Commons Sitting of 27 November 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to' the London and North Eastern Railway," presented by Mr. Westwood; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
  ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to St. Andrews Links," presented by Mr. Westwood; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act), to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 5th December, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Elmas, Sardinia
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that during the month of October, fewer than 20 per cent. of the aircraft passing through the R.A.F. station. Elmas, Sardinia, were R.A.F. aircraft and that R.A.F. aircraft averaged fewer than one a day; and how soon he anticipates that it will be possible to reduce the present strength of some 200 officers and men at this station.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Over half of the 178 aircraft passing through Elmas in October were R.A.F. aircraft. At the end
    1580
    of August we reduced the number of men at this unit and I cannot say when we shall be able to make any further reduction.
    Mr. Driberg: In view of the concern felt about the wastage of manpower in the Forces, is my hon. Friend satisfied that this is the most economical possible use of these 200 men's services, and does not the figure he gives confirm my estimate of fewer than one aircraft a day?
    Mr. de Freitas: The figure in regard to the second part of the supplementary is that there were 178, and 91 of these were R.A.F. On the other point, I am satisfied that the best possible use is being made of these men.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the detailed complaints forwarded to him regarding the inadequate mail services and film and other entertainment provided for airmen stationed at Elmas, Sardinia, C.M.F.; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. de Freitas: I have been able to consider most of the points. We have now arranged for two films a week to be sent to Elmas. Other entertainment is difficult to provide as sea transport to Sardinia is poor, but we hope to arrange for parties to travel by air. With the contraction of the Air Force, it became impossible to maintain a regular air mail service to this station and we had to rely on Italian sea transport. This does not appear to have worked too well and I am seeing what can be done to improve the service.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say whether the films will be relatively new?
    Mr. de Freitas: They are relatively new. Of course, there are not so many new films produced and from time to time first grade films have to be shown again.

    Mechanics
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the shortage of personnel capable of servicing aircraft, full use is being made of the skill and experience of trained mechanics among recruits in the R.A.F.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. If my hon. Friend has any information which seems to show that we are failing in this, I hope he will bring it to my attention.
    Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say if there is any ground for the belief among the recruits that full use is not made of engineering skill unless they are volunteers?
    Mr. de Freitas: No, Sir. That is not quite right. It depends naturally on the amount of training which a recruit will require. To train a man to be, for instance, Fitter I takes 25 months, and it would be impossible to take somebody who is not a volunteer for long service. Generally we make the best use we can of these men's skill.

    Demobilisation
    Mr. Viantasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the de mobilisation programme for January, February and March, 1947, provides for the release of men up to Group 49 for ground personnel; that men with over three years' service are in groups as high as 56; and if he will give an indication as to when Groups 55 to 60 in the R.A.F. are likely to be released.
    Mr. de Freitas: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As regards the last part of the Question, there is nothing I can add to the statement of 6th November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and to the White Paper on "Call Up to the Forces."

    Disaffection (Incidents
    Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give particulars of all strikes and mutinies which have taken place in the R.A.F. since VJ-Day; and the action taken in respect to them.
    Mr. de Freitas: With permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Brigadier Maclean: Without going into detail, can the hon. Gentleman give the number of R.A.F. stations in which incidents have taken place?
    Mr. de Freitas: Under 30—in the twenties.
    Following is the statement:
    There were incidents at Jodhpur in India in October, 1945, on which a full report was given in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member on 21st
    1582
    November, 1945. In January, 1946, there was disaffection at 22 stations, as follows:

    Middle East.

    Lydda

    …

    24.1.46–26.1.46

    Almaza

    …

    24.1.46–26.1.46

    Qastina

    …

    25.1.46–28.1.46

    Cairo West

    …

    25.1.46–26.1.46

    Aqir

    …

    25.1.46–26.1.46

    India.

    Drigh Road

    …

    19.1.46

    Mauripur

    …

    22.1.46–25.1.46

    Poona

    …

    23.1.46–24.1.46

    Palam

    …

    25.1 46–26.1.46

    Cawnpore

    …

    26.1.46–30.1.46

    Pamrauli (Allahabad)

    …

    26.1.46–28.1.46

    Dum Dum

    …

    25.1.46–28.1.46

    Lahore

    …

    28.1.46

    Yelahanka

    …

    26.1.46

    Karachi

    …

    26.1.46

    Kanchrapara

    …

    28.1.46

    Vizagapatam

    …

    25.1.46–26.1.46

    South East Asia.

    Ceylon.

    Negombo

    …

    23.1.46

    Colombo

    …

    23.1.46

    Burma

    Mingaladon

    …

    29.1.46–30.1.46

    Singapore Is.

    Seletar

    …

    26.1.46–28.1.46

    Kallang

    …

    27.1.46–28.1.46

    As a result, four men were brought to trial on charges under Section 7 or Section 40 of the Air Force Act. In one case the proceedings were not confirmed; in two cases airmen were sentenced to 84 days and 90 days detention respectively; in the fourth case the airman is serving a sentence of five years' penal servitude. Twelve other airmen were arrested as a result of the incidents but were not brought to trial.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that all reviewing authorities up to and including his Department have reviewed or purported to have reviewed the conviction and sentence of L.A.C. Cymbalist on a defective record wherein most of the evidence of Cymbalist himself appeared in the form of answers only, without any indication of the questions to which the answers were given; and if he will now have the case reviewed on proper materials.
    Mr. de Freitas: If Mr. Cymbalist considers that the review of his case was impaired by this omission in the record of his trial, it is open to him to submit a further petition which will receive the

    1583
    fullest consideration. Even if Mr. Cymbalist does not petition the case will. be reviewed.
    Mr. Pritt: I am very grateful for that assurance, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us how it comes about that after the House and the country have been told that this case has been reviewed and, reviewed and found to be in order, the hop. Gentleman has to confess that the record is grossly defective?
    Mr. de Freitas: I confess there was an omission from the record, and I have nothing to add to the statement which I have made.
    Mr. Pritt: How is it that the supposedly competent persons in the legal profession and outside of it, who have reviewed this thing stage by stage while the man concerned was sitting in prison, had not enough intelligence to realise that it was defective?
    Mr. de Freitas: There is no evidence that the reviewing authorities considered the legal effect of this defect, and that is why the case will be reviewed.

    Electricians
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction felt by men mustered in the electrical trades at the fact that only two groups of Electricians I will have been released during the period August, 1946, to January, 1947; and if he will make a full statement showing the numbers 'of electricians now being recruited or trained, together with a forecast of the release dates for groups of Electricians I above Group 42.
    Mr. de Freitas: Between 1st August, 1946, and 31st January, 1947, we shall have released six groups of Electricians I. On 1st November, 1,113 airmen were on recruit courses before being trained as Electricians II, and 257 and 1,457 were in training as Electricians I and Electricians II respectively. I regret that I cannot forecast the release date for Electricians I above Group 42.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this receives publication in R.A.F. orders, because there seems to be a great deal of dis-
    1584
    satisfaction on this point and some misunderstanding?
    Mr. de Freitas: I think that has been covered in a demobform, but I will look into the whole matter and if it is not so I will certainly do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

    Huts, Little Stukeley
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Air when the hon. Member for Huntingdon may expect a reply to his letter of 12th September, asking for the handing over to the Hunts County Council of certain huts at Little Stukeley aerodrome which are urgently required for the accommodation of civilian employees of the county council, many of whom are married ex-Servicemen.
    Mr. de Freitas: I hope to send the hon. Member a further letter by the end of the week.
    Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that negotiations have been going on for over 12 months on this subject and that there are 100 huts in that particular area, and since only just these few are needed urgently, will he please do something about it very quickly?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware that negotiations have been going on for 12 months. The difficulty has been a shortage of manpower. It has been impossible to move the 11,000 bicycles which are at present in the huts. In any event it is not certain that the huts are suitable for housing accommodation.
    Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the bicycles were put in the huts that are particularly required long after negotiations were started, and that a lot of the trouble would not have arisen but for that fact?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of that.

    El Adem (Conditions)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the measure of discontent existing among R.A.F. personnel in E1 Adem camp; that the conditions in this camp are steadily worsening, particularly in the matter of food, which is mainly tinned and contains practically no allocation of fresh fruit and vegetables; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify this state of affairs.
    Mr. de Freitas: E1 Adem is on the edge of the Libyan desert and considering where it is the living conditions are good, and it appears to be a particularly happy station. There were seasonal shortages of fresh fruit and vegetables between August and October, but the Command catering inspection for last month shows the following comments on the messes: Officers'—good, sergeants'—good, airmen's—very good.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the information he has given the House, the men allege that conditions in the camp, both as regards accommodation and food, are progressively deteriorating, that they describe their relief at being posted or demobilised from the camp as similar to that which would be felt on being liberated from a concentration camp, and that the belief is growing among the men that someone is deliberately sabotaging the policy of His Majesty's Government to bring better conditions for the Forces?
    Mr. de Freitas: That, is not my information. As I have stated, I have been informed that this station is a particularly happy one, and certainly with regard to food this is borne out by the remarks I have quoted from the inspection report of last month.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that civilian passengers who have passed through this camp and have stayed there overnight say that it is a highly satisfactory camp?

    Meteorological Office
    Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of personnel employed in the Meteorological Office; and the number so employed on 2nd September, 1939.
    Mr. de Freitas: In the office itself there were 371 on 1st November, 1946, and 208 on 2nd September, 1939. The total strength of the service was 3,018 and 862 on these dates.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that most unfair attacks have been made on the personnel of this office for their failure to predict the bad weather last summer, will the Minister make it clear that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the calamitous weather last year, including the sunspots, was entirely due to 25 years of Tory misgovernment?
    Mr. de Freitas: I am glad the noble Lord has raised that point because there is, unfortunately, a tendency to confuse weather forecasting with weather control, and I am giving away no Cabinet secrets by saying that, whatever the present Government do, they are not going to attempt to control the British weather.

    Requisitioned Site, Gibbs
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the former air-sea rescue base at Gibbhill, Kircudbright, will be derequisitioned in order that the premises may be utilised as an engineering factory.
    Mr. de Freitas: We have already authorised derequisitioning of the site and are now negotiating with the owner about the disposal of the buildings.
    Mr. McKie: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the necessity of giving a decision on this matter as early as possible because a great contribution to production is being lost through the delay?
    Mr. de Freitas: I will bear that in mind, but I am not sure that the delay is entirely on my side.

    A.T.C., Scotland
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Air the strength of the A.T.C. in Scotland at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. de Freitas: Four thousand six hundred on 31st July.
    Mr. Spence: Is it the intention of the Minister to revive the A.T.C. in Scotland, what is the target figure, and can anything be done under the local committees or under the auspices of the T.A.?
    Mr. de Freitas: The target is 8,000, and certainly we are doing everything we can to get it going again in Scotland. We have reached the bottom of the curve and are now on the upgrade again. The A.O.C. was appointed in September and will work through the local committees. If the Territorial and Auxiliary Associations wish to help, as I am sure they will, we shall be very grateful for their assistance.

    Station, Wigtownshire
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement as to future plans for the aerodrome at Baldoon Wigtownshire.
    Mr. de Freitas: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 17th July in which I said that we planned to keep R.A.F. Station Wigtown for permanent flying use.
    Mr. McKie: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the owner of these farmlands is being placed in a very difficult position and that the aerodrome in question is hardly used at all now, and will he appreciate the point that much good grazing ground is more or less going out of production through remaining unused?
    Mr. de Freitas: With regard to the depreciation through lack of use, I think the hon. Member should take that up with the local agricultural authorities, because that matter is in their hands and has bee for a couple of years.

    Polish Squadron, C.M.F.
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that about 20 officers and men of the 318 (Polish) Fighter Reconnaissance Squadron, 239 Wing, R.A.F., C.M.F., are under orders to proceed to Austria for demobilisation; that there is apprehension existing amongst these men that they will not be permitted to return to this country for vocational training and enrolment in the Resettlement Corps; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of these instructions but I have called for a report and I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Tenders (Co-operative Societies)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Air why A.M.O. N.933/1946, dated 7th November, makes a special recommendation that tenders should be called for from local Co-operative societies; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to advance the claims of specific trading concerns.
    Mr. de Freitas: This order instructs units to make every effort to obtain competitive tenders for funeral services. Co-operative societies were mentioned so as to widen the field of tendering, since many units did not appear to know that they carry out these services. The answer to the second part of the question is No, Sir.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the Minister why, when competitive tenders
    1588
    are called for, he recommends Co-operative societies which apparently are so un businesslike that they are not likely to submit tenders, and does he intend to recommend the Army and Navy Stores, Harrods, and similar concerns in the same way?
    Mr. de Freitas: The point is that these are local contracts. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been delighted to learn that we are widening the field for tendering and getting bigger and better and fuller competition.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Croydon (Catering)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will arrange for the catering arrangements at the Croydon airport to be improved.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): Steps are being taken by the catering contractors to expedite the restoration of their premises at Croydon airport, but it will inevitably take some time to make good the damage occasioned by wartime requisition. As from 9th December, it will be possible to supplement the existing buffet in the terminal building by the allocation of a room for passengers in the airport hotel where a limited number of meals will be served.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also see that it is possible to buy an alcoholic drink there, since this is about the only airport in the world where one is unable to do so?
    Mr. Lindgren: There is no licence at the moment for the one buffet that is available, but that matter will be looked into.

    Priority System (Continental Services)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will give a list of the continental countries at present operating air services to the United Kingdom who maintain a priority system.
    Mr. Lindgren: I understand that a priority system is in operation on foreign airlines from the following continental countries: Belgium, France, Denmark, Spain and Switzerland.

    Prestwick
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to use Prestwick Airport as an international and national air junction.
    Mr. Lindgren: Prestwick was designated an international airport on the day it was taken over by the Ministry of Civil Aviation—1st April, 1946. There are 15 international services at present operating through it every week in each direction. There is at the moment also a service six times weekly London-Prestwick-Renfrew-Aberdeen. As British European Airways Corporation's resources expand, additional services touching Prestwick will be established to feed the international services and serve the Ayrshire coast.
    Sir T. Moore: Despite that customary soothing answer, can the Minister explain why the Scottish company operating this great airport have had to go to Dutch K.L.M. and French Air France to get charter work in order to keep themselves alive?
    Mr. Lindgren: We are most grateful to Scottish aviation for doing that. These airlines are run on bilateral agreements and when they take such action we get the aircraft based in this country on both routes when we establish our own air line. Also, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view, it is a very important invisible export.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell the House whether there are any Scottish-built aircraft flying from Britain?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid not.

    Durban—Calcutta
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why, and when, the flying-boat service from Cairo to the Cape is being suspended; and what service is to be instituted in its place.
    Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the flying boat service on the "Horseshoe" route between Durban and Calcutta which calls at Cairo. The decision was made at the Southern Africa Air Transport Conference in 1945 that the flying boats, which had then been in service for nine and a half years, would be withdrawn at the
    1590
    end of 1946 and that the service between the United Kingdom and South Africa should be operated by landplanes.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: What action has been taken to safeguard the very important flying boat bases all the way down that route?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is a question which ought not to be addressed to me but to the appropriate Department.

    Renfrew—London
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the reason for the stoppage of the Renfrew-London air service in September and the steps that were taken by the B.E.A.C, to avoid it.
    Mr. Lindgren: The reason for the temporary stoppage of the Renfrew-London air service was that, owing to the overall shortage of suitable aircraft, British European Airways Corporation were unable to replace aircraft temporarily withdrawn for periodic inspection and overhaul. As deliveries of new aircraft are made, the corporation will be increasingly in a position to meet such contingencies.
    Mr. Willis: Were any steps taken to secure other aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, steps were taken.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is it not a fact that application was made to the company at Prestwick to maintain this service, and that they refused?
    Mr. Lindgren: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to reply. Feeling in the Scottish area has not been too happy in the past. I have done my best, in the few weeks during which I have been able to assist my noble Friend, to establish a better relationship, and I would not like to say anything to undo the good that has been done in the last few weeks.

    Mediterranean Routes (B.E.A.C.)
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many British European Airways services operate weekly on the Mediterranean routes; and how soon it is proposed to replace with British European Airways aircraft those services now operated by Transport Command.
    Mr. Lindgren: The answer to the first part of the Question is seven. The services operate to Gibraltar, Marseilles, Rome, Athens, Istanbul and Ankara. As regards the second part of the Question, the replacement of Transport Command services by civil air services, where necessary, is a continuing process, kept constantly under review, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. It is not possible to say, at present, when this process will be complete.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: What was the difficulty in the way of complete replacement of Transport Command aircraft by British European Airways machines?
    Mr. Lindgren: The difficulty has always been that Transport Command contracted much more quickly than civil aviation has been able to expand. The expansion of civil aviation is retarded by the lack of aircraft available and, in some instances, by lack of available ground facilities.

    U.K.—Switzerland
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the future arrangements for operating a British air service between this country and Switzerland.
    Mr. Lindgren: British European Airways Corporation intend to operate four regular scheduled services daily with "V" Class aircraft to Switzerland, terminating at Zurich, Geneva and Basle, as soon as the supply of aircraft, trained crews and ground facilities permit.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the heavy traffic that is to travel to Switzerland in the coming months, will the Minister see that British airlines participate? When will the lines start?
    Mr. Lindgren: The programme provides that it will start as early as possible in the spring of 1947.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Minister undertake that, before he sends these planes to Interlaken and other places, he will establish a good service between Belfast and London?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question asks only about an air service between this country and Switzerland.

    Empty Seats
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what proportion of the empty seats in aircraft leaving this country during the last six months have been booked by the Government and private persons, respectively; and in how many cases under each category a deposit of part of the passage money was forfeited.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that the necessary information is not available in the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and to obtain it from the corporations in the time available would involve dislocation of their current business. I am asking the corporations to obtain the information as soon as they can conveniently do so, and I will then forward it to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Keeling: Does not the Minister think that the number of empty seats in outgoing aircraft—taking the figures which he gave last week—is a public scandal? Will he answer the second part of my Question and say whether he uses the deterrent of a forfeited deposit to persuade people to give adequate notice of cancellation of their bookings?
    Mr. Lindgren: There is a forfeit where adequate notice of cancellation is not given.
    Mr. Keeling: What is it?
    Mr. Lindgren: The forfeit varies on a sliding scale according to the time in which the cancellation is made.
    Mr. Keeling: Does it apply to Government Departments?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, it does not.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: In that event, will the Minister use his good offices to impress upon Government Departments the importance of notifying these cancellations at the earliest possible moment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Fine them."]—thereby giving a fair opportunity to other sections of the community, not forgetting the members of friendly societies?
    Mr. Lindgren: Government Departments are urged to make cancellations at the earliest possible date, if the aircraft is not going to be used. The seats are then available to the corporation—[Interruption]—perhaps the hon. and gallant

    1593
    Gentleman is not interested in the reply to the question he has asked—for sale to the public. In most cases such seats as are not taken are disposed of by private sale.
    Mr. Erroll: Why could not Government Departments be fined, like individuals?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is an entirely different question. It is a matter for discussion.

    London—Paris (Delays)
    Mr. Errollasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on how many occasions during the last four weeks scheduled flights between London and Paris, in both directions, have been delayed by more than one hour beyond their advertised starting times.
    Mr. Lindgren: During the period from 25th October to 21st November, 15 scheduled flights from London to Paris and 16 scheduled flights from Paris to London were delayed by more than one hour beyond their advertised starting times. Cancelled flights between London and Paris were 23 in each direction.
    Mr. George Ward: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the lack of confidence which is prevalent now on both sides of the Channel in respect to British airlines? It seems to be caused mainly by the lack of proper ground control at both ends, so that one never knows whether an aircraft will fly.
    Mr. Lindgren: I hasten to assure the House that the assertion made by the hon Member is quite untrue.
    Captain Snow: Always running down his own country.
    Mr. Lindgren: The delays arise from very difficult weather, mainly fog, which has always been a weather condition interfering with all forms of transport, from foot to the air.
    Mr. Erroll: While appreciating the difficulty connected with weather conditions, may I ask whether there is any excuse for the extremely peremptory notice of delays given to intending passengers by the officials of the air transport organisation?
    Mr. Lindgren: Everything possible is done to avoid inconvenience, but perhaps it is true that in some cases the information
    1594
    is not given as quickly as it might have been, because in point of fact, the officials always hope that the aeroplane will be able to take off somewhere near to time.

    Dyee—Scandinavia
    Mr. Spenceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is proposed to operate a direct air service between Dyce and Scandinavian countries.
    Mr. Lindgren: While there is little prospect of such a service starting in the near future, it has always been part of British European Airways Corporation's general plan to operate one when their resources and the facilities at Dyce are adequate.
    Mr. Spence: What Scandinavian services are available in the North of Scotland?
    Mr. Lindgren: At the moment, through British corporations, none. The first service will be from Turnhouse to Scandinavia, and the connection from it will be from Dyce to Turnhouse.
    Mr. Scollan: Is it not a fact that the total amount of traffic between the North of Scotland and Scandinavia would not justify one aeroplane per week?
    Mr. Lindgren: The amount of traffic originating in Scotland is very small indeed at the moment, but the Scottish statements are that lack of a service prevents traffic arising.

    Marine Base
    Mr. Gammansasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he expects that a decision will be reached regarding the flying-boat base at Langstone Harbour.
    Mr. Lindgren: I regret I cannot add to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) on 6th November last, when I said that the Report of the Pakenham Committee was under examination and that until a decision had been taken by the Government it was not possible to make a statement on the future of Langstone Harbour, or any other possible site for a marine base.
    Mr. Gammans: Cannot the Minister say when the Government will come to some decision in this matter, instead of dithering about with it?
    Mr. Lindgren: At the moment I cannot. The matter is outside the control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, having been referred to the appropriate committee for consideration, in connection with matters other than civil aviation.

  GERMANY

    Rations
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the average percentage of the ration which has been met in the British zone during the past six months.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The ration was effectively met in May, June and July. It is estimated that in August, September and October 93 per cent. of the ration was met, and that in the present month about 90 per cent. of the ration will be met.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of what the 1550-calorie ration in the British zone is comprised.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The composition of the ration varies with the supplies available and all the items on the ration do not, of course, figure in each day's diet. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the average daily ration for the present ration period.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister state whether any fats are included in his statement, and if so how many, because fats have been absent from many parts of the zone for many months?
    Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir, the proportion of fat is about one quarter of an ounce, of which the calorific value is estimated at 50 or 51.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the Minister state whether there are any special ration scales for hospital patients?
    Mr. Hynd: Certainly, Sir. Special ration scales are laid down for a whole variety of special cases, including various grades of workers, age groups of children, expectant and nursing mothers and hospital cases.
    Mr. Nicholson: I hope it will not be a purely average list in the printed answer. I hope the Minister will give details.
    Mr. Hynd: The Question asked for details about the 1,550 calorie normal consumer's ration.
    Following are the details:

    Foodstuff.

    Weight in Ounces.

    Calorific Value.

    Bread

    …

    12½

    873

    Potatoes

    …

    12½

    232

    Other Vegetables

    …

    2½

    11

    Skimmed Milk

    …

    4.4

    43

    Cereal Foods

    …

    1.9

    176

    Meat

    …

    0.6

    28

    Fish

    …

    0.75

    29

    Fats

    …

    0.25

    51

    Sugar

    …

    0.9

    107

    Cheese

    …

    0.06

    5

    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    MR. KEELING,—To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the present calorie value of the rations issued to the inhabitants of the British zones in Germany and Austria, respectively; and whether any increases are in sight.
    Mr. Keeling: Mr. Speaker, in asking Question No. 37, may I apologise for the spelling of "calorie" which has infected my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in his Question No. 34?
    Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order, I never spell it that way; it is the officers of the House who do it.
    Hon. Members: Shame.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The basic ration for the normal consumer in the British zone of Germany and throughout Austria is 1,550 calories a day. In Austria the ration is fixed by the Austrian Government. In view of the present difficulty of maintaining even this level of sustenance, I am afraid I cannot, at present, give any assurance of an early increase, although every effort is being made towards this end.

    Level of Industry
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether a decision has been made to dismantle the firm of Messrs. Imhausen. Witten, in the British zone.
    Mr. J. Hynd: No decision has been made to dismantle this factory, which is being reactivated to produce synthetic industrial fats for soap and other essential needs.
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether a complete survey has now been made of the firms, factories, machines and harbour works to be dismantled in the British zone; and how far the work has progressed.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The survey is not yet complete; the list of plants to be declared available as reparations has not yet been finally settled and in the great majority of the cases already listed as surplus to German peace economy, an inventory has still to be prepared and a valuation agreed between the four occupying Powers. As for the progress made with dismantling, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 20th November to the Hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson).
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my hon. Friend why there has been this interminable delay? Why it is not possible for us to follow the Russian example and merely declare that the factories belong to us and continue to work them with German workers? That is what the Russians are doing in their zone.
    Mr. Hynd: One of the reasons for the delay is the very fact that we have not been able to get one of the first conditions which the British element laid down in connection with the level of industry in the reparations agreement that there should be a unitary Germany.
    Mr. Gammans: How many factories have been dismantled and brought to this country, and how many have been taken to Russia?
    Mr. Hynd: The answer is none in both cases. The actual number of factories that have been dismantled or are in course of dismantling—and I think they are all in course of being dismantled—is seven, of which five are allocated to the East, and two to I.A.R.A. in Brussels for allocation among the Western Powers.
    Mr. Benn Levy: Will the Minister undertake to announce at an early date the ultimate limits and details of the dismantling programme in order to remove this quite paralysing uncertainty?
    Mr. Hynd: I should be only too glad to give such an undertaking, but the House should understand that we laid
    1598
    down the very definite condition that the level of industry agreed upon in March, 1946, was dependent upon the acceptance of central administration and of a common economic unity in Germany, that that has not yet been achieved and that the probability is that the level of industry will have to be completely reviewed.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot remain on one Question for ever.

    Food (Soviet Resources)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent requests he has made to the Soviet authorities to release any substantial quantity of grain from their resources to help solve the further food crisis in the British zone of Germany; and what reply he has received.
    Mr. J. Hynd: The Soviet authorities are being constantly pressed to offer more food, including grain, under a programme of trade exchanges concluded last September between the British and Russian zones of Germany. Quantities are now coming forward, in return for steel, of which the Soviet authorities are in urgent need.
    Mr. Vane: Will the Minister agree that there is no possible solution to this recurring food problem in the British zone unless we can draw food from the territories East of the Elbe as was done before 1945, and that it will not be solved by job lots from America?
    Mr. Hynd: I entirely agree that it is highly desirable that as soon as possible Europe should get back to a proper and normal economy and to the exchange of goods in the proper direction, but the simple fact is that that is not yet the position and His Majesty's Government are not in complete control of the situation.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the Minister say what proportion of the total requirements in the British zone has been provided this year from the Soviet zone?
    Mr. Hynd: If the reference is to food, I could not give any actual figures, but it has been very small indeed and in exchange for other commodities.

    Shipping
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number, description and total tonnage of German ships in the British zone; how many are seaworthy; and what is being done with them.
    Mr. J. Hynd: A census of German seagoing shipping has recently been taken but the results are not yet available. Before the census we had, however, traced over 400 merchant ships of over 100 tons intended for the German peace economy. These vessels are with a few exceptions in the British zone. They consist mainly of cargo vessels but include a few special types such as cattle transports and refrigerator ships. Their total tonnage is some 160,000 dead weight tons. Forty are at present unseaworthy. The remainder are being used for German coastal traffic and on certain short sea routes. There are in addition some 1425 fishing vessels of various kinds, all of which are engaged in fishing or minesweeping operations.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that a report appeared in the Press that 964 boats have recently been discovered? Is this true, and, if so, is there not something wrong with our method of building up the industry?
    Mr. Hynd: I thought I had made it clear that we are not in a position yet to give the complete results of the census, but before the census was taken we had traced over 400.

    Dutch Vegetables
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what vegetables are being supplied to the British zone from Holland this winter; and if he will state the approximate quantity in thousands of tons.
    Mr. J. Hynd: We have arranged for the supply of some 100,000 tons of turnips, beetroot, cabbage, carrots and cauliflowers.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not correct to state that no less than 140,000 tons was then or will be available, and why has all that not been taken up?
    Mr. Hynd: As a matter of fact, the estimates of availability of Dutch vegetables have been reduced very considerably in the latest estimate. The reduced figure we
    1600
    have is of no more than 300,000 tons of Dutch vegetables available for general disposal, and we have secured at least 100,000 tons for Germany alone.
    Mr. Stokes: Have we taken up all we can get?
    Mr. Hynd: We have taken all that has been offered to us so far.
    Mr. Walkden: Is it not true that in recent months we have refused to accept vegetable products from Holland for reasons of barter difficulties or the argument as to who is going to pay?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not at all aware of that. The total available in Holland is only 300,000 tons. We have accepted all that has been offered, representing one-third of the total amount.

    Hamburg Project
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons are engaged in the construction of the Hamburg project.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There are about 9,000 Germans and 180 British, including those employed on preparing alternative living and office accommodation for Germans
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that there are only 1,700 people engaged in repairing houses for the people, and is it not scandalous that 9,000 people should be engaged on this project when so few people are engaged in repairing houses?
    Mr. Hynd: The figures I gave were 9,000 Germans and 180 British engaged on both operations. On the construction of flats, 1,318 are employed, and on construction and rehousing for the German people nearly double that number—2,526—are employed
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the majority of the people employed on rehousing are employed on rehousing as the result of the Hamburg project and that if it were not proceeded with, they could be employed on building houses?
    Mr. Hynd: The question is which houses. I do not quite see why we should not be building houses in Hamburg as well as somewhere else, but these people were engaged as building labour for the building of houses in Germany.
    Mr. Molsonasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people have been evacuated from homes in Hamburg in order to make room for British families.
    Mr. J. Hynd: So far 7,027 Germans have been displaced for this purpose.
    Mr. Molson: How does this tally with the statement which I understood the Chancellor of the Duchy to make only a few weeks ago that, as a result of this operation, no Germans were being evicted from their houses?
    Mr. Hynd: I have no recollection of making any such statement. I did make the statement that in connection with the Hamburg project it was not anticipated that there would be any evacuations of Germans until late 1947 or 1948. On being asked on a previous occasion whether I could give an assurance that no further evictions would be necessary in connection with the families, I said I could not give any such assurance.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it incorrect to say that a total of 30,000 people will ultimately be displaced, and that many of them have been already?
    Mr. Hynd: The question is in regard to those evacuated in Hamburg to make room for British families, and the figure is as I have given it.
    Mr. Molson: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

    Timber Control (Administrative Costs)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the monthly cost and the number of persons engaged in the administration and process of supplying German timber to this country.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There are 457 British persons engaged on administrative and supervisory duties at a cost of about £21,000 per month. These form the staff of the North German Timber Control which is not solely concerned with supplies of timber to this country. It is impossible to estimate the numbers and cost of personnel engaged on the actual felling, sawing and transporting of timber; the work
    1602
    is paid for by the Germans in marks and is done in the main by the German timber trade and forestry service whose numbers ran into many thousands augmented by some 7,000 displaced persons.
    Mr. Spence: Can the Minister give us an assurance that he is satisfied that the costs of administration are not excessive and that the price of the timber in this country is truly economic?
    Mr. Hynd: The price of timber to this country?
    Mr. Spence: The price of timber when it is brought in.
    Mr. Hynd: The price of timber is agreed between the Board of Trade and the Control Office for Germany and Austria On the basis of. ruling world prices, and in relation to the results we are getting from this operation, I think the cost is very well justified.

