary sitting which has extended from 22nd January until today. Today, twenty minutes before we adjourn for the Easter Recess, we have, for the first time, found an opportunity of dealing with about 750,000 retired State pensioners. When we come to deal with them, we are allocated half an hour. We have had time enough this Session to cast the steel industry into confusion, we have had time to listen to Ministers talking on subjects which they do not understand, but it is only in the last 22 minutes of a long sitting that we have any time to deal with the 750,000 retired servants of the State who have had an exceedingly raw deal at the hands of the State.
I am not going to attempt, in the seven minutes which is the maximum I can have, if I am to allow the Government to reply, to add to the case which has been stated. But I will do one thing today. I will make my protest against the way these men have been treated, and against the conduct of successive Governments in this connection. I will be precise. I protest at the meanness shown by Governments up to 1935 on this subject and at their giving the least they could by way of compensation for the increased cost of living to the retired State pensioners. I protest against their meanness in consolidating the increase in pensions at a time when the cost of living had fallen to its lowest point. I protest against their conduct from 1935 until 1944, when the cost of living was rising, in denying a single penny of relief to these 750,000 people. I protest that in 1944, when, after two years of agitation

2983
in this House I obliged them to do something, they did the meanest, miserablest least they could in the circumstances of that time. I swore that I would compel them to do something when I came back to this House. I protest that in 1945, when they were asked to produce a new and better Bill, they "diddled" us with the use of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act to carry on the existing inadequate pensions. I protest against the fact that they dishonoured the pledge they made when the Expiring Laws Continuance Act was brought before this House. When that Act was before the House, I raised this very point and I received from the hon. Gentleman opposite, whose word is worthless—it is time we had some plain speaking in this House, and I do not care what he replies today because I shall not believe a word of it until it is implemented—
Mr. House: Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to allege that a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary is worthless?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman is not out of Order, but whether such expressions are advisable is another matter. It is a question of taste.
Mr. Brown: I make no apology. I say that the promise the hon. Gentleman made last November has been proved to be worthless. He promised the House of Commons that he would not wait for the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of last November to expire next November before this matter was reviewed. He promised that it would be gone into as soon as possible. He recognised that there were anomalies in the 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act, and promised that he would consider them as soon as possible. Yet when I asked the Government, as I did a few weeks ago, what they intended to do, I got the reply that there was no prospect of any legislation on this subject this Session. What does that mean but that the assurance which the hon. Gentleman gave last November was utterly worthless from the point of view of these 750,000 people?
I do not want to attempt to add to the case which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I want to denounce the Government for their mean, callous, cruel, indifferent, treatment of 750,000
2984
old servants of the State. I tell the Government that the effect of their ill-treatment is that the word of the Government counts for nothing in the world of the public service today. I say that one of the Achilles' heels of this Government this contemptuous Government—contemptuous of Parliament, and of its obligations to its servants—will prove to be the public service of this country. I warn them that we are tired of them, that we do not believe a word they say to us. We regard them as very much in the category of cardsharpers. That is strong language, but it is about time the House of Commons heard some plain language when we are dealing with people who do not understand anything but plain language.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member's language is in bad taste, though not out of Order. In my opinion the words used are undesirable.
Mr. Brown: I am merely telling the Financial Secretary what people are saying outside this place. There was a time when Governments would have been sacked for less unworthy conduct than they have exhibited towards the poor people for whom I am pleading today. One of the things I will do, by the grace of God, if this kind of conduct continues, is to denounce the Government in appropriate terms, and leave them to do what they like. Something a little stronger than myself is what is needed to deal with this kind of set-up. There is a fellow whose statue appears outside, whom we might invoke in this connection. Unless the Government honour their pledge of last November, nothing will be done for these people until next November, and then, for all I know, all that will be done will be to extend the existing Act. Since the Expiring Laws Continuance Act was passed, the Government have been compelled to give more money to serving civil servants, serving soldiers, serving teachers and the like. They were compelled to do that Why? Because if they had not, there would have been a walk out. But these old men are helpless. They cannot walk out, because their period of service has come to an end. So the Government sit back and do nothing on their behalf.
What a spectacle. Apparently we have reached the stage when this Labour Government, from whom labour will have

2985
to be protected before this Parliament is through, in its dealing with the weakest section of the community, can do nothing except "diddle" them in the way in which these old folk have been "diddled." All it does is to give the Civil Service fair words plus the Control of Employment Order, which forbids them to walk out. This is a strange set-up. At any rate, I have made my protest today. I do tilt think it matters two hoots what the Financial Secretary says. He is not even a Minister. In the Treasury they regard him as the weakest and most complacent Financial Secretary they have ever had there in my lifetime. This is blunt talk, but it ought to be said. Few Ministers have counted very much in the Departments in which they have served. The present Financial Secretary is regarded in the Treasury as the weakest, most pliable and most complacent instrument they have had to deal with yet. We want Ministers there who can deal with officials, who are strong enough to recognise a just claim when it is made, and to be able to insist that something is done about it. I have not the slightest confidence that the hon. Gentleman will do anything, and I do not think it matters, therefore, what he says.
I have made my protest today, and at every opportunity I will continue to make that protest on behalf of these hundreds of thousands of retired people, badly treated during their service, and defrauded in their retirement. I denounce it in the name of everything I hold to be decent, reasonable and just in the relationship between the State and its servants.
4.50 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) has raised the question of the rates of retired pay for officers, and although what he said overlaps with the question raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) I will first deal with what he said. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated the facts clearly and truthfully. After the Great War, increased rates of retired pay for officers were introduced. They were granted as a result of the increase in the cost of living which, as all of us remember, occurred after that war. The arrangement then made was that rates should be subject to a revision,
2986
up or down, of not more than 20 per cent. That went on until 1935 by which time, as, I think, the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself very properly said, the cost of living had gone down, and revisions had taken place. In 1935, the Government decided that the pay and pensions of State servants in general should be stabilised. Thereafter, of course, the cost of living could go up or down but there was a general feeling, at the time, which did materialise, that the cost of living was going down.
Sir G. Jeffreys: The cost of living had already started to rise, as I had already pointed out.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am coming to that. Generally speaking, the cost of living in the early nineteen twenties did begin to go steadily down. In 1935, a halt was called and it was felt by those concerned, including the officers, that the time for stabilisation had arrived.
Sir G. Jeffreys: Not by the officers themselves. They were never consulted. Entirely unilateral action was taken by the Treasury.
Mr. W. J. Brown: The Civil Service unions were not consulted.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will deal with the hon. Member for Rugby later if I have time. I am now trying to answer the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield, according to the facts as I know them.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not know the facts.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: There was a general feeling that there should be stabilisation.
Mr. Brown: General to whom?
Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was decided that there should be stabilisation. At that time, the cost-of-living index figure stood at 140.
Mr. Brown: No, 155.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was not interrupted when he was speaking. He might extend the same courtesy to the Financial Secretary.
Mr. Brown: The man does not know his case.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, we have the correct figures at the Treasury. The one place where I think you may expect to get the correct figures is at the Treasury. I would add that I have as much regard for these people as anybody else, and desire equally with others to see justice done to them. Moreover, I have no axe to grind with members of my union outside.
Mr. Brown: Nor have I, because these men are not my members. They have ceased to be members.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The cost of living, at that time, was 140.