    Control Commission (Salaries)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give a list of the names and salaries of members of the Control Commission, Germany and Austria, in receipt of annual salaries of £2,000 and over.
    Mr. J. Hynd: As the list includes 26 officers in Germany and two in Austria I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the list:
    Civilian Officers in the British Elements of the Control Commission for Germany and the Allied Commission for Austria who are in receipt of annual salaries of £2,000 and over.
    Note.—Control Commission allowance and Foreign Service allowance are paid in addition except where otherwise stated.
    Control Commission for Germany.
    £4,000 (inclusive of Control Commission allowance).
    Sir Cecil McA. Weir, K.B.E., M.C., J.P.: President, Economic Sub-Commission.
    Mr. N. L. Macaskie, K.C.: Chief of Legal Division.
    £2,500.
    Mr. W. Asbury, J.P.: Regional Commissioner, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.
    Mr. H. V. Berry: Regional Commissioner, Hansestadt, Hamburg.
    Lieut.-General Sir Gordon N. Macready, Bt., K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., M.C.: Regional Commissioner, Land Nieder-sachsen.
    *Mr. S. P. Chambers, C.B., C.I.E.: Chief of Finance Division.
    Mr. R. J. M. Inglis, C.I.E., T.D.: Chief of Transport Division.
    Mr. H. E. Collins: North German Coal Control.
    £2,250.
    *Mr. E. A. Seal, C.B.: Chief of Trade and Industry Division.
    £2,000.
    Air Vice-Marshal H. V. Champion de Crespigny, C.B., M.C., D.F.C.: Regional Commissioner, Land Schleswig-Holstein.
    Mr. A. H. Albu: Deputy President, Governmental Sub-Commission.
    Mr. D. L. Anderson, C.B.E., T.D.: Deputy President, Economic Sub-Commission.
    Mr. G. E. Hughes: Chief of Food and Agriculture Division.
    *Mr. R. W. Luce, M.B.E.: Chief of Manpower Division.
    Mr. J. H. C. Simpson, M.C.: Chief of Internal Affairs and Communications Division.
    *Mr. G. S. Whitham, C.M.G., C.B.E.: Chief of Reparations, Deliveries and Restitution Division.
    Mr. N. H. Moller, O.B.E.: Deputy Chief of Legal Division.
    Mr. B. de H. Pereira: Deputy Chief of Legal Division.
    Mr. J. H. Angus: Public Utilities Branch, Trade and Industry Division.
    Mr. R. D. Farrington, O.B.E.: Building Industries Branch, Trade and Industry Division.
    *Colonel G. H. R. Halland, CLE., O.B.E.: Inspector General, Special Police Corps, Internal Affairs and Communications Division.
    Mr. R. Harris: Disarmament Branch. Trade and Industry Division.
    Mr. H. W. McQ. Hembry: Controller of Colliery Assets, North German Coal Control.
    Sir Gerald Lenanton: North German Timber Control.
    Mr. W. F. Prentice: Metallurgy Branch, Trade and Industry Division.
    *Mr. L. G. Semple: Ports and Telecommunications Branch, Internal Affairs and Communications Division.
    Allied Commission for Austria.
    £3,000 (including Civil Service pension).
    The Lord Schuster, G.C.B., C.V.O.. K.C.: Chief of Legal Division.
    £2,000.
    Sir Douglas Young: Military Government Courts, Branch, Legal Division.
    * These officers are established civil servants.

    Public Relations Office (Radio Section)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what requests have been made by the commanding officer of the radio section of the Public Relations and Information Services Control Group of
    the Political Division of the
    1604
    C.C.G., Hamburg, since September, 1945, that an inquiry should be held into the conduct and suitability of the staff posted to that section; and what action has since been taken.
    Mr. J. Hynd: One such request was made in September, 1945, by an officer temporarily in charge of this section. This was fully investigated on the spot and the charges found to be unsubstantiated.

  ANGLO-FRENCH TOURIST TRAFFIC
  Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-French committee of officials discussing the tourist question have now finished their deliberations; and whether any agreement has been reached.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The question of the tourist traffic between this country and France was discussed, among many other questions, at the meeting in London early this month of the committee of French and British officials recently set up to examine economic questions concerning the two countries. As was stated in the communiqué issued at the end of this meeting, the committee
  "agreed that it was desirable to facilitate tourist traffic as much as possible between the two countries and exchanged views as to the best method of achieving this purpose in the light of existing financial difficulties."
  Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the Minister foreshadow any action as a result of these discussions?
  Mr. McNeil: Further discussions are to be held, particularly on the financial aspects. I am, therefore, fairly confident that there will be action.

  JAPAN (ALLIED COUNCIL)
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish an account of the discussions and decisions to date of the Allied Council for Japan.
  Mr. McNeil: The meetings of the Allied Council for Japan are held at fortnightly intervals in Tokyo and are open to the public and the Press. It would therefore seem unnecessary for me to attempt to duplicate the records of their proceedings.
  Mr. Chamberlain: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not feel that some action in this matter is called for, since a large number of us are extremely worried by what is going on in that part of the Pacific?
  Mr. McNeil: I sympathise with, and can quite understand, the worries, but I cannot see that a further publication of these proceedings, which are available quite freely, would help to solve these worries.
  Mr. Chamberlain: Why not a White Paper?

  COLONIAL SERVICE (TRANSFERS)
  Mr. Digbyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long members of the Colonial Service stationed on the Gold Coast have to remain in West Africa before they can be transferred to a healthier climate where they can have their wives and children living with them.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): There is no set period either for the Gold Coast or other Colonies and it would be quite impracticable to have one. Each Colony has its own civil service, and transfers of individual officers from one Colony to another are dependent on the staff requirements of the different Colonies and must be governed primarily by the public interest.
  Mr. Digby: Is the fact taken into account that they have had a period of military service in the same area, which actually means that they have been in the same area for seven or eight years?
  Mr. Creech-Jones: No, it is open for an officer who feels that he would like a transfer to another Colony to bring that to the notice of the Governor and, when transfers are under consideration in the Colonial Office, due weight will be given to the request.

  PALESTINE (SITUATION)
  Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider trying to arrange a meeting of the Big Four in order to discuss and decide the future of Palestine.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.
  Sir T. Moore: Why do we continue to expose our soldiers and civilians to savage murder in Palestine for no apparent return except hatred from the Jews, distrust from the Arabs, and criticism from our Allies?
  Mr. Morrison: That is an expression of sorrow which I am sure we all share.
  Sir T. Moore: Why do we go on doing it?
  Mr. Drayson: Is the reason why these discussions have not been allowed to take place because it is no longer the Big Four but the Big Three and a Half?

  ARMED FORCES

    Demobilisation (Rate of Release)
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware of the discontent in the Army due to soldiers being demobilised later than sailors and airmen of the same group; and what steps he is taking to equalise length of service in all three Forces.
    Mr. Championasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the Army over the rate of release as compared with that of the R.N.; and if he will consider making the necessary arrangements to secure a transfer of personnel from one part of the Armed Forces to the others in order to even up the release of the groups as between the R.N., the Army and the R.A.F.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether every step has been taken to examine the possibilities, not of transfer of personnel as between the Services, but of transfer of duties?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a very full answer to that supplementary question yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is all bound up with the transfer of personnel.
    Mr. Driberg: No, transfer of duties.
    Mr. James Callaghan: While I agree heartily with the Prime Minister's state-

    1607
    ment that it is quite clear that rates of release could not be the same for all three Services, was it ever envisaged that the difference should be between five years for a man in the Army and two years for a man in the Navy?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that is presenting the case quite fairly. If my hon. Friend will refer to the statement made on 6th November by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, he will see that his supplementary question is very far from right.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend look at it again?

    Training Areas
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Minister without Portfolio what is the total acreage of land in Great Britain at present occupied by the Services; the acreage they propose to retain for training purposes; and how much of the latter is land belonging to the National Trust or in areas proposed for national parks.
    Mr. Bellenger: The total acreage of land in Great Britain at present occupied by the Services, including their permanent prewar estates, is in the region of 1,100,000 acres, in addition to which they have rights of user over some 1½ million acres under Defence Regulation 52. Of these totals some ¾million acres are at present in process of being derequisitioned and cleared of unexploded missiles. I do not think it would be desirable to give any figures of proposed postwar retention until the discussions on the Interdepartmental Committee have been carried further.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a very large section of public opinion in this country is extremely worried by the proposal to retain areas of special attraction such as Martindale, Cader Idris, Ashdown Forest and so on, and when the present Interdepartmental Committee has finished its review, will he arrange for a complete statement of the position to be presented to this House?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am well aware of the public interest in this matter, and I may say that to a certain extent I share it myself. In regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I think it will be possible, when this review has been made, to make a statement to Parliament.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister of Town and Country Planning represented on the Interdepartmental Committee?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, indeed; it is under his auspices that it functions.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: Is the Minister considering fully the possibilities of developing training areas in the Dominions, where there seems to be much more space?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, that matter—and many other matters as well, including Germany—has not been entirely overlooked, and surveys have taken place.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that no land will be retained or acquired without a public inquiry?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that matter has already been dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    War Gratuity (Limitation)
    Brigadier Macleanasked the Minister without Portfolio whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government to withhold payment of a war gratuity in the case of men killed in action within six months of joining the Forces.
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. This is in accordance with the general decision that war gratuity is not paid to anyone where less than six months' service has been given.
    Brigadier Maclean: Is it not unfair that a man who is considered sufficiently trained to go into action should not be considered eligible for a gratuity?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know about that. All I know is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There has to be a line drawn somewhere in view of the nature of the gratuity, and I cannot depart from the decision made-some time ago, not by my Department only.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is replying on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio, whom we all wish a speedy recovery, will he represent to his right hon. Friend now that now we have a coordinating Minister for all three Services, the Service Chiefs should be called together with a view to abolishing this obvious anomaly?
    Mr. Bellenger: I will certainly bring the matter to my right hon. Friend's attention.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Cheese Ration (Roadmen)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food if he will increase the cheese ration to roadmen employed by urban district councils whose work is in country districts.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to extend the concession to the workers referred to by the hon. Member.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that there must be a very small number of roadmen employed by urban district councils who work in country lanes, could the Minister be less rigid about this and allow the local authority to decide which men should have an extra ration, as it is very difficult for them?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not an official of the Ministry who decides these things, but the representatives of the men themselves on the advisory committee of the T.U.C.

    Eire Turkeys
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food why he has fixed a lower price for the purchase of turkeys from Eire than from other countries; and if he will remove price controls, and allow the normal channels of trade to operate.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on these matters, given to the hon. Members for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and East Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) on 18th November, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can the hon. Lady say whether preferential treatment has been given to Eire?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Wheat and Rice
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the U.S.A. have an exportable wheat surplus of 275,000,000 bushels, and Canada 325,000,000 bushels; that Burma has an exportable surplus of 1,000,000 tons of
    1610
    rice and, in view of these facts, why it is necessary to continue bread rationing.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The latest official estimates give the exportable surpluses of wheat from the U.S.A. and Canada for the current year as 267 million bushels and 200/231 million bushels respectively. The hon. Member's figures for Burma rice may, I hope, prove correct. But, Burma rice exports do not help us directly to de-ration bread in this country, though they will help the Indian food position. I would remind the hon. Member that the U.K. is only one of many claimants upon these and other supplies, and the abandonment of bread rationing must be dependent upon our ability to secure the amount of wheat necessary to achieve that aim.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not one of the main reasons for the inability to import these food stuffs the deterioration of British credit under this Government, and the fact that we cannot provide foreign exchange? May I have an answer to that please?
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer is, "No, Sir."

    Milk Distribution
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the continued dissatisfaction felt by many consumers over their lack of freedom to change their milk retailer; and when he expects to receive a report on this matter from the working party set up to investigate the question of milk distribution.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 18th November.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food if he will give the names of the members of the working party which is investigating the question of milk distribution.
    Dr. Summerskill: I announced the names of the members of the Committee on Milk Distribution in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp) on 9th October, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Since then, Mr. Wansbrough has unfortunately been compelled to resign because of pressure of other work.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Has the working party met yet?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, many times.

    Brussels Sprouts
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to re-establish the control of the retail price for brussels sprouts, in view of the fact that the price of this commodity in the city of Plymouth has almost doubled since the control was removed.
    Dr. Summerskill: My information is that the average retail price for brussels sprouts in the city of Plymouth during the past week has been about 7¼d. per lb. The last control price was 6½d. per lb. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am watching the position very closely, but I do not think there is cause for action yet.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that since this Question was put on the Order Paper, the price of brussels sprouts in the city of Plymouth has fallen to a new low level?

    Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food what arrangements are being made to secure that smaller shop keepers in Newport obtain an equitable allocation of foods in short supply, such as jam, marmalade, biscuits, tinned vegetables, dried fruits, etc., since they have registered customers to whom they are unable to supply such articles; and why the multiple stores who frequently have no registered customers secure large supplies.
    Dr. Summerskill: Shopkeepers in Newport get their jam, home-produced marmalade and dried fruits, on permits related to the number of their registered customers, to whom, I can assure my hon. Friend, they can certainly supply their proper share of these articles. Biscuits, and canned peas, and beans are on points, but though I have no reason to think that multiple stores are getting disproportionate supplies, I am at the moment reviewing the distribution of all points rationed foods.
    Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that multiple stores in general did not supply these goods on points before and. therefore, small shops are at a serious disadvantage now? Will she take that into account?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, we will certainly go on taking that into account, but we do try to distribute these things to satisfy the needs of the different parts of the country.

    Catering Licences (Fats)
    Colonel Wheatleyasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that when furnishing Form O.F. 240 (a) to successful applicants for catering licences, the regional oils and fats distribution officer canvasses for a particular firm of wholesalers; and if he will give instructions for this to cease or, alternatively, arrange for a list of all wholesalers to be supplied.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am not aware of any need to give fresh instructions to our oils and fats distribution officers, who fully understand that they must not canvass for particular firms of wholesalers. If the hon. Member will supply me with information about any case where this rule appears not to have been observed, I shall be glad to investigate it.
    Colonel Wheatley: Is the hon. Lady aware that I have an actual case which I shall be glad to show to her?
    Dr. Summerskill: Thank you.

  LINSEED OIL
  Brigadier Macleanasked the Minister of Food how much linseed oil, or oil equivalent, was imported into this country during the 12 months ended 31st October last; and how it was allocated as between different industries.
  Dr. Summerskill: The oil equivalent of the linseed, together with the oil imported as such, during the 12 months ended 2nd November, 1946, was 98,757 tons. As the information about allocations involves a long table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Brigadier Maclean: Is the hon. Lady aware that the small allocation to the linoleum industry is causing serious unemployment?
  Dr. Summerskill: I realise the difficulties of the linoleum industry but, unfortunately, we have not the linseed.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the hon. Lady is going to circulate the figures, will she include last year's figures for comparison?
  Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.
  Following is the information:
  Allocations of linseed oil during the 12 months ended 2nd November,1946
  87,079 tons of linseed oil were distributed from Ministry of Food supplies during the 12 months ended 22nd November, 1946. The allocations were as follows:—

  Tons.

  Paint, varnish, putty, white lead

  55,401

  Linoleum

  11,323

  Core compound

  3,321

  Leathercloth, oilskins, tarpaulins, proofed cloth

  3,009

  Railways

  2,668

  Printing ink

  2,281

  Other uses, including adhesives, artists' colours, belting leather dressing, brake linings, builders' merchants, chemists, concrete hardeners, disinfectants, dockyards, engineering uses, hard board, oiled paper, pottery, rubber substitutes, sealing compounds, soft soap, ships' stores, sulphonation, textiles, veterinary purposes, wall covering

  9,076

  87,079

  Mr. Hubbardasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the unemployment in the linoleum industry, and the need for linoleum for new houses, he will allocate an increased tonnage of linseed oil for industrial purposes.
  Dr. Summerskill: I regret that our stocks will not permit an increase in the overall rate of usage of linseed oil at present.
  Mr. Hubbard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the very low tonnage of linseed oil made available in this country, as compared with the United States, is responsible for the reduction in the manufacture of linoleum, and that, apart from the domestic side, that has an effect on the import market, and it is impossible to cm-ploy many thousands of workers?
  Dr. Summerskill: I recognise all those things. But, unfortunately, India has prohibited the export of linseed, and it has been difficult to acquire any in the Argentine.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: What about the Argentine?
  Dr. Summerskill: I said it is very difficult to get any from the Argentine.
  Mr. Hudson: Will the hon. Lady remind the Minister that if he had employed private individuals to get it, they would have got it?
  Dr. Summerskill: I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman that we have the best business men in the country in the Argentine, and they are not civil servants.
  Colonel Ponsonby: Is it true that the allocation to the industry is only 20 per cent, of the prewar supply?
  Dr. Summerskill: That may be true, but the allocation is decided by a committee.

  SOAP
  Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Food whether he is now prepared to authorise a special allowance of soap to persons employed as spinners in the cotton industry, in cases in which there is no adequate washing accommodation provided at the mill.
  Dr. Summerskill: My inquiries into the proposal of my hon. Friend are not yet complete, but I will circulate a full reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he will allocate an extra ration of soap to coal merchants, engaged in actually delivering coal, in view of the difficulties caused personally, and in the homes of those concerned.
  Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, if the coal merchant provides washing facilities on the job for himself and his men. I am afraid supplies do not make it possible to grant extra soap to individuals for use at home.
  Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many coal merchants are not able to provide such facilities as they are small men employing only one or two workers or often doing the work themselves and in those cases they cannot obtain such facilities? Are they not on the same basis as coalminers, trimmers and tippers and thus entitled to similar benefits?
  Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that, but if we made this concession we would be granting an extra personal ration and we do not agree with that. It causes friction and it is difficult to reconcile it with the treatment of other workers.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Would it not be better to supply coal to the soap manufacturers?

  INDIA (VICEROY'S VISIT TO U.K.)
  Sir. Wyatt(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement concerning the forthcoming visit of Lord Wavell to this country?
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have invited Lord Wavell to come to this country for consultations in regard to the political situation in India, and have requested him to invite two representatives of the Indian National Congress, two representatives of the Muslim League and one representative of the Sikh Community to accompany him. We are still in communication with the parties and I can therefore say nothing further at the present time.
  The House will be aware that Mr. Jinnah, the President of the Muslim League, has stated that the Muslim League representatives will not attend the Constituent Assembly which has been set up on the basis proposed by the Cabinet Mission and is due to meet on 9th December. This situation is mainly due to differences of view between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League as to the interpretation of certain provisions in the Cabinet Mission's Statement of 16th May. The purpose of the proposed discussions is to endeavour to reach a common understanding between the two major parties on the basis of which the work of the Constituent Assembly can proceed with the co-operation of all parties.
  Mr. Wyatt: While thanking my hon. and learned Friend for his statement, may I ask him whether he will make it clear, first, that there is no intention of holding up the transfer of power in India because of any possible failure of the two major parties to reach full agreement? Second, will he also make it clear that it is not proposed to reopen the whole course of the negotiations which the Cabinet Mission undertook earlier this year?
  Mr. Henderson: If I may answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question first, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to stand by the Cabinet Mission's statement of 16th May, but they desire to clear up any
  1616
  differences of interpretation. I think that on the basis of that statement the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question follows.
  Mr. Eden: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that in any projected conversations that take place, the Government will bear in mind that the responsibility of this House is to all sections and communities of India—minorities and majorities alike?
  Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Is it intended to invite any representatives of the other minorities, such as the Scheduled Castes?
  Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, not at present. The issue at present is between the two major parties on this question of interpretation.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the fact that we have definite obligations towards the more important minorities, in fact the minorities as a whole, how can we be assured that their views will be taken into account in the course of these discussions?
  Mr. Henderson: I have indicated that the issue at the moment is in regard to the question of interpretation which has been raised between the two major parties. The question of the minorities' representation has not been raised in connection with this particular issue.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why has a representative of the Sikh Community—a very small community—been invited, and not the Depressed Classes, a very large community?
  Mr. Henderson: If the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to look at the Cabinet Mission's statement, he will see that the basis of it was, below the Union itself, the constitution of groups or sections, and the Moslems, Hindus and Sikhs were to be within those groups or sections. It is because the issue is in regard to the interpretation of the paragraphs of the Cabinet Mission's statement relevant to groups or sections that the Sikh Community has been invited.
  Major Tufton Beamish: Can we take it that today's newspaper reports that the Indian National Congress have refused to

  1617
  send representatives for these discussions with the Viceroy in England are premature?
  Mr. Henderson: I have already indicated in my reply that we are still in communication with the Government of India and the Viceroy about the representatives of the parties coming to this country. I think we had better wait until those negotiations are finalised.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that every section of this House, and indeed the whole country, is keenly interested in this question, and that if the Government desire to carry the House with them, they must keep the House constantly informed? We hope that the House will be the first to hear of any news or statement.
  Mr. Henderson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that all through this present Parliament we have sought to keep him and his Friends fully informed on the position.

  PERSONAL STATEMENT
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to make a short personal statement. In the Debate on the Prayer relating to the Seizure of Food Order last night, I made one point in a short speech
  1618
  in which I told the House that I was speaking for myself. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food gave way to me during her speech, when I repeated the same point but without again stating that I was speaking for myself. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) immediately pointed out that I was speaking entirely for myself. I had not the slightest intention of doing anything else, and I would like to apologise sincerely to the House for any misunderstanding which may have arisen.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the tact that morning after morning there are over 100 Questions on the Paper. Is it not possible to get consideration of some new method of dealing with the Questions, either by starting one morning at No. 1 and the next morning at No. 20, or by starting alphabetically? Would you arrange for an inquiry of some kind with a view to finding a better method?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me but for the Leader of the House. I do my best by discouraging, as far as I can, supplementary questions. We cannot have lots of Questions and lots of supplementary questions at the same time.

BILL PRESENTED
  TRANSPORT BILL
  "to provide for the establishment of a British Transport Commission concerned with transport and certain other related matters, to specify their powers and duties, to provide for the transfer to them of undertakings, parts of undertakings, property, rights, obligations and liabilities, to amend the law relating to transport, inland waterways, harbours and port facilities, to make certain consequential provision as to income tax, to make provision as to pensions and gratuities in the case of certain persons who become officers of the Minister of Transport, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Barnes; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, the Attorney-General and Mr. G. R. Strauss; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The main object of the Bill is to exempt from the driving test those persons who hold or have held wartime provisional driving licences, and who satisfy certain requirements. In Clause 2 of the Bill hon. Members will find details of the requirements to which I have referred, but it would perhaps be advisable if at the outset I recalled the prewar conditions in regard to driving tests, to which we are now about to revert. In the Road Traffic Act, 1930, driving tests were imposed upon those suffering from disease or physical disability. Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, granted a driving licence only if the person passed the prescribed test of competence, and in the Motor Vehicles Driving Licence Regulation, 1937, the provision was introduced that the applicant should carry the learner's "L" plate, and should be accompanied by an experienced driver.
  1620
  We are now about to revert to those conditions which prevailed before the war and from which war conditions compelled the departure. The driving examiners, like many other persons in the community, had to be diverted from their peacetime occupations and duties to war tasks. That, of itself, prevented us from carrying out these driving tests; but in addition, hundreds of thousands of experienced drivers in trade, commerce and industry, were also withdrawn from their duties for the Services, for munitions and for other war purposes. That led to the necessity for encouraging women, and other drivers, to take their places for temporary duties, during the war, and the whole system of the provision of driving licences had to be discontinued.
  This was done by Defence Regulation 72, paragraph 6. In place of the peacetime provisions there was introduced a provisional licence for periods of 12 months. During this time, over 1,500,000 provisional licences have been granted. I think it will be agreed in all quarters of the House that those who received provisional licences had to drive under exceptionally difficult conditions. The Armed Services, in conjunction with the Ministry of War Transport, as it then was, undertook to pass their drivers through a set test which was agreed with the Ministry. I have not available the number of drivers who obtained, or are entitled to, certificates under this system but, of necessity, it must be a high figure. Any Service driver who has passed through that test, and received a certificate, will be entitled to a substantive licence. The National Fire Service put their drivers through a similar test, and the same thing will apply to them.
  I was faced with the situation that there are, roughly, 1,500,000 civilian drivers who have received provisional licences during the war, and there are a large number of Service personnel in a similar position, as well as a more limited number from the National Fire Service. If I had for one moment contemplated reimposing the peace time test on that vast number at a rate of between 300,000 and 400,000 a year, which is the maximum we could possibly pass with our system of driving tests, I should have been faced with a lag of, approximately, five years of work. In the meantime, there would be nothing to prevent this great number of persons from driving on our roads. Therefore, in

  1621
  view of the general shortages and difficulties with regard to manpower, it appears to me an eminently sensible arrangement that they should not be brought within the provision of the peacetime licensing procedure. I do not consider that there is any difficulty in this respect, because the majority of them are experienced drivers today. They learned, as I indicated, under the most arduous conditions. The purpose of this small Measure is largely to regulate that position.
  Those who are not covered by that form of exclusion will now have to pass the driving test. Clause 1, which revokes the Defence Regulation, will bring that into operation. With reference to Clause 2, hon. Members will see that those who received provisional licences during the war, under the conditions I have indicated, will not be entitled to a substantive licence if they have been guilty of any of the offences enumerated in Subsection (1) under headings (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e). Clause 3 lays down who is to get the fee in future in respect of driving tests. Before the war, this was not defined, and I think it shows a commendable lack of acquisitiveness on the part of the driving examiners of the Ministry of Transport that the whole of these fees were paid over to the Department. However, this provision is introduced to avoid any difficulty in the future.
  3.48 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: We on these benches have had an opportunity of examining this Bill, and we are also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the lucid exposition of its contents which he has just given. We appreciate the problems which arise in connection with this matter and we agree that a solution of them must be found. There are certain matters, not of major importance, which will be raised either now or hereafter, and on which we hope that the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague will give an answer in due course. We also feel—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree with us—that the easing of the position for certain drivers, inevitable though it may be, must not be taken by anyone as a relaxation of the necessity, which is the desire of the whole House, for careful, improved, and tested driving on the roads. Subject to that, we do not
  1622
  intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.
  3.49 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I welcome this Measure not only because of the desirability of increasing the technical competence of people who are driving vehicles on the roads, but also because I think it can be psychologically helpful from the point of view of road safety. We are all greatly concerned about the slaughter which takes place on our roads, and are anxious to do everything we can to reduce it. The Minister has spent a lot of money and taken a lot of trouble to try to make people more road-minded. He has spread his propaganda in a very catholic way—
  Mr. Speaker: This Bill deals with licences and not with making people road minded. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must stick to the subject of licences, and little else.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I wanted to appeal to the Minister to issue instructions to all his examiners to impress upon all candidates for driving tests the desirability of taking a pride in driving with the utmost care and of having a sense of responsibility for the safety of life and limb. The people who are undergoing these tests are keyed up, and in an impressionable mood, and that is the time when these things could be impressed upon them. I think that, if that were done, we could improve the general standard of driving. Many drivers already have this sense of responsibility, particularly bus drivers. They take a pride in their careful driving. But there are a great number of drivers who think only of how quickly they can get to their destination and are not conscious of their responsibilities. I hope that particular instructions will be given to all examiners to bring this point home to every candidate.
  3.52 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has said, there is not in this Bill any point of substance on which we disagree, and it is particularly pleasing that we can discuss it today in an amicable frame of mind. It may be that, in the near future, we shall meet the right hon. Gentleman in a rather less amicable frame of mind, if what we hear be true.

  1623
  There are however one or two points in the Bill on which I should like elucidation. In regard to the examiners to be appointed to test applicants for licences, can we have some more information about who is responsible for choosing them, and how many have already been chosen? In my constituency, various people have told me that they have applied, but have been told that the ranks are already filled. Others have asked me to whom they should apply, and I am bound to say that I have not been able to answer this question with any great knowledge. I do not think it is necessary for us to emphasise how important it is that these men should be most carefully chosen, and that there should be sufficient of them. The Minister has already called attention to the fact that he could not deal with all the people wanting licences. Even so, a very large number of people will be required to undergo these tests, and we should like some assurance that they will not be indefinitely held up. This applies particularly to people who require licences for commercial purposes, or for the conduct of their own business. They should be able to get licences as quickly as possible.
  There is another point on which I should like some explanation. At almost the same time as this Bill was published, two Orders were produced, one of which is S.R. & O. 1749, the other being a divisional Order. One puts up the price of the tests from 5s. to 7s. 6d., and the other deals, so far as I can make out, with people who have physical disabilities. This would seem to me to be an extraordinarily complicated way of doing it. This is a matter which affects a large number of people. The ordinary man in the street is affected by having to take a driving test, and it does seem complicated that, after the Bill is produced, two different Orders should be produced at the same time, referring to previous Acts. I wonder why they could not all be put in the same Bill. It seems to be going an extraordinarily long way round to do it this way. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why this could not have been done in a more simple way. I like everyone else, welcome this Bill, and hope that the fact that people have to take these tests will lead to more careful driving.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: This is not a controversial Bill, and it is not likely to have very great news value. At the same time I think it is a very necessary and very useful Bill. Unfortunately, during the war, it was necessary to suspend these tests, and I am glad that the Government have taken this early opportunity of seeing that they are reintroduced. The motorcar has been described, and, in point of fact, the description is only too true, as a lethal weapon, and it is only right that those who control a motorcar should have to undergo certain searching tests.
  I should like to ask the Minister to give us some information about the tests that will take place as the result of the passage of this Bill. Are the tests which are to be imposed now on those who have to qualify, exactly the same as those which existed before, or will there be any new additional tests? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if there are to be medical tests as well, because that is a consideration which has been proved to be very important. I would also like to have further information about the qualifications of those who are to do the testing. I presume that a great many of these men who held similar positions before the war will be reinstated, but a certain number of fresh appointments will have to be made. My information is that a rather low age limit has been imposed in the qualifications for testing drivers. There may be some good reason for that, but it has the disadvantage that a comparatively young person will not have had the driving experience. I have a letter from a man in my own constituency, a comparatively young man, who, while he is over the age limit, has had 30 years' experience with a very good record. I should have thought that a man with that experience would be very useful, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us why this age limit has been imposed and whether he is satisfied that the age limit is such that proper account has been taken of a person's driving experience. We want these testers to be men who have been driving for a considerable period, and who can perform their duties adequately.
  Within those limits, I welcome the Bill. After all, it is a contribution to the solution of one of our great national problems. To the extent to which we can

  1625
  make those who use our roads skilled, we shall be making an important contribution to road safety. Obviously, the first qualification for driving a motorcar is to know how to drive it in all conditions, and, to the extent the Bill will bring that about, it is to be welcomed, though the Minister will realise that it is only a small contribution in relation to the size of the problem.
  3.59 p.m.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I rise, for only a few minutes, to give my blessing and welcome to this Bill. That driving tests should be more searching was, in fact, a recommendation of the Alness Committee on Road Accidents, which was later endorsed by the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety, presided over by the present Secretary of State for Air, a report which was published some months ago.
  In my view, uninstructed driving is one of the main causes of accidents on the roads today—apart, that is, from the overriding consideration that our road system itself is hopelessly inefficient and out of date. Bad manners, lack of courtesy and want of imagination, I know, all play a very large part, but, in the end, I think it is the lack of exact knowledge of the elements of simple mechanics, and of how a car behaves on the road, that is responsible for most of the dangers and disasters with which we are all too familiar. We can no longer afford the cost and the suffering of any accident which can be prevented, and I am astonished at the apathetic acquiescence of so many people in this country in this evil in our midst. It seems, in some cases, to be motivated by an uncaring callousness, which does no credit to those who exhibit it. I think I am right in saying that it was once the case that all instructors of driving schools, and all Government driving inspectors, had to obtain a certificate of competence from the police school of driving at Hendon. I believe that some of the men now employed—and this was underlined just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson)—have no such certificate. I am told that one examiner recently confessed that he did not even know the contents of the Highway Code. That seems an extraordinary confession by a man who is supposed to test a driver in order to see whether he or she drives in conformity with that very Code.
  1626
  I would like to press the Minister to call for a report on each individual who originally went through the police course and who is now employed again, and I would like an assurance that those found to be unsuitable will be removed from their jobs. Education and correct instruction in driving are vital factors in cutting down the accidents on our roads. We have a right to expect that only the best people will be used for this work. I think I am right in saying that the total cost of road accidents in this country is something in the region of £100 million per annum. I am credibly informed that if the excellent motor patrol scheme, which was put into operation in Lancashire before the war, were to be adopted throughout the country, the cost would be merely £2,500,000. That scheme alone cut down accidents in Lancashire by 46 per cent.
  Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Member that this Bill does not deal with accidents; it deals only with licences, and the way in which they are to be provided. We cannot discuss the whole problem of accidents or safety on the roads under this Bill.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I erred, but I was trying to link up certain remarks which I have already made, with the employment of the "courtesy cops" who did such a successful job in Lancashire before the war. The whole question of road accidents is a great human problem. This Bill will help in the right direction, and, for that reason, I very much welcome it.
  4.3 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the Minister if he will consider issuing instructions to his examiners to aim, not merely at the maintenance of the present standard of driving, but at something very much higher? My experience is that the standard of driving today has markedly deteriorated, particularly in London. Even those admirable drivers, the bus drivers, are falling a little short of their high standard. Those driving in London tend to disregard traffic signals and to cut in. I hope that the Minister will ask his examiners to look at this question with the object of aiming at something a little better than we have at the present time. I trust I shall not be out of Order in adding that pedestrians have obligations

  1627
  just as much as have motor drivers, particularly when the traffic lights change.
  4.5 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point in this Bill is really very simple. During the emergency it was necessary to do away with certain provisions under the previous law in regard to driving tests for motor vehicles. Now that the emergency, so far as that is concerned, has passed, it is very essential, in the interests of the public, to restore the protection of those provisions. I do not think that there would be any quarrel with that in any part of the House.
  There is one matter which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister With regard to the driving tests that are now being reimposed by the Bill, there will be certain exemptions. For example, the Minister has told us that if anyone has held a provisional licence continuously for 12 months before this Measure comes into force, that person will be exempted from the obligation of undergoing the tests now provided for under the Bill. But there is another exemption which has not been mentioned, and which I would like to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. That is the case in which a licence has previously been held under the Motor Car Act of 1903—that is going a long way back. Nevertheless, anyone who has, in fact, formerly held such a licence will be exempted from undergoing the tests required by the provisions of the present Bill. It will be entirely outside the (Bill, however long ago his driving licence may have expired. It occurs to me and I am sure it will occur to the Minister—and I merely mention it in order that he may consider it between now and the Committee Stage—that the need for care and skill by a man who held a licence under the 1903 Act is greater now than formerly, owing to the change in the conditions of traffic, between the different periods of time. The volume of traffic was very much less then than it is today. Moreover, having regard to the exigencies occasioned by the congestion of the traffic on the roads, and the mounting casualties, together with the demands made upon the drivers of vehicles and to the greater skill called for today in handling a motor vehicle, I would like the Minister to consider whether some protection ought not to be introduced in regard to the
  1628
  particular case I have mentioned. It is a matter which the Minister ought to consider between now and the next stage of this Bill. Apart from that, I, like everyone else, welcome this Measure.
  4.8 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope that the Minister will make the best of the all-round support which he is getting for this most inoffensive Bill, because he is going to get a great deal of opposition on another matter in a very short time, particularly from those who have been most active in supporting this excellent little Measure. I welcome the safeguards and precautions against giving a person the right to drive a car. A car, if not properly handled, may do great harm to other people. At the same time, it is a serious matter to prevent a person from driving a car, and I hope that, in Committee, we shall hear from some learned gentleman an interpretation of paragraphs (a)to (e), in Clause 2, which deal with people who are to be prohibited from obtaining driving licences. Any person wilfully causing bodily harm should not be granted a driving licence, but I would like some hon. Member versed in the law to assure us that by this we are striking at the right people.
  There is only one other thing on which I should like some assurance. I once witnessed a terrible accident where a large number of people were killed by a car driven by a man who held a licence, but who was subject to fits. I presume that, normally, he was as good as any of us here. He happened to have a fit when at the wheel of his car, which mowed down people right and left. I ask for an assurance that licences will not be granted to such persons, either under this Bill or any other Measure.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not recognise that the individual he mentioned should have declared that he was subject to fits when applying for a licence, and that, had he done so, a licence would have been refused him?
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Perhaps some people are not as honest as hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do think we should try to prevent that kind of thing if we can possibly do so, without adding any more red tape.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Before a licence is granted, a form has to be filled in, giving various particulars, among which is a reference to any physical disability from which the applicant suffers. If a man suffered from fits and said so, he would not get a licence. If he already had a licence and it transpired afterwards that he was subject to fits, or some other physical disability disqualifying him from driving a motor vehicle, then if the fact were made known to the licensing authority, the licence would be revoked.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: How would the authorities know that he was subject to fits?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: They should know, either because of the form to be filled in beforehand, or from the information, if it were sent to them. As soon as they know—and if a man had a fit in his car, that, most probably, would be reported by the police—such a case is provided for by Statute, and the holder's licence would be revoked.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his assurance that this sort of thing could not occur again, but it has already occurred. I support the hon. Member who said: Let us go for a higher standard of driving. I do so because of the greater difficulties and increased efficiency which is demanded from drivers today—not so much from the point of view of accidents as from the point of view of holding up traffic and making the roads practically impossible to drive along. We all know of the driver who hold up as many as 50 or 60 other vehicles. I hope the Minister will, therefore, be careful in the selection of the examiners, not only to improve the standard of driving, but also to make sure—which, in a way, is the same thing but is a little more thorough—that the applicants are fit to drive in traffic. I know many people, as I am sure we all do, who are excellent drivers in the country but who have no qualifications when they get into an appalling traffic jam. I hope the Second Reading of this Bill will receive support from all hon. Members, so that the Minister will be able to prepare for the great battle which lies ahead.
  4.13 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) referred to the question of examiners who are to be appointed to examine persons applying for licences. I have had brought to my notice cases of people who have applied for such positions and who, to my knowledge, are experts. But I am given to understand that there is an age limit of 40 years. I submit that what the hon. Member said about the onerous conditions in which Servicemen drove during the war should apply also in this case. Very many of them—especially those who have been in the Forces since 1939—are now just a little over 40 years of age. They have spent years in the Forces as driving examiners and instructors, and it seems to me rather absurd, and certainly it will not help to obtain a high standard examiner, if we are rigorously to impose an age limit of 40 years. I have had brought to my notice—and I have already sent it to the Minister—one case of a person who was in the Royal Air Force since 1939, whose qualifications as an examiner were high and who had taught many hundreds to drive heavy vehicles in the R.A.F. Yet because he happens to be about 18 months over the age limit of 40 years, his experience, ability and service will apparently not be used by the Minister. This is in spite of the fact that, at the same time, the R.A.F. and other Services are asking men even of this age if they would like to go back into the Forces to use the same experience, zeal and energy in teaching other people in the Services how to drive competently.
  Taking into account the length of time which the war lasted, which means that many of these people are now over 40 years of age, I hope the Minister will not restrict these applications rigorously to people under 40 years of age, but will use that discretion which we know he possesses in order to ensure that the public obtain the services of men of this calibre and, consequently, so that we shall have a high standard of driving on the roads.
  4.16 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I apologise for not having heard the Minister's speech, but I would like to ask the right

  1631
  hon. Gentleman one question. I have not had time to study the Bill, and it may be that the question which I have in mind is covered. In 1919 I took out a driving licence which I have never renewed. I thought that I was not qualified, temperamentally, perhaps, to drive a motor car, and I have never had any inclination to do so, but I understand that under the existing law if I now applied for a licence, I would get one without any kind of examination. I am not likely to apply, but there may be many such cases in which people who have not applied for a licence for a long time may then secure a licence, perhaps without any form of proof that they are capable of driving If this Bill does not cover such persons, I should like it to be extended to cover them, because it is highly dangerous that people who have not driven for a long time should be granted licences without proving their qualifications.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: First, I would like to commend this Bill as a very neat piece of drafting. We do not always commend the draftsmanship which emerges these days, but the drafting of this Bill is certainly very skilful indeed. There are several points which I would like to mention because, though they seem to be matters of detail, they are mainly matters of principle which the Government may wish to consider before the Committee stage.' The first is the question of Service licences. I was very interested in the Minister's explanation of how Services licences will be transferred into provisional civilian licences, and I must say I was a little surprised because there is nothing at all in the Bill about it. I was wondering whether, for the sake of clarification, the Minister would put something in the Bill to deal with that point. Is it going to work as smoothly as he hopes and suggests it will? One can imagine that many men who will be demobilised, will not have the necessary documents with them. I would like to know whether the Department is in touch with the Service Departments with a view to ensuring that at the moment of demobilisation a man who is entitled to a licence has it in his possession.
  In the various disqualifications mentioned in the proviso to Clause 2 (1) there is no reference to Service offences. A
  1632
  man convicted of a motoring offence while in the Services was generally tried under Section 40 of the Army Act, charged with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. He was not tried under the Road Traffic Act, so that there are thousands of people who, while in the Services, wrapped cars around telegraph poles, and there is nothing to stop them getting a licence under this Bill. One is very reluctant indeed to suggest that those who have served their country should be penalised in this way; on the other hand, I think we should observe a balance between the Services and the civilian population in a matter of this kind. Now that I have drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister, I hope he will consider it.
  There is a further point that I would like to mention with regard to this list of disqualifications. I wonder whether the Minister has consulted his colleague the Home Secretary, because although the principle underlying these disqualifications is very sound indeed, I feel that it should be carried just one stage further so that the present crime wave could, to some extent, be arrested and the police assisted in their duties. I suggest that that could be done in this way. We know that a great many of the crimes of housebreaking and burglary, now happening every day, are being committed by people who have been previously convicted of various similar offences, who have served their sentences, and have somehow managed to get hold of motor cars. Under the present law they are entitled to get provisional licences to drive those motor cars; and these people, of the worst possible type, have the freedom of the roads, and are a menace to the population. By making a small, and only a very small, addition in the Committee stage to the disqualifications mentioned in the proviso, the right hon. Gentleman could greatly assist his colleague the Home Secretary, and enable the police to check the cars that are being driven about the roads. Perhaps he would consider that point.
  I think the present position in regard to this proviso is a little strange. There will be some anomalies which will make the law appear to be just a little bit of an ass. For instance, it is rather strange that if one were to commit manslaughter with a shotgun—a very serious offence, with a high degree of moral blame attached to it—one would still be able to

  1633
  get a licence to drive a motor car—an even more lethal weapon than a shotgun—in which to drive all over the place; whereas, if one merely causes bodily harm, even slight bodily harm, in connection with driving a motor car, one is forbidden to obtain a licence. That is an anomalous position, and is also a matter which the Minister might care to examine. I think the solution is, to broaden the items giving rise to disqualification. If those items are broadened, and all people who are obviously undesirable and unfit to drive a car included, we would not have these obviously illogical and contradictory items.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. Viant: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) raised some very important points, but, at the same time if his theory were followed it seems to me it would become necessary for a person making an application for a driving licence to have to produce a note of good character. I see no other way, if the hon. Member's suggestion is pursued. The Minister responsible for this small Bill is already confronted with a very considerable problem. When I read the Bill the first question that suggested itself to me was: Is a period of 12 months' driving without an accident sufficient guarantee at the present time that a person is an efficient driver? That is a very debatable point. Personally, I do not think 12 months is a sufficient period. There are quite a number of people who have been driving for the past 12 months, but they have not been driving to any great extent. There must be some reason for fixing the period of 12 months. The only reason that has been advanced this afternoon is that the problem would be insoluble, because the number of people who would then have to come up for examination would probably run to well over a million, if not to two million. It is a problem which is almost insuperable from the point of view of obtaining the necessary number of examiners. As I have already said, whether or not the period of 12 months is adequate will be quite a legitimate point to discuss in Committee.
  Reference has been made to the standard of driving. In prewar days the standard of driving was undoubtedly high, but since the war it has deteriorated. If we can get back to the standard of
  1634
  driving that prevailed prior to the war, we shall have done a good deal. In prewar days the standard of the examiners was exceedingly good. The Minister has already decided, I understand, that those who are now appointed as examiners will have to pass the test set by the Hendon school of driving—the police test. If we can get that standard I am convinced we shall have achieved a great deal, through the agency of this Bill, to bring the standard of driving up to the prewar standard. Hon. Members opposite have suggested we should endeavour to get beyond that. Well, I hope we shall. At least this Bill is already giving an indication of the intentions of the Minister in this regard. All too frequently during the course of the war local magistrates have been confronted with men from the Services who have had accidents, or have been charged with dangerous driving. As has already been said, no record is kept in regard thereto. If these men from the Services—and believe me, the standard of the driving test in the Services was by no means a high standard—are to be exempt from any test, we may run a very grave risk. I suggest the Minister might again reflect on the points which have arisen in the course of this Debate, and be prepared to meet them in Committee.
  4.29 p.m.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I shall be very brief indeed in speaking in support of this Bill. There is one point which I confess puzzles me somewhat. I refer to Clause 2 (1, e), which relates to driving under the influence of alcohol. I am at a loss to understand why a man who has been convicted of driving under the influence of drink is any less likely to repeat his crime because he is subjected to a driving test some 12 months later. I suggest that this is a case in which a medical test would be far more suitable than a driving test—or, if preferred, as well as a driving test. That is the one case in which, I suggest, a medical test is essential. The man who has been convicted of driving under the influence of drink is no less likely to commit the same offence because, 12 months later, he has to pass a driving test. That is the only point I have to make. I feel that people with records of driving under the influence of drink should be prohibited altogether from driving.
  4.30 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): A number of Members have in the course of this Debate, put to me detailed points concerning this Bill, and I shall do my best to reply. I would say, first, that I am delighted that this Measure has received so much support from all sections of the House. I am hopeful, but not overconfident, that the next Measure with which my right hon. Friend will deal, and which was introduced today, may be received amid the same harmony and accord; but I gather, from a few hints that were dropped, that that is exceedingly unlikely, and I am certain of this, at any rate, that the Debate on Second Reading will not pass as quickly as this has done.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton), who is not in his place at the moment, raised the question of whether it should be the duty of examiners to impress on applicants their grave responsibility as drivers. The main duty of the examiners, of course, is to put the applicant through his test, and if we put on them propaganda duties, I think we should be overburdening them. But in the ordinary course of the test, there will be questions on the Highway Code, and I think that the applicant will be indirectly impressed with the knowledge that he has a real responsibility when driving on the road, and should always be careful.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point about which I asked?
  Mr. Strauss: I am coming to the point in a moment. I am going through the various points raised in chronological order. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) asked me a number of questions. First, he asked why this proposal is being dealt with in this complicated way, in that there have been already an Order in Council and a Regulation concerning this matter. I regret very much that we have no alternative but to put it forward in this complex way. It arises from the method by which the provisional licence machinery was introduced in 1940, and the consequential legal requirements of going back to the prewar custom. I could explain, but only at some length, why we have had to bring the matter before the House in three stages. First, there was the Order in
  1636
  Council; then the Regulation, and now this Bill. I regret that, but it was inevitable.
  The hon. Member also asked me if I could give him any information about the examiners—how many there are—and a number of other hon. Members asked me why it is necessary that we should accept only examiners who are under the age of 41. The position is this. We are reengaging all the prewar examiners we had, who number about 170. They have been re-engaged. They have gone through one of the police schools; not with the object of testing them, but in order to bring them up to date, and to make them acquainted with the latest methods of the police in driving instruction, and so on. They have gone through that very intensive course. We have had about 10,000 applications from members of the public, many of them with the very highest qualifications, who want to take the additional posts of driving examiners which are now vacant, and which will be about the same number. We have felt it necessary to impose age limits ranging between 31 and 41—regretfully, because we realise that we shall exclude a number of people who are exceedingly competent, but, because the average age of our prewar examiners is getting high, and it is essential that we should have a balanced group of men from the point of view of age. Moreover, the work of the examiners is exceedingly strenuous. In view of these considerations we felt it was desirable to make the upper age limit 41. If too high a proportion of our examiners were old, it would, I am sure, be contrary to the public interest.
  Mr. Lipson: What is the lower age limit?
  Mr. Strauss: Thirty-one.
  Mr. F. Lee: In view of the point I mentioned about the position of examiners who went into the Forces in 1939, the fact that they spent many years, examining, teaching and driving in the Forces, and also the fact that they are now slightly above the age of 41, which makes this limit rather hard upon them, would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in cases of that sort, where they have been engaged in this work daily for so long, they might be engaged now?
  Mr. Strauss: That would be exceedingly difficult, because a high proportion

  1637
  of the applicants have, in some way or another, in the police force or the Army, been concerned with the teaching of motoring; and if we depart from the rule at all we should find most of our new people well over the age of 41—maybe 45 or 50. We can consider the matter further, but I am sure we are right, and I hope that the House, on consideration, will agree that our decision was wise.
  Mr. Digby: Will a proportion of them be women, and if so what proportion?
  Mr. Strauss: Yes. No specific proportion will be laid down, but among the present 170 I think there are about 20 women examiners. If new applicants who are women have good qualifications, they will be accepted. There is no sex bar in this matter. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) asked what sort of test applicants for licences will undergo. It will be exactly the same as before the war. It may be that later, when we have caught up with the substantial back lag, we may raise it. But we think that, for the time being, it is reasonable to work on the same standard as that which obtained before the war. That is our present intention.
  Mr. Lipson: Will consideration be given to the additional test that I proposed, that is, a medical test?
  Mr. Strauss: I was coming to that. I have not finished with the points the hon. Member raised. There will be no medical test. There has not been any medical test before. What happens is this. When a man applies for a driving licence he has to state whether he suffers from a number of diseases such as epilepsy, fits—which were mentioned by another hon. Member—or other mental or physical deficiencies which would obviously disqualify him from having a driving licence. If he says he does suffer from one of those deficiencies, he cannot get a licence. If he does suffer from them, but states on his application form, that he does not, then he is liable to severe penalties. There is no way of avoiding this risk of a false application, unless we give a medical examination to, and look into the back medical history of everybody who applies for a driving licence; and that would really not be practical.
  1638
  The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) said he was anxious that the driving examiners should be of high quality for their onerous and responsible duties. He instanced a man, mentioned in a Debate in another place a little time ago, who, when he was going through a police school course recently, said he did not know the Highway Code. I do not know who that man is; we have no information about him. But I can assure the hon. Member that both old and new examiners will be under constant supervision by our supervisory examiners, and that, if any of them appears to be unfit for the task, he will be taken off that duty immediately.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the examiners be examined? Surely there must be some test for them too when they are appointed!
  Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. As far as the new applications for appointments as examiners are concerned, they will be first of all examined by the supervisory examiners who will be posted in various parts of the country. It is only after they have been passed by the supervisory examiners as being people who appear to be suitable that they will be sent to the police college. They will then only be taken on for a probationary period. My hon. and learned Friend can be assured that new examiners will be very carefully selected and tested before they get the job.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If not it would be a case of the blind leading the blind.
  Mr. Strauss: We are, of course, taking on all the old examiners without further test. The hon. and learned Member asked a question, which was also asked by another hon. Member, about the position of a man who had a licence under the 1903 Act and who now does not have to pass any test at all. Of course, that is quite right, but that is in conformity with the original driving test Acts, particularly that of 1934, which said that any man who possessed a driving licence before that year need not undergo any further test, but would automatically be granted a new driving licence. That provision still applies. We are not trying, in this or in any other way, to alter the past law; all we are trying to do in this small Measure is to reimpose the practice which existed before the war.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was my point. This is rather an important matter, and I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he would look into it, and see whether some modified provision ought not to be made to prevent a man from getting a licence without a test after an interval of perhaps 25 years during which he may never have driven a motor vehicle and where he has previously driven only in entirely different and less exacting conditions. That seems to be just as important as any other case.
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that we should materially revise the law in regard to driving licences. That is not the intention of this Bill, and I think in fact it would be found very difficult in this respect because it would involve reviewing the full circumstances of everybody who had a driving licence to find out whether or not he or she should be tested. We can of course discuss this matter further, but I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will find there are almost insuperable difficulties.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is really not so. All I am postulating is the case of a man, making an application for a licence just as anyone else does, who has not had one for an interval of, say, 20 or 25 years. A man in that position is no better qualified than a man who has never had a licence at all, and should accordingly be subjected to the same conditions and tests.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and learned Gentleman is now making a second speech; he is not entitled to do so on Second Reading.
  Mr. Strauss: I fully appreciate that point. We are not, however, trying to alter our licensing provisions here. People who have had a provisional licence during the war for one year need not apply for a test; that is all that this Bill is trying to do.
  A certain amount of confusion seemed to appear in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) about the provisions (a)to (e) in Clause 2. He, and I think other hon. Members, seemed to be under the impression that if anybody had been convicted of any of these offences he would be disqualified from
  1640
  having a licence. Nothing of the sort. All we say here is that if a man has driven for more than a year under a provisional licence, and has been convicted of one of those offences, he shall come up for a test. We are not disqualifying anybody, but that is what seemed to be in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Mr. Renton: It really comes to this, that such a man does not get the benefit of Clause 2 (1), that benefit being that he would not have to undergo a test?
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member is quite right. I come now to one or two of the other points he raised. There is no need to mention in this Bill the arrangement by which a man if he possesses a Service licence automatically gets an ordinary road licence. The hon. Member, however, raised an important point, that there may be individuals who, when they have driven vehicles in the Services, have had a bad accident record, or at least have had one accident. When they come out they will, the hon. Member suggests, be given a certificate by the Army authorities which will qualify them for a licence under the 1930 and 1934 Acts. That is a difficulty which we have considered, and we have asked the Army authorities, and they have agreed, only to give a certificate to those of their drivers who have not only driven but have a good record. Anyone who has not got a good Army record for driving will have to come up for test in the ordinary way.
  Then the hon. Member raised a rather novel point, the very interesting one that we should disqualify from driving anybody who has been convicted of a criminal offence—or, at any rate, that such a person should come up for some further test. I am sure the hon. Member will realise that it is an entirely novel suggestion that we should grant or refuse licences according to whether the applicant has been convicted of some criminal offence. I think it would lead us into considerable difficulties.
  Mr. Renton rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind hon. Members that this is a Second Reading Debate and not a Committee stage; the great majority of points that have been raised are Committee points.
  Mr. Strauss: We may be able to pursue that matter a little further in Committee,

  1641
  but I am sure that my right hon. Friend would resist a suggestion that he should refuse licences to persons because of some offence which they may have committed which has nothing at all to do with driving. The granting of driving licences, and the driving test, are connected with one thing only, and that is safe driving on the roads.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) questioned whether 12 months was a sufficient period. There may be many people who had driven a car for that period or for more than that period who are still bad drivers. That is perfectly true, but when you come to frame legislation of this sort and deal with this type of problem, you must settle on some figure, and it appeared to us that a man who had been driving under a provisional licence for 12 months or more, was probably a fairly experienced driver. We might have said 24 months, but there might have been equal objection to that from other hon. Members. We are fortified in selecting the figure of 12 months, because that is the period suggested by the Committee on Road Safety in its interim report as a reasonable period, and on balance I think it is. I have already informed the House that the driving examiners will go through one of the police colleges and have an intensive course there before they are allowed to carry out their examination.
  It has been suggested that the present standard of driving is low compared to that of prewar years, and the hope was expressed that having good examiners to put applicants through a stiff test might raise that standard. Of course this is a matter of opinion, but my impression, and I think probably that of a good many hon. Members, is that the standard of driving today is higher than it was in prewar days. Certainly, if one examines the accident figures on any comparable basis, the number of accidents is less than it was prewar, taking into account the amount of traffic on the roads. I do not accept the general allegation against motor drivers that their standard is worse now. My view is that, maybe largely as a result of the intensive road safety campaign, the standard is higher than it was before the war. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised—
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I do not think this is a Committee point; driving may or
  1642
  may not be as good as it was before the war, but in my opinion congestion in London and other cities is worse. Could the hon. Gentleman therefore say whether applicants will be put through tests to encourage greater efficiency in traffic, with a view to reducing congestion?
  Mr. Strauss: I think that I answered that point when I said that the tests will be of the same standard as before the war Drivers then had to show proficiency under traffic conditions. Later on we may raise the standard higher, but we do not think that it would be possible to do that at the moment. I was asked whether there was any point in testing applicants who had been convicted of drunkenness. We think that anyone who has been convicted of a serious traffic offence should not be relieved of the obligation, and maybe the nuisance, of being properly tested, and that may have some psychological effect upon the applicant, discouraging him from again committing the same sort of offence.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: My point was in regard to medical tests.
  Mr. Strauss: Medical tests would be extremely difficult, and it is not proposed to introduce them at the moment. All the points which have been put by hon. Members can be considered further on Committee I hope, with the explanations I have given, that the House will be good enough to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Mr. Lipson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain a little further why he thinks that the test must be the same as before the war? He does not necessarily want to increase the number of people who are given licences, unless there is good justification, in view of the congestion and road accident figures. Why is it not possible, therefore—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can ask a question, but he cannot make a second speech.
  Mr. Strauss: In the first year or so we shall have to test not only all the applicants for new driving licences, but a very large number of people who held provisional licences for less than a year during the war. When we have overcome that back-log, which will be substantial, we will then consider having a more severe test.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING LICENCES)
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to revoke certain emergency provision as to licences to drive motor vehicles, and to amend the law as to the destination of fees in respect of driving tests, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of such fees."—[Mr. G. R. Strauss.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

POTATOES (1946 CROP) (CHARGES) ORDER
4.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I beg to move,
"That the Potatoes (1946 Crop) (Charges) Order. 1946, dated 28th October, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946, No. 1740), made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th October, be approved."
I think the House is familiar with this Order. It is the annual Potato Charges Order, and this time it concerns the 1946 crop. Similar Orders have received affirmative Resolutions in each year since 1941, and the purpose of the present Order is just the same as that of the Orders passed in previous years. That purpose is to redress, to some extent, by means of levies, the comparative trading advantages enjoyed by certain categories of licensed traders in ware potatoes who do not perform all the services normally undertaken by wholesalers. The charges on sales of ware potatoes are imposed at the rate of is. per ton on sales by licensed grower salesmen—growers licensed to sell direct to retailers and consumers—and on sales made through licensed auctioneers or under special licence; and 2s. 6d. per ton on sales by licensed potato buyers—retailers licensed to buy direct from growers. The levies in no
1644
way increase the charge to consumers, but are direct impositions on those licensees who by-pass the normal wholesale channels. The levies are collected by deductions from the subsidy, which is paid to reduce the cost of potatoes to the consumer. I think that the House will approve this Order when they know that the National Potato Advisory Committee, which is representative of all sections of the potato industry, have approved the continuance of the levies at the same rate as last season.
4.58 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Poole: I am not sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I should raise this matter as a point of Order, or put it in a form of a question to the hon. Lady. I understand that this Order comes into effect from the date it is printed, and that it lies on the Table for 28 days, and then, if there is not an affirmative Resolution in that period, lapses. Presumably, it is within the power of the House to refuse the Order if they so desire. My point is this: how can anyone who receives this Order know that this procedure is to be adopted? Suppose that a man affected by the Order, receives this complex document, he may dislike it very much. How is he to know that he has 28 days in which to make representations, and that there is a possibility that the Order may lapse? How can he distinguish this Order from any other Regulations he may receive which are normally, subject only to negative Resolutions? It seems to me that this is a matter of some importance. It would be more to the point if these Orders were clearly marked, indicating what procedure is to be adopted. I am sure that many Members did not know the procedure to be adopted in this case, let alone the ordinary man in the street. I hope that the hon. Lady can explain how a potato grower is to know that he can write to his Member of Parliament on this matter. I understand from Mr. Speaker's Counsel that these Orders have lapsed in the past, and that in one case an Order lapsed because an affirmative Resolution was not passed.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. McKie: I am sure we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) for raising this technical point. I was unaware that he was

1645
going to do so, and I confess that I am not quite au fait with the special point he has made. No doubt the hon. Lady, when she replies, will have something to say on this matter I am sure that we all listened with great pleasure to the hon. Lady who presented this Order this afternoon in a most winsome way. If I may also say so, without offence, she showed herself better briefed today in dealing with this subject, than she did when we were dealing with the Prayer on the Seizure of Food Order last night. The hon. Lady spoke of the way in which the interests of the consumer were protected under this Order, and reminded us that there were six successive occasions during the war, and in 1945, and now again today, when a similar Order was presented to this House. I make no complaint at all of what she said about the interests of the consumer—I am certain that no one on this side would do so either—and I was delighted to hear her say that this Order, like its predecessors, had the full support of the National Advisory Committee on matters relating to potatoes. But I would like her to say a word or two, if she is successful in receiving permission to address the House again, as I hope she will be, about how the wholesalers' or producers' interests are safeguarded under this Order. I think she will realise that the position of the potato producer and wholesaler is not so satisfactory now as it has been since 1940 when the first Order, in the terms of the one we are now discussing, was presented to this House. I hope the hon. Lady will say a word or two about what the Government, of which she is such a distinguished representative on matters relating to food, are doing about the interests of potato wholesalers. After all, Great Britain is a great potato producing country—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman is saying sounds very much like repetition.
Mr. McKie: With great respect, Sir, I was coming to a quite different point, namely, that this island, for some 400 years since the days of Sir Walter Raleigh, has been a great potato producing country—
Mr. Callaghan: What about Ireland?
Mr. McKie: Yes and Ireland, too. When the Government are stressing to
1646
people in this country the necessity to eat more potatoes, the hon. Lady should remember, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has just reminded me, of what the potato has done in the past for the people of Ireland. I suppose that is why—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is out of Order, as this Order is not concerned with potatoes in Ireland.
Mr. McKie: I am sorry, Sir; I was rather led away by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). Britain is a great potato producing country, and Scotland especially so. I am a Member for a Scottish constituency, and I would like the hon. Lady to say something about potato wholesalers in Great Britain, particularly in Scotland. It is the custom in this House to disclose one's personal interest in a matter under discussion. Well, I have an interest from the producer's point of view, and I am also fond of eating potatoes as a consumer. Producers are faced with increased costs of production and distribution. One part of my Division is closely associated with the production of early potatoes, which is a delicious article of food, and a good source of revenue. I suppose that even under a Socialist Government, which has now admitted that to earn small profits is no sin, the interest of producers of the early variety of potato will be protected. Some of the small people are being faced with increasing costs of production and the ever-increasing difficulty of getting suitable labour to raise the potato harvest every year. It is not merely the consumer or vendor of potatoes whom we should have under serious consideration at the present time. It is the bounden duty of the hon. Lady to give a clear indication—I do not ask for figures this afternoon—that the interests of the potato producer and wholesaler will not, any more than those of the vendor or consumer, be overlooked by the Government.
5.7 p.m.
Sir John Barlow: I apologise to the hon. Lady for not being here when she spoke, but I was under the impression that this Debate was coming on later, and if I put any questions which she has already answered I apologise in advance. This Order seems to deal with a very small section of the potato distribution business. I would like to draw attention to Article 2, in which three classes of buyers are signified by the

1647
letters (a), (b), and (c). In the following paragraph these three classes of salesmen are referred to again, but not in the same order, and it would make the Order rather more tidy if these people were referrd to, in Article 2, in the same order as that in which they are referred to in Article 2.
I hope the hon. Lady will give us a little information about the licensed potato buyer who, I gather, represents the distributor who is allowed to buy directly from the grower. This class of buyer existed before the original potato Order came into being, six years ago, and it was promised, at that time, that he should be allowed to continue. This class of buyer was not recognised in the early days of Potato Marketing Board. I believe that this class is largely represented by a few large distributors who buy from the grower, and by cooperative societies and fish and chip shops in certain districts. These people make two profits—the wholesaler's and the distributor's profits which, together, can be a very substantial sum in certain cases. I believe that that builds up a relatively small but, at the same time, vested interest. Those who happened to be fortunate enough to get in on the ground floor, and get original licences, which they renewed every year, are in a better position than their competitors to make profits, whether they be ordinary distributing shops or fish and chip shops. I have been told of fish and chip shops in certain towns who have a large business, and who have the licence, and thereby become rather privileged, because they can make two profits against their competitor's one profit.
I should like to know how these licences are carried forward. If one licensed owner goes out of business, dies or retires, what happens to that licence? Does it die a natural death, continue with his shop, or is it given to someone else in the same line of business? I should also like to know how new licences of this character are given out. I can imagine many enterprising owners of new establishments, and especially people coming out of the Services, who are anxious to go to the grower to buy their supplies in order to sell them direct to the public, thereby making two profits. It was the enterprising people who built up these businesses in the past, and it is obvious that new licences should be given, in certain circumstances, otherwise the number in
1648
existence will naturally diminish after six or seven years. Perhaps the hon. Lady would also give us some information on. the more general question of potatoes, and how long she proposes to direct that potatoes shall be grown on ground which is commonly considered unsuitable for the purpose. There are certain counties, such as Cheshire, Hampshire and parts of Cambridgeshire, where directions are given to grow potatoes, and the farmers have to grow them, knowing full well that they will be produced at a loss. I am aware that this is going a little outside this Order, but I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to give us some information on that subject, which is a burning question in some quarters.
5.13 p.m.
Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I first answer the question about the lapsing of the Order? I suppose that the ordinary man in the street knows nothing about the procedure of this House, but he sends hon. Members here to represent him, and the first thing, which an hon. Member should do in this. House is to learn about the procedure. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole), who I realise has not been here long, one thing he should have learned is that when a levy of any kind is made there must always be an affirmative Resolution. I hope that will guide him in the future. He cannot, of course, expect a man concerned with digging potatoes or distributing potatoes to understand this. He is the man who helped to send the hon. Member here to learn these things, and, of course, if necessary, to speak against the Order.
Mr. Oliver Poole: Every Order that makes a levy may require to have an affirmative Resolution, but this one comes into effect before the affirmative Resolution is produced. I am sure that there is. nothing in this Order to show that this procedure has to be adopted.
Dr. Summerskill: I can only repeat that if the hon. Member will go to the Library and ask for the Rules of Procedure, he will see that this is explained very carefully, and he will understand in future what the position is. One cannot give guidance of this kind in every Order. It would make the Order too long, and be regarded by most hon. Members as unnecessary.