Mr. Brown: No, 155.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The figure was stabilised at 155. At the time they were given the rate was stabilised at a figure above the then cost of living. It was not until 1944, when changes were made by the passing of the Pensions (Increase) Act, that something further was done for those on the lower rates of pension. The position now is that under the 1944 Act those in the lower ranges have had their pensions returned to practically, if not entirely, the 1919 level. The 1944 Act gave 10 per cent. to those below £400 a year, something less than this to those up to £645, and nothing to those above that figure. Therefore, if the 1919 cost-of-living figure is to be the yardstick, those up to £645 have got something, and those up to £400 a year have had practically the whole of the cost of living increase returned to them, and are back where they were in 1919. That is the position. But as I said in the Debate in November last, although this is the case, this matter will be fully considered before the 1944 Act cornes to an end. The promise I gave then stands, for retired officers, as well as civil servants. The whole matter will be reviewed, and what anomalies and injustices there are will be dealt with, and, I hope, ironed out.
In the few minutes left at my disposal I propose to deal as far as I can with the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby.
Mr. House: It was not a speech.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member did a very clever thing. He preferred not to argue his case but to make a series of
2988
assertions and charges which, frankly, have no basis whatever in fact. I am inclined to think he will live a very long time. If there are Powers above or below who watch us humans on this earth, in neither place so far as I can see will they desire to have the hon. Member among them, because whatever the conditions there might be, he would still find fault with them and have a great deal to say in opposition.
Mr. W. J. Brown: I am not a Conservative, like the Labour Party.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member talked about the meanness of the Government up to 1935. I was not a Member of that Government. It was the Government of hon. Members opposite who cheered the hon. Gentleman when he made that assertion. In so far as any Government was mean, it was their Government, and not ours. The hon. Member protested against the rates which were fixed under the 1944 Act. Again, it was not this Government that brought in that particular Measure, although I admit that some Ministers who now sit on this Bench were Members of the Coalition Government at that time.
Mr. Brown: The Minister must surely forget that the then right hon. Member for East Edinburgh, speaking for the Labour Party from the Front Opposition Bench, approved the Coalition Government legislation on that subject.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am dealing with what the hon. Gentleman said. He made no reference to what the right hon Gentleman who then sat for East Edinburgh said in that Debate. The hon. Gentleman charged the Government with meanness and said that they had been responsible as a Government for fixing the rates. I am reminding him that it was not this Government that was in power at that time. He said it was time we had plain speaking. There is a good deal to be said for plain speaking, and, in so far as I can in the few minutes left, I intend to indulge in it. The hon. Member said that declarations made by me last November, to the effect that this matter would be dealt with before next November when he said this Act expired, had been proved worthless. I made no such declaration, nor did I ever say—because it is untrue—that the Act would expire next November. This Act will not even expire next December. The

2989
hon. Member might have made himself acquainted with the facts of the case. If he had done so he would know that this Act will continue until 31st March, 1947.
Mr. Brown: Till December, 1946, to be precise.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: No. What did I say in November last? The hon. Member had said that the present Act contained anomalies and that there was a feeling about it in all quarters of the House. In reply to this, I said:
" the Government will study what has been said during this Debate, and will consider what has been said sympathetically, to see what, if anything, can be done to put this matter on a satisfactory and permanent basis."
Then the hon. Member for Rugby interrupted me and said:
" Cannot the Minister go further and do the job in three months? If he cannot do justice to it in three months, something must be wrong."
In reply to this interruption I said:
" I am sorry that I cannot give any assurance of that kind. I did not go into the matter in the fullest detail but quite frankly now that the hon. Gentleman presses me, let
2990
me say that those covered by the Act are not the only people who have a small pension or who find that the cost of living does not allow that pension to go as far as it previously did. All sorts of people are in the same position, such as people living upon small annuities, or savings and small pensions, not received from the State.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 5945; Vol. 415, C. 1185 and 1186.]
Later on I again emphasised that I could give no promise of any kind except that before the Act did expire something would be done to iron out the anomalies, and if it were found that injustices had occurred, that they would be dealt with.
May I say as my final word that this matter is now under active consideration, and not only under active consideration but under consideration with the people most concerned, namely, the staff side of the Civil Service Whitley Council? As a result I hope that as soon as possible proposals implementing the decisions reached can be presented to the House.
It being Five o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of yesterday, till Tuesday, 30th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of yesterday.