1649
I appreciate the gallant remarks of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). He is not always so gallant. I am reminded of one occasion at three o'clock in the morning, last July or August, when he was not quite so gallant. However, I can assure him that, even if coming from the Opposition, his statement is appreciated. The hon. Member for Galloway strayed a little from the Order, but he asked me if we would remember the wholesaler and the producer. I would like him to realise that, in effect, this is only a token levy. If it were possible, for instance, to convey this levy to the consumer, it would mean an amount of three-eightieths of a penny for seven pounds of potatoes. I think the hon. Member knows that the prices paid to the producer, the wholesaler and the retailer are decided every year between all the agricultural interests. I can assure him that we shall continue to do that. We have a very warm spot in our hear for the potato producer. He is producing today a commodity which is an alternative to bread, and, therefore, we do everything to encourage him and keep him sweet and good tempered.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) asked if I had noticed the difference between Articles 2 and 3, but that has no significance whatever. I shall bear in mind what he has said, and perhaps when the Order is printed again we shall be guided by his advice. He also asked about licences. The licences of the retailer are, of course, determined by certain priorities. The ex-trader is automatically given a licence; the ex-Service-man is given preference. As to his question on what we should do if all the licences in one area lapsed, and how we should feed the people, my answer is that we should, of course, be guided by the consumer need. Every now and then we make a survey of a neighbourhood, and if we consider that the consumers are not adequately served, we give more licences. In one new area—where it was felt that consumers were not adequately considered, we gave a very large number of licences. The question of the production of crops does not concern my Department and is quite outside this Order. That is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That the Potatoes (1946 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1946, dated 28th October, 1946
1650
(S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1740), made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th October, be approved."

ROYAL MARINES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
5.18 p.m.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is very nice to be able to move the Second Reading of such a short Bill, which is uncontroversial, and which, I am certain, will receive the approval of the House. The purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 1 of the Royal Marines Act, 1857, which laid it down that for a Royal Marine to qualify for a pension, 21 years' service was necessary. Hon. Members will remember that in Command Paper 6715, which was introduced into this House recently, paragraph 36 laid down that all the Fighting Services should come into line in regard to standardisation of pensions.
The position prior to the introduction of that Command Paper was that the' members of the Royal Navy had to perform 22 years' service before being eligible for a pension, except for the Royal Marines, who were only performing 21 years. The Army and the Royal Air Force were only performing 21 years. Because of the standardisation of pensions, I am certain the House will agree that it is absolutely essential that there should be standardisation of the qualifying period for obtaining a pension, and this Bill has been introduced precisely for that purpose. The Army and the Air Force were covered this year by an Amendment to the Army and Air Force Annual Act, 1946, by which they have now been brought into line with the Royal Navy. I ask the House to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill in order that all the Services, after the passing of the Bill, will be equal as far as concerns the standardisation of pay and pensions. I do not think it is necessary to say much with regard to the Royal Marines. The future of the Royal Marines, and other matters affecting them, can be raised on the Navy Estimates. This Bill is essen-

1651
tial for equality, and I ask the House to agree to give it a Second Reading.
5.22p.m.
Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I think I can cause the Civil Lord double pleasure this evening. He was pleased at the shortness of the Bill, and my speech will be even shorter than the Bill. The Civil Lord has explained very clearly the reason for the Bill. From the point of view of the administration of the new pay code, it is obviously convenient that the period of service for pension should be the same for the Royal Marines as for the other three Services. The Bill has support from hon. Members who sit on this side of the House. As the Civil Lord said, more general questions about the future of the Royal Marines can be discussed on the Navy Estimates, and I will content myself now with supporting the Bill from this side of the House.
5.23 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I think we ought not to allow this occasion to pass without expressing some views about the contents of this Bill and the place of the Royal Marines in the Services. It does not happen often that we get an opportunity of talking about the Royal Marines by themselves, without reference to the Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, and as such this is almost an historic occasion. There are one or two matters which, I think, arise in connection with the pay code, because that is really what we are discussing this evening. The pay code was introduced in an attempt to stimulate recruitment. Its purpose was to stimulate recruitment. The time was put up from 21 years to 22 years in order that recruitment might be stimulated. I think that is going to achieve its purpose in some way, but I would like to ask the Civil Lord whether he can give us some indication of what response he is getting in the Royal Marines in the way of recruitment. Are they, in fact, signing on for the full 21 or 22 years, or are they not signing on for them? My indications are that recruitment for the Royal Marines is not going very well. If that is so, I am sure the House would like to know about it, because recruitment for the Navy is going well. I should be out of Order if I were to suggest why it is not going well, but may I put it to the Civil Lord that it
1652
is no use changing the terms of reference unless one has firmly in one's mind what job these people are to do. There is no doubt that during the war they suffered very badly through having a variety of tasks, and really did not find their mission in life until quite late in the war—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman is now right outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, I rather had the feeling that I was. I am concerned with the very narrow point of whether putting the term up from 21 years to 22 years will solve the problem. May I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is in Order for me to put to the Civil Lord and the House some other reasons why putting the period up from 21 to 22 years will not necessarily solve this problem? It is a matter outside the Bill, but I submit to you that, on the Second Reading, there may be things outside the Bill that ought to be in it. I want, in the space of a minute or two, to put those reasons to the House. One of the things I would like to say, if I may ask you to be a little lenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, since we do not often get a chance to talk about the Royal Marines—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask me to be too lenient, since I shall have to show the same leniency to the Minister that I show to him.
Mr. Callaghan: I trust you will extend that leniency to him, Sir, and I am sure the House would welcome it. Has the Civil Lord got in mind a job for the Royal Marines to do? They had a job at the end of the war—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Even that does not come within the compass of the Bill.
Mr. Callaghan: I was only going to say that putting the term up from 21 to 22 years may help, but it will not help alone. Far better than putting the term up from 21 to 22 years, which is, I gather, the object of the Bill, would be to improve the standards of accommodation in the Royal Marines barracks at Portsmouth and Eastleigh.
5.27 p.m.
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would like to follow

1653
the remarks of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) on the Royal Marines, but I will not do so tonight. I simply want to assure the Minister that this Measure is being very well received by the Royal Marines, and they are grateful for being brought into line with other of His Majesty's Forces. It is a good thing and a worthy step for a corps which deserves well of this country.
5.28p.m.
Mr. Mallalieu: I wish to reinforce everything that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) has said—everything that was in Order. I would like to congratulate the Civil Lord, not only on the shortness of the Bill, but on his optimism in moving the Second Reading, because I feel sure that unless certain very drastic changes are made in the Royal Marines, it will be no use asking people to serve for 22 years, and that better than moving the period from 21 to 22 years would be to bring it down to 10 years. The changes that must be made are the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff has mentioned. Questions of conditions, of collective grievances, or promotion, all those things have to be dealt with, not only in the Royal Marines, that great Service, but in every one of the other Services.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. W. Edwards: I would like to reply to the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) and Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu), and to thank the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) and the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) for the very generous welcome they have given to the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cardiff and Huddersfield have simply lost sight of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is not to bring about increased recruitment for the Royal Marines. The Bill has nothing to do with that. If my hon. Friends had listened to what I said in moving the Second Reading, they would have known that the purpose of the Bill is to bring the Royal Marines into line with the other three Services as far as pensionable time is concerned. I was very happy to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch, who served very well in-
1654
deed in the Royal Marines, that the Bill is being greatly welcomed by them. One would assume, from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff, that the Royal Marines are treated in a shocking way, that they have no job of work to do, and that they are just doing anything that any officer likes to put on to them. I think I can say that the Royal Marines have always played their part in the work of the Royal Navy both afloat and ashore, and there is good scope in the work of the Royal Marines allied with their brothers in the Royal Navy.
Mr. Callaghan: I would not like any impression to get abroad that I was suggesting that the Royal Marines had not got a job to do. The Civil Lord will realise that I was making comments under some difficulty, and that that certainly was not my intention at all.
Mr. Edwards: In any case, I can assure the House that the Marines have a job to do, and there will always be a job for them. We hope in the future, as in the past, that they will always do that job well. For the information of the House there is one point I wish to add in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff which left the impression that, because of the awful conditions existing in the Royal Marines apart from pay, accommodation and things like that, we are finding it hard to get men to volunteer for that Service. It may interest him 10 know that, despite a fair amount of exaggeration which has taken place in regard to conditions in the Service, and also a fair amount of what I might call non-cooperation in connection with the new pay codes which were introduced this year, the target for this year has been reached to the extent of 65 per cent., and that is in the first 10 months. We have also to remember that this has happened in the interim period of the changeover from war to peace. I think that is a creditable figure and shows that the Royal Marines are comparatively popular and far more popular than some of their sister Services.
Mr. Mallalieu: Can the Civil Lord tell us what the target was?
Mr. Edwards: One thousand.
Mr. Callaghan: That is about 600 odd.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is the result of my being too lenient. I do not think that I can allow the hon. Members to go any further on this subject.
Mr. Edwards: I am very sorry, but in view of some of the remarks which were made during the course of the Debate I think it would have been rather unfair, so far as the Admiralty is concerned, to let those statements stand without some reply being made. On the general issue, whilst we should like to get our target before the date fixed for it, we are a little bit in advance of most other Services. I think that I have dealt with the relevant points to which reference has been made, and, therefore, I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) [MONEY]
Resolution reported;
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to transfer functions of agricultural wages committees to the Agricultural Wages Board and to the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, and to make provision as to other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under section eleven of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, or section eleven of the Agricultural Wages (Reguation) (Scotland) Act, 1937."
Resolution agreed to.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Sodbury, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st November, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Ludlow, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st November, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Cannock, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st November, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS
Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills, and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:
Mr. Barton, Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Chater, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Grey, Mr. Grierson, Mr. Guy, Mr. Hubbard, Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Mr. McAdam, Colonel Ponsonby, Mr. Raikes and Mr. Viant:
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Three to be the Quorum—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

CHILDREN'S CINEMA CLUBS
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Dumpleton: I wish to take this opportunity to raise a matter which some hon. Members might consider to be of minor importance, yet which I hope many will agree is a matter affecting the mental and, in a wide sense, the spiritual welfare of many hundreds of thousands of our children, and one to which this House should give some atten-

1657
tion. I wish to deal for a moment with the children's cinema clubs. Over the past two years or so children's cinema clubs have been instituted by the Odeon and Gaumont cinema syndicates. They are held in something like 375 cinemas belonging to those two circuits, and on Saturday mornings the children are admitted to a special programme for a small charge. They are arranged under the name of children's clubs, and I believe something like 400,000 to 500,000 children regularly attend these cinema clubs each Saturday morning.
I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I am not necessarily attacking or condemning these clubs, but I do want to call the attention of the House to the fact that among many school teachers, members of education committees, parents and many people who have experience of dealing with children there is very widespread interest in this experiment, and there is also very widespread concern, as I hope to be able to show the House in a moment. I do not think that it needs to be argued that the cinema is a means of very great influence upon the minds of children at an impressionable age. I believe that the people who have started to run these cinema clubs have done so from a very public spirited motive.
They were started some two years ago when there was a need to do something about the children who were more or less at a loose end on Saturday mornings, because many of their parents, perhaps, were engaged on war work. I believe that this interesting experiment, if it is helped, encouraged and guided along the right lines, has within it potentialities of very great good. I think, however, from what I have been told by people who have great experience in dealing with children, a knowledge of child psychology, and so on, that we must recognise that there are also potentialities of great danger to the children. The purpose I have in view in raising this matter on the Adjournment is to underline and support a request that has already been made to the Home Secretary by a responsible organisation in this country interested in films—the British Film Institute—that there should be an inquiry into this interesting experiment, which can have a great influence for good upon the minds of so many of our children, but which, at the same time, has possibilities of danger.
1658
I have said that there is widespread interest and some concern among school teachers, members of educational committees, and many people who have great experience in child welfare and in dealing with children, and I should like to give one or two instances. I have in my constituency a very experienced head mistress of a girls' school who has shown some interest in these clubs from the point of view of their possible effect upon the children, and I should like to quote from a letter she has written. I would say, before doing so, that she is rather critical, and that, having myself had the privilege of visiting the cinema clubs by courtesy of the Odeon circuit, I would not express myself in such strong terms. But I think that, coming from a person who has such wide experience, the remarks are worth quoting in order to demonstrate the concern that exists. The lady wrote as follows:
"No factual film was shown. The singing at the beginning was designed to loosen any self-control that they"—
the children—
"might have gained during the week, and any taste or judgment. No really good standards of behaviour were shown. The gangster serial was definitely harmful and distorted facts. Instead of provoking thought and criticism, they encouraged escapism, instead of healthy adventure an uncritical reception of ideas, so preparing the youngsters of this country for mass suggestion and exploitation."
A little while ago a conference of people who are concerned about this matter was held under the auspices of the British Film Institute and the National Council of Women, and I should like also to quote the words of a headmaster so that in addition to the evidence from the girls' side we may have some from a representative of the boys' side who attended that meeting. The headmaster said:
"I think that however well intentioned the people who run the Saturday morning shows—please do not misunderstand me. I am perfectly certain these people have a very high sense of mission—they have taken far too much for granted that the job is an easy one, that children are people who can be easily satisfied, that there is no technique to be learned, and that there is no such thing as child psychology to be' understood. I feel that before they launched upon this scheme they should have given it far greater con sideration and should have gone into consultation with people who have been on a similar sort of job for most of their lives."

1659
He went on:
"What do we get on Saturday mornings? You ask poor cinema managers to take over a job which even the most cold blooded and callous schoolmaster would faint at. You ask them to look after this horde of children. I know they have the screen to help them, and we know that if you want the best attention, turn on a film and you get it at once."
Continuing, the headmaster said:
"Naturally, he cannot consider these children as individuals. It is quite obvious that on Saturday mornings most of the work we are trying to do in schools is being destroyed."
Earl Winterton: I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that my request is a perfectly fair one if I ask him to be good enough to state the names of the two persons from whom he has quoted so that the House may judge of their position.
Mr. Dumpleton: The headmistress of the school is one of my constituents. Her opinion was contained in a personal letter to me, and I do not feel justified in quoting her name to the House without her permission. The second opinion which I quoted is contained in a printed report of the conference, issued by the British Film Institute and entitled "Children and the Cinema," which is obtainable from that Institute for 2s. 6d. I think all the information can be obtained from that publication.
I have emphasised that I am quoting these two opinions from experienced people merely to show that concern exists although, as I have said, I do not necessarily agree with them myself. I have been to the cinema clubs recently, as I said earlier, and the films I saw shown to the children were not harmful, in my opinion. I do not think that they were very good or held interest for the children. There was not much creative good about them, but I would not describe them as harmful. I repeat that this is an interesting experiment with a good deal of public spirit behind it, and I know that it is agreed and admitted by the organisation which is responsible that there is a paucity of suitable films at the moment. I agree that it was perhaps rather unfortunate that they felt impelled to start these clubs before they had really suitable films available, but there may have been good reasons for that. I am very glad to know that this year they are going to spend a very large amount of money in an endeavour to obtain suitable films. I
1660
think it is quite true when the claim is made that this is not a commercial venture but is in fact run at great loss. There are, of course, in the cinemas every Saturday morning, a potential body of patrons for the cinema syndicates, but as I have said the scheme is being run at a loss and a great deal of expenditure is to be incurred in producing suitable films for children. All I wish to do is to make one or two suggestions by which I think these clubs may be improved upon and made of very great use.
The British Film Institute have asked that there should be an inquiry and that people of broad experience should be brought in so as to have some authoritative body of evidence, and I should think the people responsible for these clubs would welcome such an inquiry as bringing together people who can give simple evidence and advice. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is here tonight to reply to this Debate, and I think that that in itself possibly emphasises the need for some form of inquiry from the Government point of view. I think it is time that a decision was taken as to which Ministry of the Government is to be responsible for the whole of child welfare in this country. We were debating in this House a little while ago children deprived of a normal home life, and there was discussion as to which Department was to be responsible for them. I think it has to be decided soon that some Ministry is to be a Ministry of Child Welfare, whether it is called that or not, and is to have within its responsibility the whole welfare and care of the children of this country. I would like therefore, if the inquiry which is now being asked for is instituted, that there should be people on it who know something about children's welfare, child psychology, and the influence of the films upon children and upon juvenile delinquency, but that the Ministry of Education should be associated with it.
A suggestion which might form the subject of inquiry, and which I now throw out for the benefit of those who are responsible for these clubs, is that these people should make a greater effort to gather together local advisory committees to help them in work which might be valuable and useful to the children. I believe this is already being done by the Gaumont Circuit but I do not think it is being attempted generally. There are child

1661
psychologists and teachers who might be glad to give their assistance. I know that there is a central advisory Committee presided over by a lady of great experience. Another advisory committee has recently been established to concern itself with the ancillary activities of children. I have already said that films which are shown are not always suitable, but attempts are now being made to make suitable films. I hope that those attempts will be speeded, and that everything will be done to assist the effort in that direction.
These performances are called children's cinema clubs. There is a club card that every child has, and there is a club leader. The club leader is the manager of the cinema. I have no doubt that in many cases he is an admirable person for the job, but it seems to me a hit-or-miss business. A man who is trained as a cinema manager, however successful and competent he may be in that capacity, may not at the same time be a qualified and suitable man to handle in a proper way hundreds of children every Saturday morning. I have met some who were very good but I suggest—I hope it will be accepted as a constructive suggestion—that the organisations concerned should go one step further in the expenditure of the money they are using for this very interesting experiment. I suggest they might recruit and train people, or recruit trained people, to help to run these clubs, and the ancillary sporting activities and hobbies associated with them.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will, therefore, close with a request to the Under-Secretary of State. Will he, in response to the requests which have been made, bring into being, in association with the Ministry of Education, a suitable committee which will inquire into this experiment in order to do everything possible to ensure that it shall be developed upon lines which will be good for the welfare, and the mental and spiritual wellbeing, of the children of our country?
5.54 p.m.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting the moderately expressed views of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton). I am delighted that he has seen fit to raise the matter,
1662
especially as both he and I got so very little change out of the Home Secretary, when we questioned him recently in the House on the subject. As my hon. Friend has said, we have no doubt that the people running these cinema clubs have the very best of intentions. Some of them may even be said to possess a high sense of mission; but the fact is that there are not enough suitable and good films available at the present time to show to children. The result is, that bad ones are being shown. That fact itself is very serious, but more serious still is the atmosphere of mass hysteria which is induced by the community shrieking and not by the community singing of theme songs and by the general lack of discipline which precedes the actual screening of the films. I endorse the opinion of my hon. Friend that in many cases a great deal of the good work put in by teachers of the children during the week is entirely undone by these Saturday morning exhibitions. It is, no doubt, largely because Saturday morning is regarded as a difficult time for mothers and people in charge of children at home that nearly 500,000 children are subjected to what at present amounts very largely to their leisure hours being exploited by private enterprise on a purely commercial basis.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I think, intends to reply tonight, to bear in mind a further aspect of this matter. Apart from the children's clubs, with which my hon. Friend has dealt so fully, the present law as to the admission of children to ordinary films, at times other than Saturday mornings, is in an utterly unsatisfactory condition. It is common knowledge that the law is continually and persistently broken from one end of the country to the other in this respect. As a result, truancy is widespread among school children. I suggest that a solution of this problem of truancy lies in further restrictions upon the admission of children to adult performances. Far more, too, can also be done in speeding up the development of films which take into account real child psychology.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the hon. Member tell us on what evidence he bases his statement that there is widespread truancy as the result of that position? It is news to me.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Evidence is to be found in the police courts of the country where, on many occasions, this particular question is raised, and magistrates have noted that the cinema has been an influence accounting for the absence of children from their regular duties at school.
I was saying that new films should be produced which take into proper account real child psychology. Whether we like it or not, cinema-going has become a social habit, just as going into Woolworth's or listening to the radio is a social habit. It is to be hoped that improved social conditions will do something to counter the present inclination on the part of parents to look upon the pictures as a ready-made and ready provided chance of keeping the kids comfortably occupied for an afternoon. If not, and if more rules in the interests of our cinema-going children are not applied, I think we shall develop citizens with a false set of values. We shall have a nation of robots and automata, for whom "glamour" offers an escape from the duties and responsibilities of life.
I wish that my hon. Friend who is to reply could persuade the Chancellor to subsidise the development of suitable films for children. It would be a splendid thing if that method could be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would at least do something to meet my point of view and that of the hon. Member for St. Albans for it would help to ensure that those young people, for whom "the flicks" have become a habit, are treated to decent pictures and not to the portrayal of luxury-living film stars who, duly surrounded by the glamour I have mentioned, become in the eyes of their beholders simply people to emulate and follow. The social danger of too much passive enjoyment is also bound up with this and is another aspect of this particular question. I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for St. Albans in having raised this matter tonight, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that something really definite will result from our efforts.
6.1 p m.
Earl Winterton: I would like to say of the speech of the hon. Member who opened the Debate that I, personally—speaking as one connected with the industry, as I shall show in a moment—and others who will read what he had to say, are extremely grateful to him for the
1664
sympathetic and fairminded manner in which he dealt with this question. It was a model of what a speech not of criticism, but of comment and inquiry should be. I cannot so fully congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge), who was full of his usual rhetorical observations. I noted with interest that one of the reasons why he objected to the cinema is that it is run by private enterprise. I hope that does not connote that hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind the cinema as their next form of nationalisation. [Laughter.] The laughter which comes from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and for which I am very grateful, is a sufficient answer to the ridiculous point made by the hon. Member for Bedford. I should like to assure him about one thing. I am sure he would not want to make a charge which could not be sustained. He said there was commercial exploitation in these films. So far as the two main businesses which deal with children's cinemas—the Odeon and Gaumont-British—are concerned, there is not a penny made out of this—in fact, there is a loss.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the noble Earl not agree that when the job is done in the way it is being done now, potential customers are being bought for the future?
Earl Winterton: The laughter that came earlier from the hon. Member's own side is a sufficient answer to that. I can assure the House that there is no question of trying to get potential customers. There are plenty of customers. Quite frankly—although I may be greeted by more laughter when I say this—the question is not one of customers but to get for the film-going public the sort of film they ought to see. I do not want to introduce an unnecessarily controversial element into the discussion of this question and I hope that no hon. Members opposite will think I am trying to make a party point when I say that I most strongly support what the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) said, on a different aspect, that there should be one Minister responsible for child welfare generally in the country. I do not want to get on to a matter which it would be wrong to deal with now—though it is not technically out of Order—the Curtis Report—but, though I know the difficulties, I feel most strongly that some one should be responsible for all these

1665
matters. I hope it will not be made a party question. All sides should bring pressure to bear to see that that is done.
It was in no hostile sense that I put a question to the hon. Member for St. Albans. The views of the headmistress of the school, if she is in any way a trained observer, are useful, but I do not think that her observations axe so very generally accepted. In the years before the war children poured into the cinemas on Saturdays. With regard to the point made in respect to the lack of discipline of the children attending the cinemas, the cinema manager or those who run the clubs cannot impose discipline on the children. If the children make a noise coming in, they cannot help it and can only ask the children to be quiet—
Mr. Harrison: They do fairly well.
Earl Winterton: If the hon. Member wishes to make a remark I will give way.
Mr. Harrison: I suggest that the cinema managers do control the children.
Earl Winterton: I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that. I was going to say that this is always a difficulty in relation to children's clubs. The children occasionally make a noise, but those in charge do their best to control it. These clubs were started, I am proud to say, by my friend Mr. Rank, entirely on his own initiative because he takes a great interest in the welfare of children. He believed that these clubs on Saturdays would not conflict with the schools. I do not know what the hon. Member for Bedford meant when he talked about truancy. If he meant that seeing films leads to truancy, I would only say that there has always been a whipping-boy for juvenile crime in this country. I resent the cinema being made a whipping-boy for children who are badly behaved. These suggestions are often utterly untrue. There was the "penny dreadful" when I was young. Sanctimonious people then wanted those stories banned. At another time—as anyone who knew the Midlands Nonconformist districts 40 years ago will know—it was considered a fearful thing if people went to a theatre—
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I never attributed truancy to the shows given on Saturday morning. I said truancy had developed because children were allowed
1666
to go to ordinary cinemas at any time, without the law being applied, whether the films were for children or not.
Earl Winterton: I am sure that the representative of the Home Office has noted what the hon. Member said. Speaking on behalf of the industry, as I am proud to do, I would say that if there has been any breach of the law, it is the hon. Member's duty to report it to the Home Office, but I do not think it is so. I was saying that there has always been some whipping-boy for juvenile crime, and I resent the suggestion that the children of this generation are worse than those of the previous generation. There is far too much nonsense talked on this subject and far too many whipping-boys are set up by interested parties. I do not want to attack the Christian Church but at one time it was suggested that any child who went to see one of Shakespeare's plays was taking a ticket for a warmer place. Today it is the unfortunate cinema. The cinema children's clubs are an attempt to recognise that, for children, special attention to the programme is required and that care should be taken in the selection of films.
I think it should be known that there is a voluntary Advisory Council which deals with the question of what films are to be made. I would like to read out the list of members because I think it will impress the House. The Chairwoman is Lady Allen of Hurtwood, who has wide experience in all sorts of social matters. Then there is Mrs. Macouse of the Ministry of Education, Mr. Davey of the Home Office, Children's Department, Mr. McCulloch, a very well known broadcaster of the B.B.C., Mr. Forsyth Hardy of the Scottish Office, and Mr. Griffiths of the National Union of Teachers. There are several others, and it is a highly authoritative body as far as the personnel is concerned. It is, of course, a purely advisory body but its advice is accepted.
For the actual running of the clubs I ought to add that a body is being set up of a similar nature, the Chairman of which will be Lord Aberdare, who is well known to hon. Members of this House for his great interest in youth welfare. Let me frankly confess on behalf of the industry that in this, as in so many other matters, we have had to improvise. It was very difficult in the middle of the war, when this question arose, to get everything

1667
exactly right. Of course the industry can improve on the type of film which is being produced today, and I hope that in future we shall have better films.
Let me deal with another aspect of the case which I think was not referred to in the two opening speeches. I can, of course, speak only of the organisation with which I am connected, the Odeon, though everything I say applies also to Gaumont-British. I understand that other smaller circuits have their own clubs. There have been successful efforts to bring about cooperation between these cinema clubs and local councils, and with various other organisations interested in child welfare, and teaching staffs have devoted some of their time to these clubs. I am glad to be able to say that there are other activities besides attending the cinema connected with the cinema clubs, such as athletics and so on. Local police officers lend their services and give talks on road safety. In a large number of towns steps have been taken to get leading authorities, town councillors or members of the local municipal organisation, to give talks on health services and so on. Efforts are made to inculcate in the children a sense of responsibility. The House will, I am sure, be sympathetic to this point, that it is very difficult with small children to know how to balance between what they really want to see, namely, the exciting film., and other subjects. As we proceed, it will be possible, I think, to get the balance in probably a better proportion than it is today.
Mr. Dumpleton: Would the noble Lord tell us whether this is more successfully done when there happens to be in the cinema a manager who is particularly suitable for being a club leader? In some cinemas, unfortunately, there is a man in charge who is not suitable. Would it not be better to engage people specially for this work rather than using people just because they happen to be managers?
Earl Winterton: I will commend that most strongly to my colleagues, and I am sure they will consider it sympathetically. I quite agree that it is really a question of trained personnel, and that it might be better to have a manager who can visit three or four cinemas each Saturday morning and deal with the audiences. I need not go into the programmes but, as I have said, there are other activities
1668
besides the actual programme. There are talks, community singing, a screen film magazine and so on.
I am grateful to the House—because I realise I am a very controversial Member of it—for sympathetically accepting my assurance in this matter that, so far as Mr. Arthur Rank was concerned—and some hon. Members know the great interest he takes in social welfare—there was no question of making money out of these clubs. He was only anxious to deal with what was a very difficult problem, the way in which children crowded into cinemas on Saturdays, often to see unsuitable films. A number of parents have expressed their satisfaction with what is being done. Of course a cynic might say, "That is all very well. They are only too grateful to have their children off their hands on Saturdays," but in a matter of this kind both employers and employees in this industry, and those of us who are connected with it, realise that it is a great public responsibilty. We are only too glad when discussions like this take place in the House, so that we may have regard to the opinion of the House on these matters. We certainly take note of them and I, personally, am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in the form he did. I hope he will accept my assurance that most sympathetic consideration will be given to the points made, and, of course, to any point the Under-Secretary may make in his reply.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Blyton: I agree with the noble Lord that there was too much talk by the elders of past generations about the mischief which youth can do. When I was young, there was nothing we enjoyed better than going to a Saturday matinee and shouting as loud as we could until the pictures came on. I want to bring to the notice of the noble Lord one aspect of this cinema club problem. I was the chairman of an education committee, in the town represented by the Home Secretary, which supported cinema clubs enthusiastically when they first appeared. We had a club attached to the Odeon cinema, and we selected two members of the education committee to represent us on the committee at the Odeon which dealt with the pictures to be displayed to the children. However, much to my dismay, our two people resigned after a while because

1669
they said they were just rubber stamps and that the manager of the cinema never consulted them. I have nothing but praise for the scheme of the clubs which, I agree, is educational, but if the clubs are to get the support of the education committees, it is no use treating their representatives in this way, when they go to see what is being displayed to the children. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to see to that particular matter, because local authorities do not feel very pleased when they are elected to a committee and find they are in no way consulted. I believe these clubs could be developed in the educational interest of the children if they were organised through the education committees. You can get a certain amount of discipline, although I would not like children to be kept too quiet before the picture starts, I suggest seriously that if these clubs are to be developed, the representatives of education committees ought to be treated better than were those to whom I have referred.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I must apologise to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) for taking part in the Debate, although I did not hear his speech at the beginning. I am afraid I had not been following the House sufficiently closely and thought that this matter was coming on somewhat later. I was looking forward very much to hearing the opening speech. I have only heard references to it made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who said, in so many words, that it was a reasonable approach to the subject, as we would expect it to be. I apologise to the hon. Member for St. Albans that I cannot pick up the specific points of his speech. I am very much interested in this question, although I have no interest in the cinema. There is one point I wish to make and that is that in this country there is almost a complete blackout in regard to children's films. It is a very serious thing. There is this vast new instrument which obviously the children enjoy as much as anyone else, but very little special provision is made for them to enjoy it. If it were not for some of the things done by the firm of Rank, nothing would have been done at all.
Earl Winterton: That is fully admitted, but, as the hon. Member probably knows, the difficulty is studio space. Studio space cannot be got anywhere.
Mr. Lindsay: I am not referring to one particular firm, but talking about the problem throughout the country, and in connection with the Ministry of Education. No one has taken this matter seriously. I understand that the Ministry have now made a deal with certain firms which use documentary films, and that there is a small sum of money tucked away in the Estimates, which we can find if we look very carefully, which goes to the making of films for children. I have seen nearly all the films introduced by the organisations referred to, Odeon and Gaumont-British, and I congratulate them on the first experiments. But they will be the first to admit that they are only experiments. But it is not what I think, what matters is what the children think. Some of these films have been tried out on them. One was called "Sports Day," and has a highly moral conclusion, but the children are not at all certain about it. They like a bit of Wild West mixed up with some good nature films, one or two of which have been introduced. But it is largely an untilled field at the moment.
Only a few weeks ago I happened to see an exceptionally brilliant Czech film, a fantasy. I am not in favour of child labour, in fact, I have spent a certain amount of my life fighting against child labour, but that film could not be made in this country because a child of that age could never be employed. This is another question we have to face. I have tried to see what Mr. Rank and some of these firms are trying to do, and I agree with the noble Lord that there is no profit. I have seen some of the figures, and I know that there is a considerable loss in making films of this kind, apart from the point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington - Lodge), although I would say that the habit of going to the pictures is sufficiently strong not to need encouragement, even among the young.
Many people have tried to probe into the workings of these great film organisations. Some say that those concerned grew up as Methodists and added other things, and that there is a mixture of motives. I am not really concerned to go very much into the motives of people if I see some really good results coming

1671
out. My plea is that the Ministry of Education and a few people interested in this problem should get down—
Dr. Morgan: Is the hon. Member saying that he is not concerned with motives so long as the results are all right?
Mr. Lindsay: No, I am not concerned with probing into the motives of people; when, for instance, I see Gaumont British making good children's-films, I am not concerned to go into the motives which led them to do so. I am prepared to judge them on merits. It is high time the Ministry of Education, and local education committees, and anyone who can do this job, got together, because there is not too much talent at the moment. I hear that there is a perpetual war going on between the various interests and if this is the way in which things are to be conducted, the children are going to suffer. I knew one or two of the people in the old documentary film world. Some worked with Mr. Rank and some in small independent companies, and some, I understand, are helping the Ministry of Education, but the difficulty is that there is no adequate technique yet. We may not have the studio space, but very little study is made of the question. The less adults project their opinions on the matter, the better for the children. The most surprising results have been discovered already by submitting films to a referendum, a plebiscite, of the children themselves. I think the more experimental film theatres we can have for children, the better, whether they be at Toynbee Hall, or the Odeon, or anywhere. I should like to see the day when the film is really an educational instrument, at any rate for all children under 18, because its possibilities are enormous.
I hope the Home Secretary can reply in that sense. I do not know why his representative is to reply. He must feel a little embarrassed. If, as the noble Lord said, we had one Department interested in children's welfare all these questions would come under one Minister, the Curtis Report, and everything else. But we welcome the Under-Secretary, and we know that he is interested in the problem. We very much hope he will give an answer which will express not only the view of the Home Office, but of the Ministry of Education, and of the Government as a whole.
Mr. Dumpleton: In view of the interesting factors which the hon. Member has brought out, will he not agree that what is wanted is a widely representative committee of inquiry to go into this? That is what I am asking for.
6.29 p.m.
Mr. Tolley: I welcome the opportunity to intervene in this Debate and take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) for introducing this all-important matter. Again tonight I have heard that as a result of children attending the cinema, child delinquency is on the increase. As a result of the films, it is said, children adopt the tactics of the screen artist and so break out into crime. I have had some experience as a magistrate in juvenile courts, and I take the opposite view from that which has been expressed. In an attempt to assess juvenile crime in all its aspects, I have found that where the boy or girl has entered into temptation, and done something wrong, it has been when they have had nothing to do. They have had time at their disposal and bad company to keep rather than being occupied, or having some form of entertainment to which they could go. I have never felt that we had the right to charge the cinema industry for the increase in juvenile crime. I wish to make a suggestion in regard to the very great attempts these two organisations are making to occupy the minds of the children intelligently by the pictures which they see on Saturday mornings.
I should like to see set up in every town and city, in connection with the industry, a committee consisting of clergymen of all denominations, representatives of head teachers and mistresses and all those local authorities which are concerned with child welfare. I believe that if such a committee were set up the organisations would welcome it, and as a result we should perhaps get a type of film which would be regarded as being appropriate and essential so far as the child's mind, intelligence and outlook is concerned.
Mr. Harrison: Should we get from that set-up a type of film which the children themselves desire, as that seems to me important in this matter?
Mr. Tolley: I think so, because, after all, the various people who have been conducting children's organisations in the

1673
particular town or city would pay due regard to the nature of the children who come under their care, and certainly in the conduct of their business they would pay due regard to the fact that the children must derive some form of pleasure and amusement. It may be they would put on a "Wild West" film occasionally, and why not? I would rather that a child saw at the cinema an exhibition of a film about the wild and woolly West than have him or her reading, perhaps in some remote place, undesirable literature.
Moreover, there is something to be said for children congregating together. There is a sort of desire for friendship among these children, as when men and women congregate. What has pleased me even more is to see children coming out of the cinema from some of these performances. It may be that they are "doing their stuff," they have seen a particular character and are trying to emulate his deeds and activities, expressing themselves with joy and pleasure and the concern they may feel about what they have seen. Let us not deny the child the right, on a Saturday morning, when the ordinary woman is perhaps doing the shopping or housework, and for the time being cannot have regard to what is happening to her child—
Mr. Dumpleton: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that no one has wanted to deny them that.
Mr. Tolley: I am not disagreeing with my hon. Friend when he says that. But I am making my suggestion of what I want to see happen. I want a committee to be instituted in every town and city, to help, assist and direct in regard to the nature of the films to be shown, so that in the future, by careful selection of the right type of film, on a Saturday morning, the children will have that pleasure and privilege which some people are seeking to deny them, a pleasure which, in my opinion, is good for them, and which I hope will be continued.
6.34 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I intend to run the risk which every older person does when talking about children—that of making myself sublimely ridiculous. There are two things one has to bear in mind in this kind of discussion. One is, I believe, not to lay down too many rules,
1674
not to make too many generalisations. The other is to keep one's own sense of humour. One can be quite certain that the children in the cinema or anywhere else will keep theirs. I wish to say one thing. I have no criticism to make about the public spirit of Mr. Rank, or cinema managers, or people responsible for running cinema entertainments. They may be, I daresay they often are, people of public spirit in other respects, but I feel that the question of providing cinema entertainment for children in the form of cinema clubs should be put on a broader basis than that, though I confess I view with some apprehension the possibility of a committee partly composed of clergymen and partly of representatives of the education authority. Yet I think it might be possible to put the responsibility partly upon those who are responsible for education and partly upon the wider basis of good citizenship and good understanding. I feel rather uncertain that that has been sufficiently done, and it seems to me too easy to say that those who run the cinemas are doing their best. That they may often do, but that, in many other respects, has proved to be an inadequate answer in the long run. I feel convinced that if it is accepted as an answer now it will certainly not be accepted for much longer.
I wish to add one point in particular, although the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is to reply and perhaps this aspect is hardly his business. Some hon. Members will no doubt remember the kind of experiment made in Cambridgeshire, which combined education with the use of the cinema and other facilities in a centre called the village college. That has been tried with considerable success in fairly large villages and smaller ones, and has been extended, within limits, in the form of community centres. The idea behind it was to link up and centre those facilities round a form of teaching. I suggest to the House that without being too heavy, without putting the matter too much into the, hands either of the education authority or of teachers, it is still wise to try to centre his kind of entertainment round an educational centre.
That brings me to the question of providing this kind of film for children in places where there is no commercial cinema. One has to bear in mind that

1675
there are many parts of the country where commercial cinemas are few and far between. Although I do not sit for a Scottish constituency, I happen to live in Scotland. I have lately had a certain amount of experience in trying to use the small half-size 16 mm. films in connection with teaching in the villages, and for the entertainment of children. I am convinced that there are many possibilities, not only in the use of the cinema in class but far more in the linking up of the school itself with a centre where cinema performances, partly of an instructional character are available. That goes with particular force for the type of remote area, where one finds real intensity of interest through the eye among the population, who are far more able to learn that way than by traditional methods. I do not wish to develop further that point, which concerns education, rather than the particular aspect we are discussing. I hope that when the matter is further considered, that not only commercial cinema clubs, but the use of these half-size films for the benefit of children in the villages and children's clubs there, not strictly for educational purposes, will not escape attention and will be developed.
6.40 p.m.
Dr. Morgan: This Debate seems to have roamed over a wide field and has included a request that a committee should be set up dealing purely with children's problems. Many extraordinary views have been expressed and I hope that, as a professional man who started his career by specialising in children's diseases, I may be allowed to offer one or two observations upon certain of the remarks which have been made. The senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) made a remark which struck me as peculiar. He said that he did not mind what was the motive of the individuals who were producing a film so long as the film was a good one. I think that the motive animating the people desirous of producing a film to attract children is important, because it is most unlikely that a really good film suitable for children, either from the point of view of interest, education, culture or the building of character, will materialise if the motives of the people who are making the film are not based on sound principles.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I am sorry to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is making rather heavy weather. I merely mentioned a point that is often raised, that people were questioning the motives of certain of those interested in films. After all, it is the technician who makes the film. What one has to judge by is the result, and if the result is a good film, which the children like, really there is no more in it than that.
Dr. Morgan: I am quite unmoved by the hon. Gentleman's interjection. Really he must drop this accusation, every time somebody is cutting the ground from under his feet, that they are making heavy weather. I think the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities should be able to stand to his point when it is attacked by opponents who do not believe it is a good one. The motive is most important and it is of no use to say that a technician makes a film. It takes a lot of people to make a film; the technician is merely one of the personnel engaged. The whole design is important, and to say that a technician makes the film is wrong.
Mr. Lindsay: But my hon. Friend—
Dr. Morgan: No, I will not give way. I take my blows, seriously and honestly, and I never keep on interrupting people.
Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my remarks.
Dr. Morgan: I think the object of the film is the most important thing with which we should concern ourselves. What is the object of making a film to be attractive to children? Sufficient has been said in this Debate to endorse the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton), when he asked for an inquiry. It is tremendously important that the Government should have an impartial inquiry in which all interests can be represented, including those engaged with a profit-making motive, as well as the people interested in the educational, technical and scientific sides. Sufficient has been said to enable the Government to come to the conclusion that an inquiry is highly desirable.
Many of the films for children which I have seen—and I speak from the point of view of a man having a little knowledge of child psychology—have been made for sensual pleasure, pure pleasure.

1677
They have not been made for an educational purpose, which in my view would be the best possible motive. For example, they should take subjects such as that of scientific work with regard to plants and the development of the vegetable side of life. They could also take the animal side, the biological side. Except in scientific circles for purely experimental purposes, and not for popular show, I have never yet seen a really decent biological film dealing with the whole question of animal life, from the point of view of the interest of the child. For instance, there are Fabre's works on insects. Have they ever been shown? Surely,' those stories would make perfectly fascinating film material. They would command the pleasure of a child and he would come out of the cinema asking questions and wanting to know. Another subject could be Professor Wood Jones's works on the human hand and on the foot. The marvellous work which he has produced on the human hand and its development, the different uses of the fingers, and so on, could be made into a highly interesting film for children. Children can be interested in subjects like this. I know children who have been fascinated by a story explaining the movements of the different fingers, and that is a useful way in which to develop scientific interest.
Mention has been made of a plebiscite for children. It was suggested that we should ask them to have a plebiscite to decide the type of film they want, but I think that would be a poor method. At what age would children be allowed to take part in the plebiscite—two and a half, three or four? If it is said that there is to be no plebiscite probably some people will say that that is censorship. Children of that age want guidance and tuition. They need to be taught how to behave. Such things can be taught by films with a scientific and cultural object, mixed, of course, with a little colour and character. If that is done, I am sure it will be found to be the best way of securing improvement. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Albans was right. A great deal of the problem lies in the private profit-making motive which is at the back of the whole film industry. I am satisfied of that. I am satisfied that they prefer to get the children and to train them early, so that they get the cinema spirit, and the habit of going to the cinema. In that way, they will be potential cinema-goers
1678
later on, and I believe that is done with the sole intent of making profit for the films industry.
I have looked into this question impartially. I am not interested in cinemas from the business point of view, but as an ordinary human being interested in medicine, and I am convinced that films devoted to children are produced with the idea of schooling them into becoming future cinema-goers of the country. Because of that, I agree with the hon. Member for St. Albans that the Government should consider the desirability of a thorough inquiry into this question.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: I think the discussion has proved that this House takes a definite interest in the question of cinema clubs and I believe hon. Members have more or less endorsed the appeal of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton). I believe that we feel that some sort of Committee should be set up. I wish to put three points. I think that sometimes we over-estimate the ability of the adult. For Heaven's sake, do not let us destroy the wonderful creative imagination of the child so that it becomes a mere copier. That is one of the things we are likely to do if we foist upon children continuously what we think their entertainment should be. I hope no one will misunderstand me when I say that I took an interest in this problem when I was in Russia in 1938. Whether or not we agree with the Russian system does not enter into the question. They encourage children to visit the studios, and to criticise their films, and the acting and the technical ability of the adults taking part in the production of the film. Believe me, there are no better critics on this earth than children before their imagination is destroyed by some of the ideas of adults. Therefore, I think we should encourage that kind of criticism from our children. I believe that we are missing something in this direction.
I have seen an experiment in the encouragement of musical appreciation carried out on the verge of my own Division, in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, in which children, four or five years ago, during the war, attended set groups of lectures on music. We find that, today, those same children, now in their 19s and 20s, are followers of first-class music. I believe that we could do the same type

1679
of thing with the cinema club, and the advantage of the cinema club—and I discussed this once with Mr. Rank, when I visited his studios with a group of other Members of Parliament—is that it draws the child away from school, and gives him a sense of contact with the realities of human existence in a building which is exactly the same as that used by adults. We should have films in every school in Britain. But do not let us make any mistake about it. As a practical educationist, I would say that a film in school is performing one function, and a film in a social cinema club is performing quite another function, and we should not blur the margins of the use and availability of these films. In cinema clubs, we shall be able in, I hope, decent surroundings, to show films of the highest possible standard. We can no longer, in this scientific age, fob the child off with a wooden engine when he really wants an electrically-driven one. That is why I want to see these cinema clubs encouraged, and their standards improved, and some sort of committee of inquiry set up, with no Government control. I do not want Government control.
Lastly, I believe that boys' and girls' newspapers should be encouraged to have a column of film criticism for the children, in the same way that other newspapers have for adults. I cannot understand why the children's newspapers have "missed the boat" here. They have never used their columns to put across constructive film criticism for the type of film the children can follow. We have such a wealth of literature in all these islands that I am quite convinced that we could give virile and beautiful films to our children and give a living example of child film psychology to the world. I am glad indeed that this House has listened so attentively to this most vital discussion, and I express my thanks to the hon. Member who initiated it.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. Mack: I would have added but few words to this Debate had it not been for the great interest which it has aroused in the House. Like the senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), I have not had the privilege of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Dumpleton) but I know the hon.
1680
Member will be fortified by the fact that he has initiated a most interesting and important debate.
It is easy to wag a finger and say that children must have all sorts of things, but the best thing to do is for hon. Members to think what happened to them when they were children. I remember that, when I was a child, my mother—a very lovable but very stern mother at times; indeed, she had good reason to be—said to me "John, if you are a good boy, wash your hands, face and neck and do about six or seven errands on a Saturday, you can go to the pictures," and, with my penny, I used to go to see the cowboys and Indians. I revelled in pictures in those days. My imagination was rather lively, and, as most children do, I liked a noise, but there were certain vindicating features about those pictures. I seem to remember that a maiden in distress was rescued by the hero, and that that appealed to the gallantry and chivalrous spirit in the young boys, and there was the further vindication that the feeling of all the children seemed to be that the villain was always punished, sometimes with very disastrous consequences. The children will be severely disillusioned in later life when they realise how crime often goes unpunished. Nevertheless, that kind of film was one of the greatest joys of my life.
Nowadays, I am told by a mother that she takes her children to see the modern type of film—the animated cartoons and "Donald Duck". She complained that her children wanted her to sit through the programme three times because they liked the show. I asked her what the children liked about that type of film, and she replied that, first of all, Donald was always smashing things, and there were illustrations, in a kind of Heath Robinson way, of machinery and other contrivances which seemed to be twirling and twisting in the most fantastic way. But, when all is said and done, that is not the type of picture that I would imagine children require if we are to stimulate a love of education, a desire to make them into good citizens, and fulfil the objects which, I understand, were in the mind of the hon. Member, namely, that they should not only have a certain amount of mental relaxation but should also be taken away, perhaps, from haunts of potential crime to their educational advantage.

1681
Mention has been made of Russian films. I remember seeing a film showing how Russian children collectively built certain buildings by taking blocks and putting them together, and there were stories of how Russian schools had been teaching children to work collectively to construct what might be called rudimentary houses and objects of that description, showing that children could be creative. I thought that was an exceptionally good film. Reference has also been made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan), who always speaks with sincerity and understanding, to the question of nature study. This does not mean insect life alone; it can mean the biological facts of life being shown to children in a delicate way so that nature and sex can be explained to them by examples in the animal kingdom and plant life, in such a way as not to make it a rude awakening for them and also avoid the necessity for them to acquire that knowledge in a less desirable atmosphere. Historical films can also be shown, but there is the danger here that they may have a certain bias. Without mentioning any names, I shudder to think what would happen if the stories of the heroes of the history books were depicted as they really lived their lives, and children found out that they were not, in their private lives, such unblemished heroes as they were taught to believe.
I want to deal with the kind of picture which shows children how things are done. Someone has said that the first thing in education is to learn how to learn, and I think the primary function should be to show the child how to construct and build things and illustrate what are the reasons for them. I have not a very mechanical mind. I am not concerned with how my watch works; I am only concerned that it does work. But the child should know, and will want to know, how it works. We are hoping to see children taking a great part in the industrial development of our country, for we are not only a great commercial nation, but a great practical nation.
To make the children practical is, in my opinion, one of the most important things, and to make a picture of that kind need not cost a lot of money. For instance, we could have a picture about how Parliament works. Some time ago, I went to a boys' school in my constitu-
1682
ency and was amazed to find how much they knew about Parliament. They asked me all kinds of questions about it, and I had to use considerable ingenuity to manoeuvre the answers to the satisfaction of the pupils. The things they said about you, Sir, were, in part, complimentary, and, though you may not realise it owing to your natural modesty and innocuous spirit, you were the subject of great inquiry. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Speaker is known in his Parliamentary capacity far and wide. The younger children in particular wanted to know a lot about him.
We should have a film about Parliament, not necessarily this actual Parliament, and select individual hon. Members to depict the Labour Benches and others, suitably attired, the more privileged sections of the community on the Opposition side. The type of debate need not be too controversial, but the film should show the way that Parliament works. The Mace, the Serjeant at Arms, and that kind of thing, would be interesting to the children of this country. Such a film would meet a need which has always been at the back of my mind. If the children of this country could be educated at an earlier age in the subject of Parliamentary institutions, we should have better representatives in the future Parliaments of England. That would benefit the whole nation and would satisfy the desire of all Members of the Government that there should be better educated, enlightened and intelligent classes.
I am sorry I do not know the particular part that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) plays in this, although I know that he is interested in cinemas. If I were a small child, I would like him to take me by the hand and to go with him to a cinema. It would be interesting to know to what kind of pictures he would take me. This has been a very helpful little Debate; it shows that Parliament can see things through the eyes of the younger element of the population, which, in the future, is going to build up, let us hope, a much better country. This Debate should help to bring that about.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I am extremely sorry that other business within this labyrinth has kept me away from this Debate until now. I had hoped to be

1683
present from the beginning. Had hon. Members been aware of what was taking place, a far greater interest would have been shown in this Debate than has been shown up to now. I think it is generally agreed that this great, attractive and impressive modern invention could help the children without, as has already been said, distorting their imagination unduly. It has been suggested that a committee of inquiry should be set up by the Government to investigate the potentialities of this great instrument. I see that the Home Office is in charge this evening, but I have a shrewd suspicion that this is overwhelmingly a question for the Ministry of Education. If it were left in my hands to suggest the kind of committee of inquiry that should be selected, I would certainly like to see on that committee a number of those men and women who have given their lives to the children, particularly in the elementary schools of the country. They certainly know most about the children's reactions to the cinema, and this is as much a question of psychology as of social ethics. I do not wish to elaborate that point because I assume that it has already been referred to.
Much has been said since I entered the Chamber about the child's desire to witness exciting events. All kinds of films have been referred to, but the amazing thing is that it has not struck those responsible for providing films for our children that much excitement and adventure, of the most impressive and creative kind, is to be found in the so-called ordinary commonplaces of life. I see that the Under-Secretary is not looking very kindly at me for getting up at this stage, but I promise him that I shall not elaborate a single point to which I refer. I happen to be a coalminer, and I have a shrewd suspicion that those who are in control of what is in this country today almost a vast monopoly, with terrific potentialities for either good or evil, are not disposed to place upon the screen a picture of the unending spirit of adventure that animates the miner. I have seen only one film that does anything like justice to the coalmining industry, and that was a German film, the showing of which was deliberately discouraged in this country. I am referring to that classic picture entitled "Kameradschaft," which showed what, on occasion, the
1684
ordinary miner has to face. I remember going to see it as an experienced coal-miner, and I remember the tremendous impression it made on me. It had considerable artistry, great excitement, and depicted one of the greatest adventures that I have ever seen on the screen. The same thing applies to other industries.
Mr. Benn Levy: Perhaps the hon. Member would be interested to know, in fairness to British industry, that at this very moment a film such as he describes is being made by the Crown Film Unit.
Mr. Davies: I am glad to hear that interesting piece of news, and I hope that those responsible for making the film will have the good sense to contact some experienced miners, as did the producers of "Kameradschaft."
There are other great industries in this country which, notwithstanding the hard, grinding toil and the almost unending list of diseases associated with them, still have their romance and adventure. I am not competent to talk in detail about the textile industry, but I know a little of the great technical and technological development of that industry, including the extraordinary discoveries of unknown chemists and so on. There are other industries; for instance, this country was the cradle of shipbuilding. Why do not these people who spend so much time, talent and money in playing upon the imaginations of the people, show on occasions that they are possessed of more practical imagination?
Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what exactly he is getting at? If he is referring to the Crown Film Unit, he is entitled to do so, but there is no power in our legislation to compel the film industry to produce any particular film. What exactly does the hon. Gentleman mean? Is he referring to the Crown Film Unit?
Mr. Davies: I understood that this Debate originated out of some concern as to what the film industry was doing to the minds, particularly, of the youngsters of this country.
Mr. Dumpleton: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that the subject of the Debate is "Children's Cinema Clubs"?
Mr. Davies: I agree, and I am very interested in it, but it is extraordinary that

1685
it is the subject of the clubs rather than the content of the pictures that are shown to the youngsters, which animated at least two Members in utilising a good deal of time in this Debate. It is not my intention to take up too much time, but I must say that it is not necessary to exhibit the extreme and largely pointless artificialities of life if the film industry wishes to contribute towards developing the young minds of this country. What I am concerned about is that the films that are shown at these clubs should give to the children some indication that the life of this country depends upon creative work, and thus arouse an intelligent and constructive interest in the mind of the imaginative child.
7.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I think the House would wish me to congratulate my hon. Friend who introduced the subject of this Debate, not only on raising the subject, but also on the very fine manner in which he addressed himself to it. I am sure that when the speeches are read over, for the purpose of ascertaining the many points that have been raised—because there are far too many for me to deal with tonight—the suggestions which have emerged from the Debate will be found of great value in enabling one to come to a conclusion as to the next step to be taken, either by my Department or the Ministry of Education, or the two Departments combined, or whatever may be the right modus operandi. In the main, the Debate has centred around the quality of the pictures. That is a matter in which no Government Department can interfere. It is for the trade to produce the pictures which they think appropriate for exhibition to children. I agree with those hon. Members who referred to the selection of topics for children's films. The adult is not really the best critic to decide what children like, and I would have thought that among the subjects inappropriate for exhibition to children would be those of shipbuilding, mining and the industries of this country. However important they may be from a general educational standpoint, I do not think they would appeal, for instance, to children of seven years of age.
Dr. Morgan: They are very fascinating.
Mr. Oliver: They may be. I can only give my own view. I cannot speak from any great experience, because the whole
1686
matter of children's clubs is in its experimental stage, but I think the type of picture suitable for children can only be evolved by the process of trial and error, and by observing the reactions of children to various pictures presented to them. It may well be that the pictures which the adult would think admirable for children, would be dull as ditch-water to the children themselves. Therefore it is necessary for specialists in this subject to explore this territory in trying to produce the right pictures for children's entertainment. I think a Government Department, be it the Home Office or the Ministry of Education, would be the worst possible instrument for initiating a work of that description, however well it may be able to guide. It has been alleged that the purpose of these cinema clubs was merely to inculcate and encourage in children the habit of going to the pictures. I do not think it is necessary to create such an appetite. I think it is already there. When there were no cinema clubs in existence, people of my generation liked to go to the pictures. We were not stimulated by children's clubs. It is something which appeals to the people of this country. I observe that, in 1943, the Ministry of Information undertook a social survey of the cinema habits of 5,639 persons of all ages.
Dr. Morgan: In wartime?
Mr. Oliver: In wartime. They were statistically recorded. It appears from this survey that 79 per cent. of young wage-earners aged from 14 to 17, attended the cinema once or more often every week.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: If my hon. Friend will allow me, may I ask whether he intends to imply that children are born with a desire or a natural aptitude for going to the cinema continually?
Mr. Oliver: I am not an authority on what children are born with; the subject of their potentialities is one which I do not aspire to understand. All I am saying is that 79 per cent. of young wage earners between 14 and 17 years of age, attended the cinema once or more times every week; 43 per cent. between the ages of 18 and 40; and then the percentage fell to 27 per cent. for the age group 41 to 45. Apparently there was no interest taken in people over 45; I suppose it was thought that their morals would not be affected

1687
by their attendance in cinemas; and so we have no record of that. There is sufficient evidence there to show clearly that there is a general desire on behalf of the adult population to go to the pictures. I do not think we would be justified in saying that the cinema clubs are merely schools for creating the picture-going idea and appetite. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) rather over-stressed, I thought, the delinquency aspect of the pictures. I do not think there is any evidence of that; certainly none was adduced in this Chamber.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I did not even mention the word "delinquency" in my remarks. All I said was that truancy could be traced to the fact that children were allowed to go to the cinemas at all times of the day, to see films which the law really forbade them to see, and that they did not attend to their duties in school on that account.
Mr. Oliver: I know the hon. Gentleman referred to truancy in terms, but I also thought he referred to delinquency in general. Let me say that we have no information at the Home Office that the fact that children go to the pictures with their parents, as they are entitled to do, to see "A" films—that is the adult films—has had any adverse effect upon the child mind. Therefore, we cannot say it should be suppressed. We cannot say that the fact of children going to the pictures with their parents or their guardians to see adult pictures has in any way affected them mentally, or in any way stimulated them to do something abnormal.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend, but does not he agree there is a regulation which prohibits children going to see certain types of films in the cinema, and that they continue to go to see those films, despite that regulation?
Mr. Oliver: That, of course, I do not know. I cannot say who breaks the regulation. I do not stand at the doors of cinemas in London in order to find out who is breaking the law. I should need to be a cinema commissionaire to be able to answer that question. I recognise that in the last two years, cinema clubs for children between the ages of seven and 14 have developed at a very great pace. It
1688
is estimated that something like 400,000 children are members of 400 clubs, and that in the larger cinemas as many as 1,400 to 1,500 children may be present at a programme on any Saturday morning. I see that the clubs have other interests than the film interest. The auxiliary interests in outside activities include football, cricket matches, toy making, stamp collecting, and "pen pal" correspondence with children in other countries. I notice that the Gaumont British group has a club committee of the boys and girls at each cinema, who appear to be largely self-elected, and more or less represent themselves. I conclude they are not of an age when the idea of appointing representatives really affects them. In view of the very wide range of the picture interest and the auxiliary interests, it may well be it would be appropriate to consider setting up some committee—
Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman mind facing the Box? We cannot hear a word he says if he turns round.
Dr. Morgan: And we on this side cannot hear him if he faces the Box.
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. The Minister should face Mr. Speaker and not turn round. That is a well known Rule of the House. We cannot hear unless he faces the Box. It has always been so, and nobody knows it better than the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Oliver: I try to speak up, in the hope that everybody will hear.
Earl Winterton: We cannot hear if the hon. Gentleman does not face the Box.
Mr. Oliver: It may well be that the varied interests of these clubs would justify some inquiry to see what could be done, and what should be done, to give some point and some direction to the next stage in the development of this very important work.
Earl Winterton: This is a very important matter. Speaking as one connected with the industry, I neither support nor oppose this proposal. Do I understand that the Under-Secretary is now announcing, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that it is proposed to hold an inquiry into these clubs? If so, might I ask him whether he would consider going much further, because obviously if there is to be an inquiry

1689
into children's cinema clubs, there should be an inquiry into all children's clubs? Children's cinema clubs are not the only children's clubs in the country, and there would have to be an inquiry into all types of clubs. I must press the Under-Secretary to say whether this is an announcement on behalf of His Majesty's Government or not.
Mr. Oliver: I can only say that it may well be that the wider aspect is a subject for inquiry. I cannot say whether there will be an inquiry in that regard or not. I can only say this may well be a subject which should be inquired into, although I am not authorised to say the Government would institute an inquiry. It is only right to add that much is being done for the purpose of improving the types of films and the nature of the films. I see that in the Gaumont-British and the Odeon clubs, there has been set up, with an idea of improving the clubs, an advisory committee on children's entertainment under the chairmanship of Lady Allen of Hurtwood, for the purpose of encouraging the production of films especially suitable for children. On that committee are representatives of the Home Office—
Earl Winterton: I mentioned the committee in my speech and gave the names.
Mr. Oliver: That is true. The Home Office and the Ministry of Education are represented among the members. The advisory committee over which Lord Aberdare presides has also been referred to in this Debate. There have also been independent bodies inquiring into this matter. In April last, "The Child and the Cinema" was a subject considered at a conference in London, convened by the British Film Institute and the National Council of Women, of which the hon. Member for St. Albans spoke when he introduced this matter. Although conclusions were not arrived at, the conference ventilated many of the doubts felt by teachers and others on the influence of the cinema clubs. So far as I am informed, I think nothing specific emerged from that Conference, other than a general discussion and the raising of many points similar to those which have been raised here tonight.
Mr. Dumpleton: Surely there emerged from that conference a specific recom-
1690
mendation from the British Film Institute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that an inquiry should be held?
Mr. Oliver: If that is so, it will be shown on the record, but I have no reference to it here on my notes. Recently a subcommittee of the County Councils Association dealing with cinematographic education has been studying the admission of children to cinemas, and has produced an interesting preliminary report, which is under examination by a larger and more representative body. The final conclusion will be taken into consideration in deciding whether further inquiry is desirable into cinema clubs. On that, I would ask the House to permit me to conclude, because that report will give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the information upon which he may base the next step in the evolution of what we regard as being very useful clubs.
Mr. Dumpleton: That is very interesting information, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman; but will he say there is also to be the fullest consultation with the Ministry of Education?
Mr. Oliver: I think that on the question of the clubs, and on the question of the pictures, and on all aspects of the cinematograph as an educational medium, it is almost unnecessary for me to say that the Ministry of Education would be taken into consultation.
Earl Winterton: And, of course, the industry itself would be consulted?
Mr. Oliver: I think all the interests on both sides would be consulted.

BRITISH ADMINISTRATION, GERMANY
7.32 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: I make no apology to the House for once again raising the vital question of Germany, for it seems to me to be one of the most important subjects confronting us today, and that every possible opportunity ought to be taken of ventilating the troubles and of offering helpful criticism. I really should like to make it clear at the outset, that I am not for one moment blaming the Chancellor of the Duchy for all the dreadful things that are happening in Europe. I think that if the Archangel Gabriel were here, as I said

1691
the other day, he would probably break down under this job. The job is a colossal one. But the facts have to be faced, and I hope that I may be able to make some proposals which may ultimately help to improve the situation.
The mess in which we find ourselves is the inevitable consequence of unconditional surrender; but we had better recognise that unconditional surrender means accepting unconditional responsibility for getting things right again. It would be a mistake to suppose, when we speak of Germany, that we can think of Germany only, because the whole of Europe is affected. Italy is in difficulties with coal and steel; the whole of central Europe is short of raw materials; and it would be as well for this House to realise that we ourselves are affected here. I mention the steel industry as one example. Whereas the output of steel from Germany in prewar days was of the order of 18,000,000 tons, and although the ultimate level agreed in March this year was put—not high—at 5,800,000 tons, at the present time only 3,000,000 tons of steel are being produced a year. The consequence is that all over Europe the nations are in need.
In consequence we have to export far greater quantities of steel to Denmark and to Holland than we ever did before the war. In the nine months ending September, 1938, Denmark had 65,000 tons of steel from us. This year, in the same period, Denmark had 168,000 tons. Holland, in the first nine months of 1938, had 38,000 tons; this year, 124,000 tons, and so on. And it is the fact that here we are ourselves short of steel, with a considerable number of engineering works in the country which are going on short time because they cannot get enough raw material. Therefore, it ought to be recognised that, when discussing this vital question of getting Germany on to her feet again, we are discussing something which affects every nation in Europe. May I emphasise that it is not all the fault of Potsdam? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made a most amazing remark in the course of a speech on 12th November in the Debate on the Motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech:
"The Conservative Party cannot, of course, accept any responsibility for Potsdam, as matters were taken out of our hands in
1692
the vital phase of those discussions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 19.]
Of all the cheek! If anybody was ever responsible for Potsdam, the right hon. Gentleman was. But there is something much more fundamental than that, not only Potsdam itself, but what went on before—the evil decisions taken at Teheran and Yalta, the appalling decision forcibly to evacuate millions of people from the East to the West, pouring them from sparsely populated countries into the overcrowded cities of Germany. Also, the Morgenthau Plan has something to do with it. It would be just as well that the country should realise that the Morgenthau Plan was approved by the right hon. Gentleman and by President Roosevelt on 15th September, 1943, and that there has got to be a complete reversal of that policy if we are ever to get things straight.
I should like to say one more thing about the general situation before I come to particularise. So far as I see it, and so far as my own personal experience goes, from the somewhat limited travels I have been able to indulge in this year, the standard of living everywhere is going down. It is going to continue to go down for some considerable period despite our best endeavours, and, therefore, we must at least make our best endeavours, and make sure that the effort is made in the right place. Here I may add to my excuses for the Chancellor of the Duchy. I did not find the people in our zone all so bad as some hon. Members of this House make out. I agree that there are individuals who may be black sheep, for one gets black sheep amongst every large crowd. But I found in the British zone and elsewhere that our British representatives are vitally interested in, and intensely keen on, what they are doing. They put a tremendous amount of effort into trying to make the machine work. The real trouble is that there is not, in my view, sufficient direction and control; there is not sufficient political direction at the top.
Having said that, may I add that I do blame the Chancellor of the Duchy for some things? He came down to the House not many weeks ago and told us that everything was going to be much better this winter than last in Germany. I deny that. I do not think that is so at all, for this reason, that when the war ended, and although Germany was

1693
smashed up, the Germans, on the whole, had been living on pretty good rations; and it was not until the spring of this year that the rations were cut down to 1,000 calories. Here we are facing what is pretty certain to be a worse winter than that of last year. Thank goodness, that last winter was a mild one. This winter is pretty certain to be very severe, certainly more severe. The Germans have had nine months at a level of only 1,000 calories. I agree that the ration has been put up to 1,500 within the last few weeks, but the general resources, as a whole, are going to be much less at the starting point this winter, than last. The hon. Gentleman today gave me an answer about the position of the 1,550 calories ration as it is today, but whilst what he said is, no doubt, perfectly true, the fact of the matter is that the stuff is often not there.
For months, according to the reports I have had, people have not had any fats; in certain areas they have been without bread for days. In fact, although in theory the stuff is there, it has not got into the people's mouths. I agree that it is not all our fault, but we are responsible for maintaining some reasonable level. I know the Chancellor of the Duchy will say to me that the trouble is that Germany is not being treated as an economic whole. It is true that 50 per cent, of the food consumed in our zone used to come from the regions now in the Russian zone, and that we get practically nothing at all at the present time. But that deficit has to be met if the people are not to starve. It is no good our patting ourselves on the back for the 1,500 level, either, because that is only a slow starvation level. At the Berlin Conference the other day it was announced that the ration would continue until the middle of next year, and that probably it would go up to 1,700 in the autumn; that in 1948 we might see 2,000; and that in 1949 we might get near 2,100. If we want to get any work out of the human engine we have to stoke it first, and we ought to endeavour to get the ration up to 2,000 calories now, and not wait until the end of next year.
Then I want to say something about housing. All my latest reports go to show that the housing position is perfectly appalling, and that practically nothing has been done in the 18 months since the war ended. Of course the devastation that surrounds everybody's normal life is much
1694
worsened, as I have already indicated, by the three million expulsees—perhaps the figure is not quite up to that level yet—who come crowding into the Western zone into a scene of devastation that has to be seen to be believed. The situation is also aggravated by the arrival of the British Army of the Rhine wives, and what some of us said would happen is happening—some of the women arrive there and find the situation so bad, and are so ashamed of themselves, that they are coming back again.
In the limited zone of Hamburg, the Hamburg project is in my view one of the stupidest political ventures ever embarked upon. The Chancellor told me today that there were some 9,000 people engaged in building the Hamburg project—what I call the "Hamburg Poona"—while only about 1,700 people are engaged in repairing houses for the people, according to my latest information. I know the Chancellor would tell me that there are either three or four thousand engaged on house repairs to make accommodation for the people who will be turned out of the "Poona," but if we did not have the "Poona" there would be so many extra houses for more people. The whole of the project is ill-conceived and ought to be dropped until better conditions prevail. I am authoritatively assured by fairly responsible people in Hamburg that the number of people affected is not 13,000 but 30,000, and there is no suitable alternative accommodation. Apparently the Chancellor cannot believe it, but he has only to go there to see that there is no suitable alternative accommodation. People are living crowded up as it is, and if we take 30,000 people out of a crowded area and put them into an equally crowded area it is impossible to say that the accommodation is suitable; it must be worse.
Above all, on this housing question, may I appeal to the Chancellor to change the regulations? I cannot for the fife of me understand why, after this war of all wars where the devastation has been so great, there should exist the hideous practice of turning people out lock, stock and barrel. We did not do it after the last war. I was in the Army of Occupation, and although there were individual cases where small buildings had to be taken over for reasons of secrecy and the rest, by and large we shared the houses with the people. Surely to goodness that is

1695
what we ought to be doing now, and the more we share the better it will be for all of us.
The Chancellor has not told us yet about the clothing situation. One would understand, from his statement that everything is going to be better, that presumably the people will not be worse clothed than they were last year, but that simply is not true. Figures I have, for instance, for children's boots—and Heaven knows those of us who have been there have seen the children running about barefooted—show that the minimum requirements for our zone for children's boots amount to 6,250,000 pairs. Permits for the purchase of boots have only been given out to the number of 1,770,000, so that the children are only 25 per cent. satisfied even on their bare necessities. Anybody who has been there will bear me out in saying that the condition of the footwear of the people as a whole is an absolute disgrace. Shoes are falling off; people are going about with cloth bindings on their feet, and everything is in a deplorable state of disrepair.
Again, look at the commercial machine. I have always had rather indefinite commercial relations with some Germans, mostly as competitors and not as customers, and any business man will tell you that it is practically impossible for him to do anything to get things going because the situation is so uncertain. The result is that the ordinary business man holds things up and does nothing. If he does produce goods he does not know at what price to sell them, he does not know what the value of the market will be in a few months' time. The commercial machine is running down. There does not appear to be any real relationship between prices and wages. Above all it seems to me to be quite idiotic to try and balance the Budget of a country which is under-producing everything. Most of the factories working are working under capacity; they are all bound to lose money, it cannot be helped, and to try to balance the Budget in the state of ruin which exists seems to me to be absolutely futile. The fact is that the ordinary worker, if he has a wife and two children, has not enough money left when he has finished his week's work to buy even the bare thousand-calory ration, let alone the increased ration when and if he ever gets it. There does not
1696
seem to be any sign of export or import policy, and furthermore businessmen cannot write to anybody outside Germany. How on earth can Germany get an export trade going at all unless, through her business men, she can make contacts with the outside world? Surely that ought to be put right.
I agree that the whole thing centres on coal. On that I would merely say that Germany's minimum need under the level of industry plan is for 3,800,000 tons of coal a month. So far as my information goes, and I have the report from the zone, she really produces about 4,000,000 tons a month. Until just recently—I believe a change has been made in the last few weeks—she has been exporting 1,000,000 tons a month, so she is always 800,000 tons below the bare necessity. What ought to happen surely as a pure business proposition is this: First, the utmost care should be taken to ensure that every pound of coal is properly used, and not improperly used as one often hears it is, although it is very difficult to trace whether it is properly used or wasted; second, our Allies should be made to understand that it is necessary to get the pump primed, and that we should stop all exports of coal for six months. It is all the more necessary, if transport is to be got going, to have more steel, and that means it is necessary to have more coal. If we put a stop completely for six months to the export of coal it would be possible to get the pump primed and get things started.
Mr. Scollan: Will the hon. Member please explain where he got the figure of 3,800,000 tons of coal a month? For -what section of industry is that necessary, and what is it based on?
Mr. Stokes: It is a figure which I took from the "Economist" of about 28th August this year, where it was stated in a long article on economic conditions in Germany that the minimum need of the zone was for 3,800,000 tons a month. The article went on to say that we were not getting that for the simple reason that exports pull the net figure available down below that level, so that even bare needs are not met. If my hon. Friend has other figures no doubt he will correct me when he replies.
Another point that really needs ventilating is that the whole conditions of life

1697
are so completely uncertain. Nobody knows what will happen next. This I lay at the door very largely of the indefinite reparations scheme. The Foreign Secretary, when he made a speech the other day, brought great hope into the hearts and minds of many people when he made it quite clear in regard to the heavy engineering industry that nationalisation was to be the policy, and that the general scheme of amalgamating the American and British zones was to be carried out. But immediately after that, without any correlation at all, somebody announced that ten factories in the Ruhr were to be closed down.
My hon. Friend told me in a written reply to a Question the other day that at least 385 factories in the zone were available for reparations. I cannot understand why this is allowed to go on. I agree, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt tell me, that it is all part of the quadripartite arrangements, but what is the use of having quadripartite arrangements if we are forced to keep just those parts of them which work to our disadvantage? Surely a definite limit should be set. Potsdam laid down that all capital goods for reparations should be earmarked by 2nd February, 1946, that is, should be decided not later than six months after the date of the Potsdam Declaration. That puts it at about 2nd February. The Americans have stopped on their own, and the Russians have a simple way, because if they do not want capital goods taken, they merely declare that the plant is theirs and let the Germans go on working for them. Why should we not follow suit, until we can get more cooperation? The German workers do not want to do nothing, and nothing is more demoralising for any man than to stand idle. If only we could stop now any further reparations, it would make a tremendous difference to everyone in Germany.
Why is it that the Mathes-Weber factory, which is producing most of the potash used in the manufacture of soap, is being closed down? If the factory goes out of production there will be no soap, and there is little enough of it now. I suppose that even Potsdam did not lay down that no German should wash again.
I turn to another subject, namely, de-Nazification. I do not like the word "de-Nazification," and I loathe the system. We know the nonsense which goes on here
1698
in the prisoners of war camps, where people are categoried into black, white and grey. Only the completely innocent people get dubbed black, and the skilful white. We know the notorious characters already, and they are black. The whole thing is absolutely crazy. Does the House realise that at the present moment a questionnaire has to be filled in by 1,370,000 Germans who are to be re-examined? Most of them have already been examined three times, under three different systems. Now there is a fourth examination. There are 133 questions in all. I ask any hon. Member in the House how he would answer this one, if the boot had been on the other foot:
"State all public addresses which you have given in the last five years, the subjects discussed, the people who were there, and the character of the audiences."
I could not start to answer that question myself. I might be pretty certain what I spoke about, but not of the audiences. Another question is:
"Have you been abroad? If so, state the number of journeys, the people you spoke to during your journeys, the business men you visited, for the past five or ten years."
How can anyone answer that?
Mr. Paget: It was since 1923.
Mr. Stokes: I was not sure of the date. It makes it worse. The result of all this is that a lot of decent people will not come forward, but will sit down and do nothing, until this wave of uncertainty has passed. Furthermore, it fills all the young people with despair. I have heard from friends appalling accounts of what the young people are thinking. It brings me back to what was said by the right hon. Member for Woodford in a speech on Armistice Day, 1938. He said:
"I have always said if Great Britain were defeated in the war, I hope we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful place among the nations."
If we continue to treat this vast number of young men in the way they have been treated, I shall not be the least surprised if they say that they would far prefer Hitler to our order of things.
I have no doubt that I shall be told that I have spent all my time criticising and complaining, and that surely there are some things which could be done. I have certain suggestions to make. First I should like a complete change round of policy on the question of fraternisation.

1699
I do not understand how we can expect to run a country with 25 million people, unless we are allowed to be on the friendliest possible terms with all and sundry, and not only with the people at the top. We ought to declare ourselves liberators of the German people—not their conquerors. I have criticised the level of industry agreed on 28th March, this year, because it is not high enough. All it says to the Germans is that if they work hard, and are good boys, then by 1949 there will not be more than 7 million able-bodied unemployed. What sort of hope is that? I agree that it is not much use criticising, because we have nowhere near reached the March, 1939, level, but it is all mixed up with the Morgenthau Potsdam procedure, where it was laid down that the standard of living of the Germans should not be above the average of other nations. It is precisely like asking farmers to send all their food to the towns, and accept for themselves less food than persons in the towns. Germany must provide raw materials in abundance, and if we tell the Germans that their standard of living is to be lower, why should they work to provide the raw materials? We must recognise that the Potsdam economic level was completely cock-eyed. We must go forward and raise the standard of living to the highest possible level, so that the highest standard of living may be enjoyed throughout Europe.
Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give us some fixed date when reparations will end—say, 31st December this year? Can he give a date after which no more capital goods will be earmarked for reparation, so that people can try to get on with a planned economy for the country? How can they plan anything if they do not know what plant is to be left? Such a position represents an impractical business venture. Germany cannot be put on her feet unless she exports, and she cannot export unless the mark has some value. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us when there is to be a statement, on the quadripartite level, about stabilisation of the mark? Then there is the black market. Those who have been to Germany know that any black market in the world is quite junior to what goes on in Germany. A few people have an immense amount of so-called wealth of their own, and the
1700
ordinary workers have not enough upon which to live. The cumulative result is that the people who have too much are in the black market every day and all day. There ought to be some sort of levy on all capital assets. Something must also be done in regard to living conditions. I have told the House of the grim and awful things I have experienced myself, of the appalling conditions under which children axe living and the indecency of the whole thing—fathers sleeping with daughters, and the rest. We should never have tolerated such a thing before the war.
What we have to do is to reduce our administration in Germany. We should never have built up this Gargantuan family in Germany. All that we really want is a corps of inspectors, to see that policy is carried out, with the Army as a background and sanction doing Army jobs only. I once thought that 2,000 inspectors would be enough. I should have thought that 5,000 would have been ample for the whole job. We should recognise that the Germans are better administrators than we are. We think that we are good improvisers, but I sometimes think that we are terrible muddlers. The German is efficient; he only wants to be told what to do. Where we are wrong, or perhaps right, is that we refuse to be told. The German adores you if you tell him what to do. What he does not like is the abject muddle into which everything has got at the present time.
May I appeal to the Minister to blow up Norfolk House, and go and live in the zone himself? I mean that seriously. It is as impossible to run Germany from Norfolk House as it is to run the United States from London, or Great Britain from New York. You have not the atmosphere, and you do not know what is going on. I know, from running my own business, that half the information I get comes from round the corner. People in Germany cannot write a letter or send a signal, because somebody would censor it, and if they did they would be terrified of getting the sack if a Member of Parliament raised the matter here. But if you are in the zone anybody can come to you. The Germans, the trade unionists, could come to you. Anyone who wanted to approach the Chancellor should be able to do so.
With regard to food, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) poked

1701
a question across the Table the other day on what had happened to the German harvest. So far as I know, the harvest has been a good one, but people do not realise that there is not much manpower there. The Russians still have four million prisoners and we have, in this country, 350,000, and you cannot carry your crop, thresh, and plough at the same time. I suppose that what has happened is that while the crop in Germany has been a good one the people there are now at work ploughing and resowing for next year. But when they have got in all the crop they will still not be up to the level that they ought to be. Is it realised that the average worker in this country consumes about 4,000 calories a day while in Germany, until lately, the worker has been' getting only a quarter of that amount? Even at the improved level, the ordinary person there will get only another one-third. That is totally inadequate. I want to finish by quoting again the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, who has made some fine pronouncements. This is one of the best. Just after Christmas, 1941, he said this to the German people:
"Once steps have been taken to liquidate Hitlerite Germany, once the Nazi leaders have been overthrown and the German war machine dismantled, we promise to the German people, as individuals, food, employment and security, and to them, as Germans, a self-respecting life within the European camp."
Have they got it? There is no sign of it. They said when they saw the results of the Election in 1945, "Thank God that the Tories have gone out in England, and that there now is a Labour Government." [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is all very well for Members opposite to say "Rubbish," but I am telling the House what Germans said to me. No doubt the German Tories were saying the opposite to Members on the other side of the House. In any case, I am talking to the Government, and not to the Opposition. I want the Government to realise that the German worker thinks that the British Labour Party are letting him down, that we have not sufficient thought for the appalling conditions under which he is living, and that we are not doing nearly enough to make democracy work. You cannot raise the standard of living there until you get the level right again. We had better recognise the fact that the situation in Europe is rather like a wheel with the hub knocked out, yet we expect
1702
the wheel to go round and the spokes to stay put. Everything is rapidly falling to pieces, and I hope the Chancellor will offer some hope to the youth of Germany, and to us here, that things will be speedily put right, and that some of the criticisms which have been levelled will be met.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. Benn Levy: I want to intervene in the Debate very briefly to raise just two points, both of which have been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in his very excellent speech. The first relates to the question of evicting Germans to make way for British personnel and their families. What the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on that subject has already been quoted. The Chancellor gave an assurance to the House some time ago, when the question was first mooted, and the House, naturally and credibly, was disturbed at the prospects. My hon. Friend gave an assurance to the effect that there would be no evictions unless suitable alternative accommodation was found. I honestly do not see for the life of me how suitable alternative accommodation can be found in Germany as it is today.
I do not want to attempt any harrowing stories about housing conditions there which one could repeat ad nauseam, reported from travellers of all colour and opinion who have come back from Germany; but if I might just quote one town, Dusseldorf, that should establish the point. When Air Marshal Sholto Douglas visited Dusseldorf, a report appeared in "The Times," on 16th November, of what he found there. He found 13,000 people living in shelters and the cellars of ruined houses; 2,700 with no permanent shelter whatsoever; and 43,000 with no proper satisfactory housing conditions at all, a number which was equivalent to nearly one-quarter of the town's population at the end of the war. But that population has since been doubled because of returning evacuees, many of whom have been completely unable to find any homes. Dusseldorf has been made the capital of the new Rhine Westphalia region, and as a result, inevitably, there has had to be a heavy influx of British and German personnel for directive purposes. This has enormously added to the housing difficulties. But where is

1703
The "suitable alternative accommodation"?
One of the many tragedies of war is that it is not good for a nation to be conquered. But it is also not good for people to be conquerors. I must say, in all fairness, that we, with a long record of conquest, have a reputation for conducting ourselves as conquerors with tolerance and humanity. That is a reputation which I, for one, would hate to see diminished; but it is being diminished, undoubtedly, by this practice which leaves behind it a quite disproportionate degree of ill-feeling, the eviction of homeless people, thereby adding to the already vast number of homeless in order to increase the convenience and comfort of British personnel and their families in Germany. I am not unaware for a moment of the needs of our soldiers in Germany. Quite naturally they want to have their families with them, but so also do the British personnel and the British soldiers abroad, in Burma, Greece and elsewhere, who have not these advantages. They lack them because there are material difficulties. I would like the Chancellor of the Duchy to realise that there are not only material difficulties in this policy for Germany, but also very grave moral difficulties. I would ask him to reconsider altogether this policy. I know that that would be a bold and difficult and, in many quarters, an unpopular thing to do, but I ask him to reconsider it, and consider the alternative policy of enormously facilitating the opportunities of leave.
The only other point which I want to touch upon is a big one, with which I will try to deal as briefly as possible, and that is the whole question of a policy for industry in Germany. I confess that I do not know what our industrial policy is. I challenge any hon. Member of this House to be able to offer a definition of that policy. I have sought information, and I have gone to the fountain head, the Chancellor of the Duchy himself—and let me say in passing that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in absolving the Chancellor from responsibility. It would be quite wrong for him to think that any of us—and I hope he will not think that any of us—are trying to saddle him with the sole responsibility for the chaos that exists in
1704
Germany. He is confronted with the impossible task of trying to erect a building for which no foundations have been laid. The result is that when he attempts the problem of defining what is our industrial policy in Germany he is reduced to saying that he disavows any intention of reducing "German productive capacity for peace-time purposes." That is fine. None of us will dissent from that. He goes on to say, however, that "The policy of dismantling industry is based on the necessity of the disarmament of Germany." Those two policies are flatly and mutually contradictory. Follow them to their logical conclusions and they flatly contradict each other. You cannot ride these two horses at once.
I will quote the Chancellor again. "Our policy," he says, "is to destroy that which has a war time potential and is therefore"—I mark the word "therefore"—"considered surplus to German peace-time production." Why in the world "therefore"? If an industry is a war potential it is not "therefore," surplus to peace-time production, but the exact contrary. It is almost impossible to find any industry or service which is not capable of rendering wartime service. It is an impossible distinction, and we have to make up our minds which of these horses we mean to ride, and then to ride it. In the meantime, Germany is dwindling from economic disaster to economic disaster. The question arose at Question time today that, even if we cannot make up our minds what should be the ultimate policy, at least let us say that, if we are to dismantle industry, we will set a limit on the industries we dismantle; and that we will decide here and now which industries we will dismantle, and announce it, because German economy is being paralysed by uncertainty.
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy to urge his colleagues to make up their minds quite clearly as to exactly what we are after in Germany—make up their minds and lay down an economic plan. I know that it is impossible to follow out that plan wholly because of the quadripartite arrangements hanging over Germany. We cannot follow it out wholly, but we can partially. There is a great deal that can be done legitimately unilaterally. There is a great deal that can be done administratively. I would like us also to set a term to the period which

1705
we are prepared to wait for quadripartite sanction. We cannot go on dragging on indefinitely, with uncertainty and indecision as a major cause of the present and increasing crisis in Germany.
8.16 p.m.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am always willing to join in an attack on the Government, and I am delighted to take sides with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), on this occasion, on a large number of the points which he has raised. I was a member of the Parliamentary Commission to Germany. I admit it was some time ago, since then, I understand, things have deteriorated very considerably. There are one or two points which I wish to make from memory and from material which I have read since then. I have great sympathy with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has been attempting to carry out a quite impossible task. To run a conquered country, such as Germany, from Whitehall is utterly out of the question. Until there is a Minister on the spot, as there was in the Middle East and other theatres during the war, a solution will never be reached. There must be someone on the spot to deal with problems as they arise on a broad basis, instead of leaving them to the unfortunate people there, who are attempting to cope with a situation which is out of all proportion to anything they have had to deal with before. They have not the experience or ability to deal with it and some very big person is required there to act with authority and with the voice of the Government. Until that is done, I do not believe that there is any solution at all to these great problems.
With regard to the Control Commission, I have the greatest admiration for the way in which 95 per cent. of the Control Commission are doing their job. They are working extremely long hours, extremely hard, and with the greatest enthusiasm. There are, as the hon. Member for Ipswich said, certain black sheep, and the fault lies entirely in the hurried way in which these people were selected. To start with, there is no continuity of employment. They are given reasonable salaries, but beyond that they have nothing to which to look forward. In this country there are magnificent jobs going for able people with brains. Why then should people spend a few years in
1706
Germany, without any further prospect of employment. The result is that not only civil servants but officers, who of my own knowledge and experience, were not extraordinarily efficient and who had very minor posts in the Army because they were inefficient, have been given vast jobs and enormous areas and they have not the faintest idea of how to begin to deal with these great tasks. There have been in some cases regrettable incidents of failure and disgraceful conduct.
In regard to some of the higher appointments, magnificent work has been done under overwhelming difficulties. I was surprised to hear the suggestion made that the staff should be cut. Anybody who has been to the British zone would find it difficult to see how the existing staff could be cut for the moment. There will be a time, in the normal course of things, when the administration is handed over to the 'Germans, when this can be done, but not yet, I should think. I have not been there for six months, but certainly six months ago the staff could not be cut, for the simple reason that if, as a result of de-Nazification and one thing and another, you lock up all the people with brains, experience and competence, and you have left nobody except those who have been in concentration camps owing to their political views and who have not had any responsibility or any task to perform for nearly 20 years, they cannot attempt to run the country without guidance. That is why the large staff of the Control Commission is essential.
The difficulty they are up against is that they are trying to get the Germans to run their own show, but the Germans, from the time they were children, have been accustomed to doing what they are told in the utmost detail. One has only to look at a German operations order to realise that. If one of these fellows is brought into the office and is briefed in the English way: "Here is the form; this is what we want you to do—go away and do it," within five minutes he will be back, asking, "What exactly do you mean by the second line?" That will be explained. Then, twenty minutes later, he will be back again for further orders. That is the German mentality. They are not accustomed to running themselves on the same lines as we are, and they do not begin to understand the way to run an ordinary office such as is run

1707
in the local government system of any of our towns. They are being educated, but it all takes time. Therefore, I suggest that there was not any question a few months ago, at any rate, of cutting down the staff of the Control Commission. They are all working overtime, and it will be a very long time before the Germans are educated in the running of things for themselves. The sooner they can do that, the better. We started on the parish council basis, we worked up to the borough council, and we are now working up to the county council. The Americans started, in the reverse order, at the top and worked downwards, and the result is complete chaos. I think we are doing it on right and sound lines.
The crux of the whole problem, economically, is coal. This has been discussed in the House over and over again, and I do not propose to bother hon. Members with any further details, but the crux of the matter is that the coal has been used for the export of goods to the former occupied areas. Those areas wanted it at the time, and they deserved it, but I suggest that that time has come to an end. Generally speaking, those territories have got on to their feet. The time has come when every' bit of production should go back into the country again, and into consumer goods which, if they are in the shops, will give people an incentive to work. The other most depressing aspect was that, on account of the shortage of coal, I saw no factory chimneys smoking. The factories were not working. Factories which, by no conceivable stretch of the imagination, could make munitions of war of any sort were being demolished. What was happening to the bits and pieces, I had no idea; I hope they may have been transferred to England. If they were merely being turned into scrap metal, it was criminal, because the demolition had a most depressing effect on the people who had to do it, and the thousands of unemployed who had to sit and watch it being done.
I suggest, as the hon. Member for Ipswich said, that the only thing to do is to get these factories running, to get people employed, to give them wages, and put some heart into them, because people come from the Russian zone into our zone every day of the week with
1708
stories about the way in which factories in the Russian zone are working, how people are in full employment and getting wages, and how there are goods in the shops to buy. Admittedly, we know that a very large proportion of the goods is going straight to Russia, but the Russians have the wisdom to leave quite an adequate amount in the shops so as to give an incentive to employment. That is a very important matter in regard to the economic outlook in Germany.
With regard to food, in my experience the case has been consistently overstated in the House and in the country. I agree absolutely that in the towns, particularly in the big towns, where there are people who have no friends in the country and who are out of employment, the 1,000 calories ration means starvation. On the 1,500 calories ration, it is a question of slow starvation. But I suggest to the hon. Member for Ipswich, who is very reasonable, that the people on those rations are not by any means the total, or anywhere near the total, and represent, indeed, a small percentage. In the towns there are many people who have friends in the country who send them supplies. The hon. Member knows that throughout the whole of that part of the countryside of Germany where they have not had war such as France and Italy have known it, the people are exceedingly prosperous and well off. I have stayed in any number of those farms, and there is no shortage there. They do themselves well, and help to do our soldiers well. I agree that it is a serious problem for a small proportion of the people, but it is not by any means the problem it has been made out to be in the Press and in this House.
Mr. Stokes: That is not true.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I do not for
one moment suggest that the 1,500 calories ration should be cut.
Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many people live in the cities? If he has been in the cities, he will know that hunger oedema is prevalent.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I agree, but the problem does not affect anything like the proportion of people the hon. Member has suggested.
Mr. Hobson: Is the hon and gallant Gentleman aware that

1709
18 million people are concentrated in the large cities in the Ruhr in the British zone?
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I agree entirely, but if one takes out those who are employed and who get extra rations, and those who are aged and get extra rations, the number of people on the basic ration of 1,500 calories is not as great as it has been made out to be. I have not the figures with me, and I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman has, but if he has, I would like him to produce them later on, and if I am wrong, I will accept the correction.
I would like now to make a few remarks concerning the families of soldiers serving in Germany at the present time. I went round the whole of the British Army in Germany, and in eight cases out of ten the question put to me was, "When can we have our wives out here? Our lives would be reasonably tolerable if we could have them out here." A very large number of the men have been separated from their families for six years, and they could see no reason why they should not have their families with them. I know the problem is a difficult one, but I suggest that a very large number of the families who have gone out to Germany are sharing houses and doing so on very amicable terms. It is merely a question of the German families moving upstairs. Although I know there are cases of eviction which have been mentioned, I could not support any suggestion that it was wrong to send the families out to Germany, or that they should be asked to come back. If the soldiers wish to have their wives out there, and their wives wish to go, the least we can do is to repay what some of these men went through from D-day onwards.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ipswich concerning the Potsdam Agreement. To my mind, the Potsdam Agreement is a complete washout. The situation now is entirely different from what it was at the time of the Potsdam Agreement, and it is utterly fantastic that we should be asked to continue to observe those clauses of the Potsdam Agreement which are a disadvantage to us, while other nations disregard the whole thing and do just as they wish. My last plea is for a Minister resident in Germany appointed at the earliest possible moment to go into the whole thing in detail, be-
1710
cause the cry going up in Germany now is, "If this is the way a Socialist Government runs the country, then for God's sake give us Hitler."
8.31 p.m.
Mr. A. Edward Davies: I am not proposing to follow in detail the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), but I should like to differ from him in regard to the wisdom of sending the families of British soldiers to places like Hamburg where the position in respect of housing and living generally is so acute and distressing. From the evidence I gathered there a few months ago, it seemed to me that there was no urgent case for sending out the families of our serving men. Indeed, I cannot find any widespread demand amongst the serving men. There may have been amongst the professional soldiers, the officers, who have their usual followers, but I did ask one responsible officer who was concerned in the administration of Hamburg, and I believe he told me that out of an establishment of over 10,000 he had had applications from only 250. It may have changed from that time, but I cannot myself see that any real case can be established for worsening the atrocious living conditions in which the indigenous population found themselves when I was there.
The problem of Germany as I saw it is that this is a country which all the Allies desire to put on to her feet in such a way as will enable her to support herself and to establish sanity that she might eventually earn the respect and the goodwill of other nations. We have to recognise the other aspect of the problem, and that is to ensure that she will not rise again to menace the peace of the world. It is a strange characteristic of the British people that, having conquered a nation, we are inclined to become sentimental almost immediately afterwards. I do not say that my colleagues who have spoken tonight are sentimental; I say there is that characteristic. I am bound to say that I agree with much of what my colleagues have said about Germany, but we should be unrealistic if we did not recognise the philosophic and military background which led up to the war situation. In my view, while we should certainly do everything to give Germany a place in the comity of nations where she can develop her own industry and her own life and is

1711
no longer dependent as a mendicant on the rest of the nations, I would not be doing my duty if I did not remember the hinterland and the kind of teachers Germany had, beside whom people like Hitler are small beer.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing reminded us of the incapabilities, as he saw them, of the Germans in matters of administration. I would not wholly agree with him, but there has been no real democracy in Germany as we have known it in this country, and there must be a long process of re-education and, perhaps, some control. I think there is a duty upon us, as progressive Socialists, to debunk any idea that the Germans are a master race—the Herrenvolk idea—and I think my colleagues would agree that this will take a great deal of time.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) made it clear that in this review and criticism of the administration of Germany he relieved the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of all responsibility. I am sorry to see that a good and respectable paper like the "Manchester Guardian" has been taking the Chancellor to task, because I believe that the problems are at a higher level, and that fundamental changes in regard to the Potsdam Agreement, Yalta, and so on, have to be dealt with before our colleague, the Chancellor of the Duchy, can have any chance. In my view the man does not exist who could make this set-up work with a background such as Germany has inherited. Moreover, whoever undertook this job, there is no simple explanation, in view of the background and the kind of economy which Germany built up in order to prepare for war. I do not say that the German nation should be relieved of blame, or that the Allies were completely without responsibility for creating the conditions which made a Hitler possible, but I am convinced in my own mind that many of the ideas entertained by the young German nation have to be debunked. As I have said, this task may be of long duration and may require reeducation.
Mr. Carmichael: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give some idea of who is to carry out this re-education and what the process is to be?
Mr. Davies: I am looking to international organisations such as
1712
U.N.E.S.C.O. to give a hand in this kind of work, and in my view the conference which was held in Paris last week was one of the most important forms of activity upon which we must rely if this old world is to reshape herself. Surely the hon. Gentleman would not argue that there is not a job to be done along these lines? I will not labour that point, but will merely say that there is a philosophical and military background which has to be taken into account because of various circumstances which I am not prepared to examine tonight. The economy of Germany was built up to support a great war, and whoever was the man who had the job of straightening things out afterwards, he was bound to be confronted with a great and complex task which will take some time to sort out. In the process of war Germany has received a terrific battering, and while I am convinced that if we left more of the straightening up to the Germans—if there were more bulldozers and other machines, and, perhaps, less interference in the physical tackling of this matter—they would clear much of the debris out of the way and would get on with the job of rebuilding. But, as has been said, there is, in addition, widespread devastation of the industrial machine as well as among the houses. The need, as has so often been said in this House recently, is, first of all, that we should have something like a reasonable standard of feeding, so that the people need not spend their time going to the country, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said a few moments ago, to supplement their town rations, which is precisely what is happening. We should encourage them to produce more coal and to utilise it to stimulate their own domestic and industrial production.
I know there are political difficulties about it, but one is reminded, when one wanders about Germany, of a cemetery. There are no consumer goods, the people are listless, and there seems to be no industry to help them to tide over their difficulties. There is general confusion. An interesting observation was made the other day by Dr. Agartz, who was the head, until recently, of the German Economic Advisory Board. He said:
"There will be no reconstruction without outside help for the purchase of raw materials and the re-establishment of German trade."

1713
Tonight I would ask the Minister and the Government, "Who is to provide that economic aid to Germany? Will it be left to American banks? Are there to be industrial loans arranged on a unilateral basis?" We are pleased to see some progress in economic matters. We are pleased that M. Molotov has said, on behalf of Russia, that the U.S.S.R. does not wish to identify the German people with the arch-criminal Nazi leaders. We are glad that M. Stalin has said he is agreeable to a revision of the level of industry. We are particularly glad to hear that food and, I believe, some consumer goods are reported as coming in from Russia and from the Russian zone. These things are encouraging.
My considered view, as a layman trying to look at the thing objectively and in a helpful way, is that the Potsdam Declaration was totally wrong. I asked the Minister today to give us a statement about the vessels available in Germany and to tell us what the inventory had revealed. We constantly hear in this House, in respect of demobilisation and food problems, that there is a shortage of transport, yet, when we go to the great Port of Hamburg—and this may be true of other places—we see ships, some of which might be made seaworthy and used in the interests of Europe, of Germany herself, and of the world. The Clause in the Potsdam Declaration which said that Germany should have no seagoing vessels was totally insane. Surely, Germany has to be fed. If she is to have commerce and trade, which we hope she will have some day, the goods have to be carried in ships. In whose ships? In what ships? Many of those seaworthy vessels could be used, and if they are not seaworthy they should be repaired and made useful to the country and to the world. I would ask whether the Government or the Allied Powers have any idea what they are going to do about places like Kiel and Hamburg, where a large part of the native population was dependent upon maritime production as distinct from naval armament.
It seems to me that we have to call for a complete revision of the Potsdam Agreement in the light of the arguments I and some of my hon. Friends have advanced. What is war potential today? Near the Danish border we saw several perfectly good factories—beautiful places—which could have been utilised for peaceful productive purposes, but merely
1714
because they were in a certain strategic position they were scheduled for demolition. What sense does that make? In the age of the atomic bomb, what is war potential? One hon. Member was at pains to show us that we must have a new conception of these matters in view of scientific development and the closer relationship and interdependence with one another, not only in the interests of Germany, but in our own interests.
I want to say a word- about the problem of displaced persons or expellees. At Marienthal, below Hanover, I had the experience one Sunday morning of witnessing the unloading of a trainload of these unfortunate people. The spectacle was a most moving sight. I am not, I hope, an unduly emotional man, but I and my colleagues were deeply stirred by what we saw. Here was a train—of cattle wagons, as it seemed to me—in which 1,700 human souls were herded together. It was just being drawn into the station and a loudspeaker blared out, "Get your goods and chattels and be ready to report to the depot." These poor souls had been on their way from Poland from the previous Thursday or Friday, and this was Sunday midday. Most of them were old or very young; very few were middle aged, and very few were young men. They were unloaded, with their bits and pieces, and passed through this sort of transit camp. There they were "deloused," the infirm and old were segregated from the others, the young babies were taken away, they were all registered and finally they were fed and bedded down on straw for a few hours' rest before they entrained again for some other unknown destination.
I would like the Chancellor to say what is happening to all these displaced people. I am not concerned so much about the background—whether they were German nationals and so on. I am merely concerned with it as a great human problem. It seems to me, as a Socialist and a Christian, that this method of trying to put people within a given frontier and then to think that the world has solved the problem by making homogeneous populations within a given boundary is futile and nonsensical. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, in discussing this matter with the rest of the great Powers, will bring out the inhumanity of it all and see to it, not on sentimental grounds but on the great grounds of Christian prin-

1715
ciples and ethics, that a stop shall be put to this kind of thing at the earliest possible moment and that everything shall be done to make easy the lot and destiny of the people who have had to forsake their homes in this manner.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Willis: I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) for giving us another opportunity of discussing Germany, because there is no doubt that the problems of Europe cannot be satisfactorily solved until we settle the problem of Germany. First, I think it is necessary that the remarks about food made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) should be put in their correct perspective. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has read the report of the tripartite Nutrition Committee, or the report of Select Committee on Estimates, on which I had the honour to serve. They quite definitely state that in the towns the population is seriously undernourished, and the majority of the population in the British zone lives in the towns. The figures for infantile mortality have increased enormously. The infantile mortality rate for 1946 was 104 per thousand as compared with 64 prior to the war. The Select Committee itself said:
"It is evident, therefore, that the present ration must be increased, or otherwise the Level of Industry Plan will remain a plan only, production will continue to decline, exports will fall, the zone will be unable to increase its indigenous food supplies and, without enumerating all the serious consequences that must follow, with the possibility of economic collapse, it is obvious that the cost to the British Exchequer will be inevitably increased."
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What date was that? Was "the present ration" mentioned there en the one thousand calorie basis or on the 1,500 calorie basis?
Mr. Willis: It was on the 1,000 calorie rate.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It has now been increased to 1,500 calories. I quite agree that it is not adequate and I said it should be 2,000.
Mr. Willis: It has just been increased. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy a question re-
1716
garding that. As I understand the position in Germany today, this increase in the ration has been made because the German harvest is coming in. What will be the position when this food stock is exhausted? What will be the position in February and March? After several inquiries made in Germany, I was told, "We do not know." I do not think that is satisfactory and I would like some information as to what will be the position when the German harvest itself has been used.
As I see it, this problem in Germany is a twofold one. First, we have to put Germany on its feet and, secondly, we have to try to put across democracy. The first problem itself is well known to the House. There is the vicious circle—the shortage of coal, the shortage of consumer goods and the shortage of food. The recommendation made was that we should try to make a break in regard to coal. I understand that the exports of coal from Germany have been reduced. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy what is the increase in the amount of coal now being kept in Germany, and what is the effect of that increase on the production of goods required for use in Germany itself? I want to ask further, whether there is any increase in consumer goods, because one of the points made continually in Germany is that you cannot induce the miner to produce more unless you can give him some incentive to do so. One of the things suggested, rightly, is that he must be able to spend in the shops what wages he can earn, and he cannot do that without consumer goods.
The third point I want to ask about coal is, what is being done to house miners in better conditions? I ask this question because, like the hon. Member for Ipswich, I am amazed that we should have agreed to carry on with this Hamburg project. We decided to carry on with it at the same time as we were taking steps to unify, or at least to link up, the British and American controls. It seems to me that if Britain and America are to work together, and if we are to work, ultimately, with Russia, as we want to, Hamburg is possibly not the best place to put up this new building to house the Control Commission. It seemed to me wrong to proceed with a plan which meant the demolition of houses, when there is already a great shortage of houses. If it

1717
had been an entirely new scheme, and no one was being put out of a house, it might have been justified, but it is difficult in present circumstances to justify it when we are pulling down houses in order to proceed with our own buildings. The Germans must feel very bewildered.
Another point arises out of the answer given at Question time today, and links up with the question of mining. As I understood the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy today about the number of men engaged in the project, the total is 9,000, some of whom are engaged, I think 1,300 was the figure, in repairing flats for people to move into. More were employed on something else, leaving a balance of 4,000 employed on this project. The wisest thing to have done with that building labour force would have been to use it in the mining districts to house the miners. Everyone knows that one of the things that has to be done to increase the output of the miner, is to improve his housing conditions. In the Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Estimates on page 71 we find this passage:
"I think we have had a mention of the effect of housing on the worker. How are the miners housed—very badly. I assume?—Very badly in many cases. I was in what was once a house, and there were 11 people living in one room. You ask what effect that has on the worker. A medical man was with us and he said that, under those conditions, a man cannot rest properly to start with. He went so far as to say that, if you gave that man any amount of food, you would not materially improve his condition, because he is not getting proper rest."
We can increase the miner's food ration, but unless we can rest him, and give him proper surroundings in which to live, we will not increase his output. I suggest that the building force at present being used for the purpose of building this Hamburg project, could have been utilised for the purpose of housing the German workers, and helping us to solve this problem. It is interesting to note that our Committee went out to investigate the expenditure of £80 million. Since then, I understand, the expenditure is actually increasing and, what is more, we are now sending out technical men of whom we are short in this country, in order to help tear down factories which could help us to produce the consumer goods to ease our burden. This is a fantastic situation.
1718
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I feel that the Potsdam Agreement needs to be overhauled. I appreciate that that has to be done at another level, but it seems to me that we cannot be expected to meet the terms of the Potsdam Agreement forever unless the other parties agree to do so. We shall never settle this problem along those lines. Another point is that we have to put across the ideas of democracy. An hon. Friend in reply to an interjection thought that this could be done through U.N.E.S.C.O. That may be so, but until we can feed and house the German people, all the "U.N.E.S.C.O.s" in the world will never teach them democracy.
If I may once again quote from the evidence, this time from that given by General Sir Brian Robertson to the Committee in Germany on the question of putting across this proposition, he was asked, "Are we succeeding in these things?" and he said:
"Well, no; we are not getting along too well. There are difficulties because the conditions necessary for the achievement of these plans (and particularly of the plan of putting across democracy) do not obtain. The first essential condition for doing these things is that there should be a reasonable standard of living for the German people, and a reasonable hope. If their whole attention is concentrated on how they are going to get their next meal, if they are living in misery and without hope, it is immensely difficult for us to put across our ideas of democracy."
I think that is true, and that we have got to tackle that problem. We have also got to finish with de-Nazification. I understood that the completion of the Nuremberg trials would automatically settle the fate of large numbers of these people who are at present in the camps. Is that so?
Mr. Crossman: No.
Mr. Willis: This is what we were told in Germany. I think other members of the Select Committee will agree with that. I want to know what effect the completion of the trials has had, what are the numbers now in these camps, how long they are to be there, and when it is expected we can quite finish with this problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich summed it up very well and I do not want to repeat everything he has said.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, that we have to

1719
act in Germany as liberators, not as conquerors. The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said a similar thing the other day—that having conquered we ought to be merciful. Whilst I would like to pay a tribute to the work that has been done by the Control Commission, at least by some certain members of it, I wish to say that anyone visiting Germany must be impressed by the fact that our people tend to live as conquerors, rather than liberators. Proceeding with this Hamburg project, does not seem to me to help matters very much. Looking at the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee, we find this amazing state of affairs, which does not seem to fit in with the idea of liberation but rather conquest. The total authorised establishment for the Control Commission in Germany is 26,000. I think that at that time there were slightly less—25,000. To what extent has that force been reduced? The point I want to make is that there is a domestic staff of 16,000—German domestic staff—to attend to a Control Commission of 26,000; this is more than one for two persons. The explanation, as recorded in the Appendix of the Report of the Select Committee, is this:
"This increase"—
in German staff—
"is due partly to shortage of British clerks, replaced by Germans, and increased domestic and transport assistance is due to shorter hours worked by Germans, as their working capacity has been reduced by lower rations."
Anyone knows that these people like these jobs on the domestic staff because it helps them to get more food, working in messes. I would like the Chancellor of the Duchy to say whether this force is being decreased. To what extent are the recommendations made by the Select Committee to improve the quality of the staff being given effect? If we do not solve this problem there is no doubt that we shall build up in Germany a legacy of hatred which can never be a factor for peace in Europe.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has rendered a service to the country in raising this matter, which is of such intense importance, tonight. I would like to say, at the outset of the few remarks
1720
I shall make, that I agree with practically everything said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I agree with him about the Hamburg project, and I agree with what he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) said that it is absolutely necessary that we should reconsider what constitutes a war potential. That is one of the most important facts. Really, our conception of war potential in the light of atomic energy is quite ridiculous and out of date. We must revise the whole business. It is no good going on pretending we are living in 1945. What constituted a war potential then covered pretty well the whole field of industry, but nowadays there is no industry on earth which could not be turned to some kind of use. That, I think is one of the most vital points of all.
An hon. Member referred to U.N.E.S.C.O. as an agency for re-educating Germany. I think we have a long way to go before we get to that stage. I do not want to disparage U.N.E.S.C.O.—I saw something of it in Paris the other day—but if the first task of U.N.E.S.C.O. is to be the re-education of the youth of Germany under present conditions, I think we shall be putting a burden on the back of that somewhat fragile organisation that will very quickly break it. The hon. Member also referred to the fact that if one visits Hamburg one sees a lot of ships which have been blown up. I suggest that one can also see a very valuable shipyard blown up, which is even more disastrous from the point of view of Hamburg, and Europe and the future of Europe. I would still like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who really was responsible for that act of insanity—because an act of plain, raving insanity it clearly was to blow up the Bloehm und Voss shipyards, the one hope of Hamburg for the future. Was it because it was a war potential factory at a time when the whole world is crying out desperately for ships of every sort and kind?
The administration of Germany was an administrative task and test for this country of the highest order. Who can deny, on either side of the House, that up to date we have lamentably failed, or that our failure has had disastrous consequences upon our position and prestige in Europe and, indeed, throughout the world? On the question of food there seems to be no

1721
doubt, or very little doubt, that we in this House have been gravely misled in recent months as to the true facts about the food situation in the British zone. I believe it is true that this 1,500 calorie standard has not been realised in many cases. One of my hon. Friends pointed out, with full justification, that the position in the zone was very different in the country from the position in the towns, and that quite a number of people in the towns got food from friends in the country. I have no doubt that that is true. There is also, as we well know, the usual black, or grey, market in a rather more acute form, perhaps, in Germany than anywhere else. At the same time, one only needs to look at the hunger oedema figures for the Ruhr, especially Dusseldorf, and for Hamburg, and the tuberculosis figures for Hamburg, to realise that something is very far wrong with the feeding arrangements.
I know that every time I mention the word "herrings" there is great laughter from all sides of the House. Nevertheless, I am bound to point out what I regard in the present circumstances as the terrible tragedy which took place two or three weeks ago at Yarmouth and Lowestoft. There is, every year, this tremendous week or 10 days of Autumn fishing, when the shoals come up to the surface asking to be caught in immense numbers. We have had that this year, as we have had it practically every year since the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The fishermen went out and caught all they could for two nights and then they had to come back because the market was glutted for the rest of the week.
For the rest of that week, for three nights, that whole fleet was tied up in harbour in Yarmouth and Lowestoft, when all this nutritious food might have been poured across to Germany. All this food was lying just off our coast, but, when the boats were allowed to go to sea again, the shoals were gone. That is what happened. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Why? I do not know, but it is a failure of administration, because nobody can say that the present Government were not warned of the situation over and over again; the Chancellor of the Duchy has a responsibility for our zone in Germany, and the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland have their responsibilities. They all have a responsibility, but the
1722
fact remains that, though they were warned for two years from both sides of this House, nothing was done about it, and I say to the Government that, if they could not get the barrels and the salt to cure these herring, they could have run a ferry service of ships straight across from Yarmouth and Lowestoft to the German ports and poured out this food for the German people themselves to process.
Mr. Paget: Why could not the drifters themselves have gone to Hamburg if we were going to take the same drifters to America in 1940?
Mr. Boothby: If the drifters had gone to Hamburg, they would not have been able to catch the herring on the following night and the night after. They would not have been there to catch the fish. We wanted the drifters in order to catch the herring, but there were many other ships in the world that could have been used for this purpose but which were not used. I am only saying that the fact remains that, when we have half the civilian population in the British zone in Germany starving, people for whom we have a responsibility, nobody did anything about it, and, for half of that week, the fishing fleet was tied up. Whoever was responsible, I have always said that it was a scandal, and I have never changed my mind.
I think it is about time that this House knew the true facts from the Chancellor about the food situation, about the hunger figures and the tuberculosis. Whom are we to believe—the Chancellor or Mr. Victor Gollancz? Mr. Gollancz has been in Germany for some weeks and has given us some figures which startle us. Who is right? The House ought to know, one way or another. It is no use saying that the food situation has improved, if it has not, as Mr. Gollancz said. I would like to put a question to the Chancellor of the Duchy and ask him to give us some more information. On the general question raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich on the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements, I agree with him that both these Agreements were, in many respects, deplorable. I did not like them much at the time, and as time has gone by, I have liked them even less. To what extent is the Soviet Government carrying out, either in the letter or the spirit, the actual terms of the Potsdam Agreement, because I think that

1723
is very important? I do not believe that they have carried out those terms. I do not want to have a row with the Soviet Union, but I say that, if they are deliberately and flagrantly ignoring all their obligations under their agreements, we are perfectly entitled to pursue our own policy in our own zone.
I want also to ask the Chancellor this question. Are we going to continue to sabotage industrial production in the British zone in Germany on account of the Potsdam Agreement and by carrying out the terms of an Agreement which most of us believe the other signatories are making not the slightest attempt to carry out? If the Russians are not carrying out their obligations under the Agreement, why should not we give our own interpretation and take the steps to stop this senseless sabotage of German industry? As long as we go on doing that, there can be no question of recovery in Germany. In the matter of coal, I would sugest that it is absolutely essential that we should stop all exports for the next six months. Otherwise, there can be no hope of any recovery.
There is another point in this connection about which I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. What is the present position about the displaced persons? Are they still coming into our zone from the East? If so, in what numbers? We cannot go on indefinitely taking these displaced persons into our zone from Eastern and Central Europe when the Russians have collared about three-quarters of the food in Germany and are giving as practically none. We have to do our best for an artificially inflated industrial population in our zone, which was never the great food producing area of the old Germany. It has been reported in the papers that the recent fusion of the British and American zones in Germany is going to cost the taxpayers of this country a full £125 million in addition to the £80 million which the Select Committee set out to put a stop to. Is this fact true and, if so, why?
I do not wish to detain the House for any great length of time, but I would like to say how much I agree with all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have deplored the Hamburg project. I do not believe that the conditions in Germany justify it. A great many people
1724
were led to believe, by statements made on behalf of the Government, that this project had been totally abandoned for the time being. It now appears that it has only been slowed down owing to the lack of adequate labour and the lack of nutrition for the labour concerned. The results of our administration have, so far, not justified the erection of this colossal sort of garden city for our own people in the midst of the ruins. I would venture, very humbly and respectfully, to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). I do not think that we ought to send our wives and children to Germany in its present condition. I would rather put a stop to that whole plan, because I think it is a desperate situation; and give much more leave to the personnel in Germany. I believe that if we offered them that, they would take it. To contemplate this Hamburg project and to export wives and children to Germany under present conditions seems to me to be resolutely refusing to face up to the realities of a situation which is becoming increasingly difficult.
There is one other question I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It is the question of de-Nazification, a question which has been raised before. How long is this process going to be continued, and how many people have still to be de-Nazified? I am told that a great many people have been de-Nazified—it sounds almost like deloused—three times, and that there are still over a million waiting to be de-Nazified, or to answer a ridiculous questionnaire containing 150 ludicrous questions. In these circumstances, it will take another three or four years to get through the business. Meanwhile, no sane German is likely to take a job of any kind at all because, in the interim, he may find himself due for de-Nazification.
How on earth do His Majesty's Government expect to win the German people from totalitarianism to democracy if they go on with this kind of nonsense? We have either to live with them or exterminate them. When the Nuremberg trial was over, and the bosses responsible were safely hanged, the hon. Gentleman said that there might be a small number of war criminal cases still to be tried. Let us get the job done with and over by the end of this year, and then call it a day.

1725
If this de-Nazification business is going on for the next two or three years, involving thousands of people being kept in concentration camps or prisons, how on earth can we argue the case for democracy to the youth of Germany when we are imprisoning these people without any charge being preferred against them?
Habeas corpus is the basis of democracy. It is the principle on which all democratic systems ultimately rest. I beg the Government to announce a final limit to this de-Nazification business be-because, as I say, if we do not exterminate the German people we have got to live with them, and if we continue to destroy their industries, and starve and imprison them in hundreds of thousands without charge or trial, I do not see how we shall get them into a mood in which they will be fit to live with anybody or be civilised again.
My last question is: What is the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Germany? What is their ultimate objective? The question has been put: Have they got an import-export policy, which is the basis of any industrial revival in Germany? I have yet to hear of one. I am one of those who firmly believe that the only hope, in the long run, of preserving the values of Western European civilisation is to get some kind of unification in Europe under some sort of federal system. I have often argued this point in this House before, and I repeat it tonight. Are the Government taking any steps towards this end? What hopes are they holding out to the Social Democrats on the Continent, in Germany or anywhere else, who look to us for relief? I say that with absolute sincerity. What is the Government's constructive policy? Have they a constructive policy for Central Europe, Western Europe or for Germany? It seems to me that we are drifting on in the most hopeless way.
I believe the first essential is that we should appoint a resident Minister of Cabinet rank inside Germany, to tackle the situation. I have nothing against the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I assure him that I would welcome his own appointment to that post. He would not be the first Minister outside the Cabinet who has demanded entry into the Cabinet, and he would not be the first Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who
1726
has demanded to be a Cabinet Minister, because I could quote to him various examples of Chancellors of the Duchy who, during the last 30 or 40 years, have demanded, and often got, entry into the Cabinet. My advice to the hon. Gentleman, if he does not want to sink under this strain, is to demand instant entry into the Cabinet. Having done that, he should accept the advice of the hon. Member for Ipswich—blow up, metaphorically, Norfolk House, dismantle it completely, sack the staff, and, having got into the Cabinet, pack his bags, go to Germany and administer from there, and then come back at frequent intervals, report to the Cabinet and to this House what he has been doing and what he intends to do, and give us much fuller information than we have had in the past.
I cannot understand the attitude of the Government on this question. I remember, in the old days, when those on the Left were never tired of denouncing the Treaty of Versailles. They all said how shocking it was, and what an awful thing it was to impose upon the German people. It was a paradise compared with the present. It was the sanest, wisest, most just and constructive peace settlement that has ever been made by comparison with anything that has been done to Germany since the last war. I say to His Majesty's Government, in all sincerity, that if they go on as they are at the moment they will turn Germany into one vast plague-stricken and infected area, and, through that, they may well run the risk of destroying finally the whole of the values of Western civilisation, the whole hope of democracy, liberty and everything for which we fought for four or five years to protect from total destruction. I beg of the hon. Gentleman to insist upon a wise and constructive policy in this matter before it is too late.
9.25 p.m.
Mr. William Wells: May I follow the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) by echoing his hope that my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy will insist on and obtain a place in the Cabinet? I instance only the question of coal, which has been mentioned so often in this Debate, and nearly every other Debate in this House on the subject of Germany. For months everybody has emphasised that there can be no recovery in Germany so long as the export of coal

1727
is permitted. Everybody has known that for months. The Select Committee, of which I had the honour to be a Member, so reported; everybody agreed it was necessary, but nothing happened at all. Nothing happened for months, until a short time ago, when we were told that the export of coal from Germany was being progressively reduced. Now that is a good thing, but it is months too late. All the troubles that are arising this winter might have been lessened if the Foreign Office arguments had been countered within the Cabinet by what I might call the German argument. I do not say that in any pro-German sense whatever.
I disagree with some of the statements made on this side of the House about the bad effects of unconditional surrender. I disagree with the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy), that it is bad for a nation to be conquered. I think that for the German nation it was a very good thing to be conquered; it was very necessary for them to be conquered, but it was only necessary, and can only be useful, if after the process of conquest there comes a rapid and almost immediate process of lifting them up. Throughout this and all other Debates on this subject we have had a whole series of questions about the quality of the staff administering Germany. Nearly six months ago, the Select Committee recommended that the terms of service within the Control Commission should be assimilated to those of the Civil Service in this country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, in Debate after Debate, have urged that only the best quality personnel possible is good enough for Germany. We have asked the question repeatedly: How can we get such personnel if permanency of tenure is not guaranteed? Six weeks ago, or less, I put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy asking him what action was being taken to implement that recommendation of the Select Committee. The answer was that negotiations were going on between his Department and the Treasury, but that there were difficulties. There may be difficulties, but the difficulties in Whitehall and in St. James's Square, however great they may be, are as nothing compared with the difficulties that exist in Germany. I do urge upon my right hon. Friend that
1728
this question should be tackled with a sense of urgency, which so far has failed to be applied to it.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeen referred, as perhaps we all expected, to the question of herrings. May I remind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy that in Paragraph 32 of the Select Committee's Report, dated last July, we said:
"The evidence received did seem to indicate that the possibilities of increasing fish landings had not been fully explored; but whilst this will be a useful help, it cannot solve the main problem."
We do not know what can solve the main problem. At this point, may I try to answer a question put by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen? He asked who was right: Was Mr. Victor Gollancz right in saying that the food position in Germany was worse, or was my right hon. Friend right in saying that it is better? The true answer, I believe, is that they are both right. If the ration has been increased, as it has been increased, from about 1,000 calories to a little over 1,500 calories, there is an improvement. It is better. From rather rapid starvation we have come to rather slow starvation. But it is clear, also, that the conditions must be much worse, because a year ago the Germans were living on their own fat, and, after a year of starvation rations they have now no fat on which to live.
Several hon. Members on this side of the House have differed from the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) in the emphasis that he put on the facilities that exist for the industrial population of Germany to get food from the country. Those facilities do, of course, exist. They exist for the rich; they exist for those who have time and opportunity to go to get the food for themselves; they exist for those who have relations in the country, and transport with which to get the food from the country into the towns. They exist for those people; but for the great majority of the industrial population of Germany they do not exist at all. I think it is a wholly vicious argument to underestimate at all the malnutrition that does exist, and I think it fallacious to point out, with the emphasis that the hon. and gallant Gentleman used, that the heavy workers get increased rations. Of course they do get increased rations; but what about their families? Their families

1729
do not get increased rations; and what does the hon. and gallant Member suppose the workman is going to do, who gets a ration of, say, 3,000 calories, if he has a family of five or six children who have only a ration of 1,500 calories? Quite clearly, he is going to pool the lot, and, instead of his having a ration of 3,000 calories, for that man there will be a ration of only 1,700 or 1,800 calories. I suggest that the emphasis he has placed on those facilities for getting extra food will serve no useful purpose, but, on the other hand, may give some addition to the wholly mischievous propaganda, that while there are limited quantities of food in this country, the population of this country is being sacrificed in order to give unnecessary additions to the rations of the Germans.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me in any way. I never intended to suggest in any way that there was a question of a lack of rations in this country because we were supplementing rations in Germany. All I suggested was that whereas I agree that the ration of 1,500 calories is totally inadequate and should be increased, if ever possible, there were cases in which the whole general picture had been grossly overpainted. That is all I said. I do not wish to be misrepresented, and I know the hon. Gentleman would not misrepresent me.
Mr. Wells: I am much obliged. I had no wish at all to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman. With what he now says I wholly agree, of course; but what I did deplore was the perspective in which I, perhaps, wrongly gathered he placed the problem, from his previous remarks. With what he has now said, of course, I wholly agree. I have only one other point to raise. While I believe that in some ways a hard peace for Germany was necessary, I do wish to add my voice to the others raised on both sides of the House about the urgency of revising the Potsdam Agreement. I was in Essen some four months ago. The sullen hatred of the population of Essen, which they manifested towards us as we were passing in British Army cars, was a horrifying and an appalling thing. When you see the vast Krupps factory being wholly dismantled, taking away all the opportunities for earning an industrial livelihood from that population of 650,000 people,
1730
and when you appreciate that the whole of Europe is crying out for products such as steam engines which that factory was admirably qualified to build, you realise the full madness of the policy which we are now being forced to pursue of cutting off, on the one hand, the means of livelihood of the Germans, and, on the other, embarrassing the whole of the industrial reconstruction of Europe.
9.36 p.m.
Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) said that we must not ascribe to the Chancellor of the Duchy responsibility for the miserable chaos which is Germany today. Unfortunately the most lamentable thing about that statement is that it is true. We cannot ascribe responsibility to the hon. Gentleman, we cannot ascribe responsibility to the Commander-in-Chief, we cannot ascribe responsibility to anybody—that is the trouble here. The measure of human suffering that results from incompetent government is infinitely greater than the measure of suffering which results from any design, and what I would say to the Government is, "For Heaven's sake give us somebody who is responsible, to whom we can ascribe responsibility, and give him a policy to carry out."
I have only two minutes and I want to make this point very shortly. There is an appalling shortage of footwear, of clothes and of blankets in Germany today. Irresponsible people in Germany have the impression that the Services—all three of them—Admiralty, Air Force and Army—have surplus stocks, of blankets which have been rejected, of boots, of clothing—old battle-dresses and that sort of thing—stuff which is no longer of use to our Services but which, in the appalling shortages in Germany today, may be of immense use to the Germans. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to approach the Service Ministers and ask them to scrape their barrels and see what, in that line, can be made available immediately for Germany this winter when the need is so urgent. In a week's time I will put down a Question to him to ask what the result of these inquiries is. I am told on very good authority that there are very big stocks which could be made available for the purpose.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Drayson: The point I wish to deal with this evening concerns

1731
the psychological effect on the children of the families of our own Servicemen who are being taken out to Germany at the present time. I believe their experiences out there will have the most undesirable effect. One of the things we notice when we go to Germany is that no attempt has been made—or had been made even during the war—by the Germans to clear up the bomb damage; To be taken out there, and to live among ruins and poverty such as have been described tonight, will have a very undesirable psychological effect on the children. I think too that the effect on the minds of the grownups is equally undesirable, but they, I feel, have the ability to arm themselves, perhaps by thinking that the Germans deserve this treatment, against any feelings of sympathy that they might be inclined to have. When I went there I found, particularly in the American zone, a situation in which the Servicemen's families were living in conditions of plenty in the midst of poverty. I think that there might still be an alternative solution to this problem. We fully appreciate the desire of these Servicemen who have been away from this country, in some cases for six years and perhaps even longer, to be united with their families. It seems to me that it might be possible for the Government to make arrangements with neighbouring countries, which have not suffered so badly during the war, such as Belgium and Holland, and even France and Switzerland, for the wives and families of our Servicemen to go out there on a long holiday. A generous period of leave could be given for our Servicemen to meet their families outside German territory, and enjoy all the good things which we find in Europe at the present time, but which are denied to us by our Government through their incompetence in this country.
9.41 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I think that the whole House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has done a great service in raising this subject today. It is quite true that we had a Debate on Germany a week or two ago, but I think we must go on having Debates on Germany, until we have secured a drastic change in policy. The first Debates which took place on Germany in this House were
1732
raised in the same manner as this Debate. The first Debate was held about a year ago in much the same circumstances, and it was a shameful thing that the first Debate on this great issue should have had to occur in those circumstances, instead of a day being provided for the subject. At that time, some of us said that if we did not debate closely the affairs of Germany, there might come a period in two or three years when we should be debating nothing else. I think that we are coming to that situation even quicker than some of us feared. If we had really taken action on some of the matters raised a year ago, we should have been in a better situation today. It is almost impossible for us to continue to have Debates on Germany in which one Member after another rises in his place and acquits the Minister who is to reply of any responsibility in the matter. I concur in the view which has been expressed, that it would be hopelessly wrong and unjust to accuse my hon. Friend of being responsible for this appalling situation.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a lot of responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and with those who prepared the plans at Teheran and Yalta, which were later put into operation at Potsdam. A great part of the responsibility, of course, rests upon the existing Cabinet, which therefore rests upon the Chancellor of the Duchy. We must bring that responsibility home, and if the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agrees with the view which is expressed by many Members in this House, that he is charged with a quite impossible task, then I say that the duty of a Minister who is charged with a quite impossible task is to resign his office, because the only way in which he will bring home the appalling situation is that he should resign and reveal that he has not been given the power he needs to carry out the gigantic task with which he is faced. I am not quite certain whether that is the view of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
One of the great difficulties we have on this whole matter of Germany, which was referred to by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), with whose speech I agreed in almost every particular, is the wide discrepancy between the evidence provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy, and the evidence provided by

1733
all kinds of responsible persons returning from Germany, This applies to almost every factor in the situation; it applies to food, the dismantling policy, reparations, de-Nazification—one can go through the whole list. The evidence provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy at Question time and in speeches in this House is in total conflict with the evidence provided by many competent people who have returned from Germany. We all agree that the Chancellor is not attempting to mislead the House in this matter. He gets information from his office, but that information, apparently, is in total conflict with the evidence brought back, for instance, by every reputable newspaper correspondent who has been in the zone for a considerable period. An hon. Member has said that this question has been overstated, but I believe the basis of the evidence of what is really happening in Germany, can best be obtained from newspaper correspondents who have been there, not for one or two weeks, but have been living in the zone for months on end. That applies to reputable correspondents of the "Manchester Guardian," "The Times," the "Economist," and—if I may mention another newspaper—the "Tribune." The evidence of all their correspondents is in total conflict with all the accounts which are reaching Norfolk House. Therefore, we must clear up this situation, and discover who is right.
I suggest that the Chancellor has been receiving evidence in his office which does not really reflect the true situation in Germany at all. Answering a Question in the House today, on the question of the German ration, my hon. Friend seemed to suggest that it was being met, at any rate to something like 90 per cent. There was also the curious statement of the Chancellor, following the outcry on the subject of the food position in Germany, in the Debate we had the other day, when he suggested that the present outcry was partly the result of the progress of democratisation which was going on in German politics. These were the words my hon. Friend used:
"We have recently had elections and established local councils representing various political parties. They have been handed responsibility for the collection and distribution of food, and they have also been given the statistics. Having seen those statistics they are very properly shocked at the difficult situation they have to face. Being responsible to
1734
their constituents, they are now competing in publicity and demands on the British authorities for maximum support and sympathy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 304.]
Those were the words he used. I have a report by a well qualified correspondent who spent her time going round German cities, where she was able to speak the language. While the Chancellor was delivering those words the other day these are the facts she saw in Germany. This is a quotation from the "Tribune":
"While these words were spoken the city of Essen had just passed through a four weeks' ration period during which the food actually available to the normal consumer remained well under the 1,000 calorie level. Not only were cereals which, on paper, form an important part of the German ration, not distributed at all, but there was very little if any bread (never during the period sufficient to honour the officially 'called up' and already reduced ration) and only 40 per cent. of the population were able to get any potatoes at all.
I learnt these facts while Mr. Hynd spoke in the House of Commons of 'the miracle' of maintaining the regular distribution of rations in the existing adverse circumstances. Circumstances, it is true, could hardly be more adverse, but the 'miracle' of which Mr. Hynd spoke did not happen. For many weeks now (as has already been reported in numerous Press accounts) rations have not been distributed regularly, not only in Essen, but in many of the industrial cities of the Rhine-Ruhr area. In fact, there have been places far worse off than Essen, Düsseldorf, Duisbnrg, Wuppertal, Solingen, Remscheid and Krefeld—but it is not through 'seeing statistics' that the German people are 'shocked'."
That is a report which has been borne out by all the correspondents of the "Manchester Guardian," and on the basis of those reports that newspaper asks the Chancellor of the Duchy the question which I also ask him: Does he know that the higher ration, announced by us last month to be put into operation in Germany, is fictitious? The word "fictitious" is used responsibly by the "Manchester Guardian." Remember also that this ration is a miserable, inadequate ration, and, in fact, ever since March, there has been a considerable percentage of people in Germany who have been living below the 1,000 calories mark. In the face of all this evidence, when the Chancellor comes to this House and suggests that the ration has been met, it only makes the situation much worse in Germany, because all the people there, when these statements get through to them, must be angered even more about the whole situation.

1735
I am not suggesting that there is an easy remedy to this situation; of course, there is not. One of my charges against some of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Duchy is that he has led the country to believe that the situation is easier than it is. For instance, it is suggested—I do not attribute this to the Chancellor of the Duchy—in some quarters that all that has happened is that the Americans have failed to supply some of the things which they had promised, and if we could only get what we need out of the American zone, then everything would be fine. That is not really the situation. A statement was made the other day by General Clay about the Americans. He said that the American authorities were frankly worried about their ability to maintain even the present low level of 1,500 calories until the next harvest. The Budget which the United States Government has voted for supplying food to Germany is totally inadequate, at the present prices prevailing for wheat in the United States, to supply anything like the quantity that is required. I do not know what is the solution of this situation. I do not think that it is any solution, as hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have attempted to suggest, that there are great bursting bins in the Russion zone if only we could get hold of them. We should all have liked to have help from the Russian zone, but from all the evidence which I have seen there are no more bursting bins on that side of Europe than there are on this side of Europe. This is not a simple question. I suggest that it would be very much wiser if, instead of pretending that we can get through and stagger from one crisis to another, His Majesty's Government would explain openly to the whole world exactly what is the food situation, and say to the people of the United States: "Are you going to help us? Because you are the people who can help us face this situation which we have to meet, and if it is your purpose to have a great racket in wheat prices, rather than to help the people in the British and American zones of Germany, then the world ought to know about it."
Incidentally, I hope that the Minister can give us some replies as to what sort of information has been made available in the British zone about the parcels
1736
scheme announced a few days ago. I think that it is of the utmost importance, and that it would have a considerable psychological effect in Germany, that the widest publicity should be given to the fact that the people in England—and I am sure that there will be countless thousands—are to contribute to this scheme to send parcels to Germany. I hope that the Chancellor has got hold of every radio in Germany and broadcast this fact widespread over the whole country.
A further great factor, in which there is a discrepancy in the accounts given by the Minister and the accounts we have received from reputable correspondents from the zone, is with reference to the dismantling, which has already been discussed by many other hon. Members. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in a speech which he made the other day, gave the impression, to which reference has already been made, that we were definitely not destroying plants that could be usefully used to produce goods for export and for use in Germany. All the evidence is that we are destroying many factories which could be used for this purpose. The hon. Member for Ipswich has put specific questions on that point, and I hope that we shall have some answer, but there is no need to go on arguing about it in great detail, because even Mr. Asbury, the Regional Commissioner, on 30th October announced that orders were awaited for dismantling further factories, which he proceeded to name. The dismantling is going on, and we should like to know whether it applies to the factories to which the hon. Member for Ipswich referred, and whether it applies also to the cement factories. Are we really going to dismantle cement factories throughout Germany simply because cement was once used for building the roads along which Hitler drove his tanks?
On the question of de-Nazification, cannot we have some decisive statement from the Minister about that tonight? Can he tell us who it was that drew up this ludicrous document with 133 questions on it, which not merely over one million Germans who have already been de-Nazified three times have had to answer, but any one who wishes to apply for the smallest job in the future will have to answer?

1737
Who devised this questionnaire? We may be told that it was devised by the quadripartite Council in Berlin. We have representatives on that Council, and it is no good trying to push off responsibility by saying that it is a quadripartite decision. Did one of our representatives on that Council agree with this document of 133 questions which were to be put to people to de-Nazify them throughout the whole country? Of course, many things go wrong with quadripartite arrangements, but I think the House ought to know exactly what our representatives have been saying on the Quadripartite Council as to the operation of some of these insane plans to which reference has been made by other hon. Members.
The situation which has been revealed by this Debate, and by other Debates, is causing widespread concern on every side of the House and throughout the whole of this country. It is dangerous for this country, the world, and this Government. It is deadly serious. Unless we can get a real timetable of how we are to stop the carrying out of the Potsdam Agreement and the failure to carry out the Potsdam Agreement, unless we have a clear timetable of what is to be done about Germany, I believe there will be a disastrous situation. If we have to wait, to deal with the situation arising from the dismantling of German factories, until after they have, in New York, first settled the peace treaties with Italy, and then the peace treaties with Germany, and had further arguments about disarmament—if we have to wait for all that time—there will be such a crash in Europe as will be heard from one end of this planet to the other.
9.58 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I make no complaint about the very severe barrage of criticism that has been hurled at my unworthy head in this Debate; nor do I try to avoid the responsibility for any part of the matters criticised for which I am, either personally or as a representative of the Government, responsible; nor do I wish for one moment to modify in any way the very gloomy and tragic descriptions of the situation in Germany that have been given in the Debate. I have at times been attacked in the House, and elsewhere, in regard to other aspects—questions of the efficiency of our staff, the size of our staff, the Hamburg project,
1738
and other affairs of that kind, which are not fundamental to the situation. I have felt justified in trying to explain to the House exactly what has been done in the very difficult situation that has existed in Germany, and, presumably, it is because I have done so that I have been charged on occasions with drawing too rosy a picture. I do not think that on any occasion will it be found that I have tried to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Germany. I will deal with that later.
But the whole course of the Debate has been, I think, a little unreal in that it has entirely ignored the background of the problem which we are discussing. I would remind the House that we are in Germany not for the purpose of running a British colony, nor are we there with the powers and opportunities of administering a unilateral system that might suit ourselves—
It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
Mr. Hynd: We have not the physical material necessary to carry out a completely unilateral policy. We went into Germany with our Allies at the conclusion of hostilities, in which the whole of the Allies participated, with a common purpose, which included the disarming and de-Nazification of Germany, after which we proposed to assist Germany towards democratisation and the creation of a situation in which she could play her part in a peaceful world. Immediately we accept these responsibilities, we are faced with the practical problems of disarming a country which was vastly over-industrialised in certain aspects, for war purposes. If we face and accept that problem we have to destroy, remove or render inactive certain purely war activities, such as submarine factories, submarine pens and the docks and slipways of Kiel which have been used only for naval purposes. We can only deal with industries of that kind in one of three ways—by destroying them, by trying to remove them, or by ignoring them entirely and allowing them to rot. This is part of the responsibility which we have to accept. The question which arises is: How far is that desirable and how expeditiously can it be done?

1739
I do not, think I would differ very much from the remarks of my hon. Friends in the comments they have made in regard to that matter, but here again I would remind them that we are only a quarter of the government of Germany I am not throwing the responsibility on the Quadripartite Council, but we are governing only a quarter of Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) asked was it true that British representatives on the quadripartite Council had put their signatures to some agreement? The answer is "yes." If we are to work on a democratic basis and not adopt the veto principle on the Council, when we find our partners in agreement on a certain policy, it is very difficult, without facing up to all the repercussions, to take such an attitude as would involve adopting a veto on what may be a very important decision in the eyes of our partners.
Mr. Paget: Do the Russians follow that example?
Mr. Hynd: Not in all cases, but I do not think we should necessarily take our lessons in the application of democracy from anyone outside our own country.
Mr. Paget: Surely that is not the point. The point is, Are we to submit to Russian decisions, if the Russians will not submit to ours? If we submit to the majority rule, why should not they?
Mr. Hynd: Of course this is not entirely a story of the Russians dictating every decision taken on the Quadripartite Council. In many cases the Russians have not agreed, while in many others we have not agreed. If we find ourselves in a minority of one, generally, unless a vital principle was at stake, it has been our policy to agree. That is the position.
Mr. Crossman: It would help us a good deal if we knew that our representatives have, in fact, fought most earnestly against certain proposals and whether they were not in agreement with the majority proposal.
Mr. Hynd: I cannot offhand give an answer to that, because the Frageboger was instituted before we went into Germany, for the purposes of preparing the de-Nazification procedure in the quickest possible way.
Mr. Blackburn rose—
Mr. Hynd: I have not time to give way. Similarly, I am surprised to find it so widely suggested in the House that we should stop de-Nazification, because it has been agreed, I think, on all hands, for the first 15 months, that part of our principal purpose in Germany is to de-Nazify its institutions and remove all Nazi institutions from Germany as far as practicable. If that should be our policy how is it to be done? It means that certain very drastic steps have to be taken in dealing with the large number of people involved in a country of that kind and in the conditions which exist there. It means, necessarily, that we have to start in a very drastic way. We have to take people in large numbers, and deal with them in large numbers, and I say this to those who are so critical of the Frageboger system. It has enabled us to get through the greater part of that programme very speedily.
Mr. Boothby: One hundred and thirty questions.
Mr. Hynd: I do not know how many questions there are, but it is not true, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) that everybody who has had to sign one of these questionnaires—one million was the figure he quoted—is having to do it all over again for a fourth time. That is just not true, and I leave hon. Members to judge as between this information and that which comes from other sources. What is true is that, in order to break down and disperse this terrible problem as quickly as possible, we have taken those people who have been categorised as war criminals, dangerous Nazis, and so on, and placed them in five categories. This is a scheme which I have explained to the House before, and we are reviewing everyone of these cases on the category basis in order that we may release the largest possible number as quickly as possible. Here again there have been no less than 68,000 people interned at one stage or another under this scheme, although no less than 31,000 of these have been released, leaving a total of some 37,000 still to be dealt with, and these are being dealt with very speedily indeed. But again, of that 37,000 no fewer than 27,000 are Nuremburg category criminals about whom I could do nothing whatever

1741
under the terms of the Nuremberg agreement, until the Nuremberg trial was concluded, which was only a few weeks ago.
I can assure the House that the Government are as concerned as any hon. Member in any part of the House with regard to a speedy settlement of this problem. But this was the situation. We were in Germany, and we were in there with our Allies. A war had just been fought and won; there was an agreement, and, whether or not we might have preferred certain different clauses in that agreement, it was there and the question with which we were faced was whether we were to try to operate it or not. First of all, we could possibly—although I am not certain of this—have defied the whole of our Allies right away at the end of hostilities; but we did not. We tried to maintain unity, which I think would have been the desire of all hon. Members in this House and of every one in this country at that stage. And we have tried persistently, because the consequences of a breakdown in this or in that part of the attempts which have been made throughout the world during these past 12 or 18 months to maintain and develop inter-Allied unity, would have been very tragic indeed.
Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend now saying that he is defending what he knows he cannot really defend on principle, on the ground that he refuses to "gang up" with the Americans against Russia?
Mr. Hynd: Certainly not What I am trying to do is to remind those hon. Members who are so critical of the results of the policy that 12 months ago they would, I think, certainly have endorsed it and demanded that the Government should endorse it as endeavouring to secure the maximum unity of purpose and policy in Germany at that time. In the conditions of that time the Government certainly could not have done anything else.
The matter of food is one illustration of the kind of reason which made it necessary that we should, in any case, pursue a policy of agreement with our Allies. This country alone is not in a position to feed the whole of the British zone of Germany. That is clearly understood. I have certainly never suggested, and I am surprised to hear it suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and others, that the House has to judge, be-
1742
tween myself and Mr. Victor Gollancz who is telling the truth about the food situation in Germany. I do not think there is any difference between us. I have never at any time suggested here or elsewhere that 1,550 calories is anything like enough to maintain the standard of living which we require in Germany, or to maintain even a healthy resistance to disease.
Mr. Boothby: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I am sorry, but it was I who suggested that the ration of 1,550 calories was not on the whole maintained. The point of Mr. Gollancz's statement in the Press was that it is not the actual figure.
Mr. Hynd: The evidence which he, or those who quote him, give is that we cannot judge the calories by statistics and must judge them by results. I am giving the House the only reliable measure which can be provided as to what is being distributed. The calculations upon which my statements are based are those of the actual amount of food that has been distributed, in relation to the actual amount represented by 1,550 calories per person, in every case. In many districts, there have been cases, at one time or another, of absence of bread for two or three days, or may be more. There have been cases where there have been no potatoes for a period. There may have been a breakdown in supplies. I have already pointed out that we have managed to maintain the 1,550 calory standard so far as possible until the end of this year by plugging in sugar beet, potatoes and other such foods, where there is no cereal. The simple fact is that we have maintained the ration substantially up to the present time, apart from local breakdowns—a phrase which I have used so often that I am surprised that my hon. Friends have forgotten the emphasis which I have placed upon it.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said I had used words that seemed to suggest that the outcry about the food position was partly due to the democratising policy that we have followed in Germany. That is quite true. There is no question at all that it has been a contributory factor in bringing this situation to public attention. I think it is good that it is so. It is good that German representatives should be able to speak, and speak loudly, in the public Press, that they should be aware of the facts and that they should make them known. It is

1743
a very good thing, but it in no way detracts from the comments I have made about the seriousness of the food situation. I have simply stated the facts. I could quote other things that have been said by German representatives but I do not want to take up time by doing so.
The criticism has been made that the 1,550 calories is in some way or another a mistake, because it has not been fully met, and because it has been met this month only up to about 90 per cent. Surely the House would not suggest that, because we might have reached a situation where the 1,550 calories ration could not be met 100 per cent. a month or six or eight weeks ago, we should have decided that we were not going to risk increasing the food standard to 1,550 calories. We decided on that not, as has been suggested, because of the German harvest but because it was crystal clear that on a 1,000 calories ration it was impossible for the Germans to face the winter. Irrespective of what stocks we might have or what situation might arise, we had to declare that 1,550 calories was the minimum we intended to endeavour to distribute. Since then, circumstances have arisen that have made the thing a little more difficult than it was. There has been an American shipping strike, and there have been delays in getting the food forward. These factors have upset our calculations somewhat but we are still maintaining, after 14th October, considerably more rations for the Germans than existed before that date and before the declaration was made.
Similarly, in regard to the question of commodity goods, of housing, of boots, shoes and clothing, I do not want to suggest for a moment that the situation is anything short of desperate. On the contrary, the more this country knows about the situation the better. I have been in those bunkers in Hamburg, and I have been in the cellars at Dusseldorf, and I know how bad the situation is, but we are not just simply sitting back and doing nothing about it,' as has been suggested. In the matter of food we took a considerable risk in raising the ration from 1,000 to 1,550 calories, and we intend as soon as possible to raise it still further, but there is no immediate prospect. It is no good declaring we will raise it to 2,000 calories now, because it is physically impossible, whatever we
1744
could get from any source within the next two or three weeks. But we are determined that as soon a possible it shall be done, because 'otherwise the picture in the British zone and the rest of Germany in six months' time will be no better than at the present time.
In the matter of children's shoes, I know the position exactly. There are 750,000 children in Schleswig-Holstein without any shoes this winter. That is one region alone. One of the reasons why, in spite of the amount of footwear we have pushed into the British zone, there is still a shortage of children's shoes in the country is that there are no factories in the British zone equipped to produce children's shoes. We are endeavouring to swap some adult shoes with the Americans. I believe they have factories suitably equipped. The situation is too urgent to start reequipping factories in our own zone. As to herring, we have now got tens of thousands of tons of herring going into Germany.
In the matter of housing repairs, we have to face a situation where 5,500,000 houses have been cut down by more than 50 per cent. as a result of the bombing, but by May of this year we had repaired 500,000 and by September 900,000, which is pretty good going considering the shortage of materials and manpower, and the general situation in Germany. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made a good suggestion, that we should ask the Service Departments whether they can give us some of their stores. We have done that and we have been able to extract over 1,000,000 pairs of boots, considerable quantities of blankets, 1,000,000 battle dresses and 500,000 great coats, and these are going into Germany at the present time. We have also extracted 5,000 Nissen huts to assist housing in the mining and other areas. These are some of the things that are being done. The resources, however, are very restricted but, within the limitations at our disposal, we are certainly doing everything that is physically possible.
I would like to say a word or two now about the Hamburg project. This, again, is a question which has been largely exhausted in the Debates we have had, and in Questions and answers. Again, I put this to the House: if we are in Germany, we must have accommodation for our fellows over there. By general consent,

1745
I think, some months ago it was decided that there was no alternative but to allow wives and families to go out as well. If we had not accepted that position, we would certainly not have been able to retain the ablest of our staff. We would certainly have found it extremely difficult to recruit anyone else, and if it is suggested that we should bring the staffs or their families home, I ask the House to ponder seriously what the result of that would be. But, if you are to have a staff in Germany, whether or not you are to have their families with them, you must have accommodation, and the only accommodation in Germany, unfortunately—and I regret it as much as anybody else—is the accommodation owned or used by Germans. However, in the matter of requisitioning and derequisitioning, again I suggest that we should keep this in proportion.
The Hamburg project is a matter of concentration and economy, economy in accommodation as well as in many other things, and if the staffs are to be concentrated and reduced, if the Services are to be made efficient, then they must be concentrated and not spread over a dozen and one small villages, which means taking up additional accommodation by multiplication of messes and clubs and other things. But do not let us forget that whilst requisitioning in the last three months some 4,000 houses, we have derequisitioned not less than 6,000, and that process is proceeding. So far as the Hamburg project is concerned, I am told that we should stop it and switch the building labour. I ask, Where? Hamburg wants rebuilding as well as anywhere else, and, as far as the Ruhr is concerned, that is already getting an overwhelming priority both in the matter of labour and materials for building purposes, because we realise quite clearly that the supply of miners' houses must be and will remain for a considerable time one of the first priorities in the zone. There is no question of building a garden city in Hamburg. What is being built is a block of flats in the centre of the town, and it is being built in accordance with the plan for the rebuilding of Hamburg in agreement with the German authorities. However, I do not want to develop that beyond this point, because I should like to say a word on one or two of the other matters that have been raised.
1746
First, in regard to reparations I would like to clear up one or two misconceptions. The hon. Member for Ipswich suggested that the Potsdam Agreement says that all plants for reparations have to be declared by February, 1946. What was stated in the Potsdam Agreement was that agreement should be reached as to the level of industry to be left in Germany for peacetime purposes by that date. It was not, in fact, reached by that date for the precise reason that the British representatives of the British Government held out against the level that was suggested at that time and sought to obtain a much better agreement. As a result, eventually we did reach a better agreement but an agreement which was dependent, as I have stated on many occasions in the House, upon certain considerations which have not been carried out. I have been asked to say plainly if our Allies have carried out the Potsdam Agreement, and I have said often enough at this Box that they have not in all cases. Certain of our Allies have not carried out certain of the understandings and the conditions laid down in regard to the level of industry which were, primarily, that there should be recognition of German economic unity, the recognition of central administration, and so on. That has not been done. It has not been achieved, and I accept all the criticism and all the blame that can be attached for the efforts that have been made—the patient efforts, the costly efforts if you like, that have been made by our representatives to achieve that purpose. It has not yet been achieved and, therefore, the question of the level of industry in so far as it affects the British and American zones is now a matter of very current politics and very current concern.
However, the reparations policy has in no way reduced the attainable capacity in the British zone for the past 12 months, nor is it likely to for some considerable time. We have too, in accordance with our undertakings, solemnly agreed at the time to declare certain plants available, and certain of these plants are in the process of dismantling. I believe the total is seven. I am asked by my hon. Friends to suggest that this policy should be stopped, yet, in the same breath, they ask why we do not do what the Russians do, and take what we want. The answer is that the Russians are in control of their

1747
zone, and under the Potsdam Agreement it was decided that they should take what reparations they required from their own zone, while in the Western zone it was to be a matter for sorting out.
Mr. Jennings: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a fair sorting out?
Mr. Hynd: That was the agreement reached at Potsdam, and I do not propose to start arguing the merits of demerits of Potsdam in the three or four minutes left to me. That was the agreement, and there are a large number of Allies in the West, who are at present discussing at the Conference at Brussels the allocation of what factories may be made available to them as a result of the level of industry now existing, or in an amended level of industry which may be agreed.
Mr. Stokes: What about Mathes and Weber?
Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that although the Minister has just said that the Potsdam Agreement has not been carried out, we are continuing to send reparations in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement?
Mr. Hynd: No, what I stated was that, in accordance with our undertakings at the time, we proceeded to dismantle, or to allow the dismantling, of seven plants which were, in the first place, generally declared available and allocated for dismantling in the early stages. Beyond that, we are not proceeding with any dismantling at the present time. The matter will have to be reviewed, because it is not our purpose, obviously, to destroy the economic capacity of the British zone, or the British-American zone, if these zones have to be made self-supporting. Someone interjected a question about Mathes and Weber. That is one of the plants which, under the original level of industry, was declared as surplus to German peace-
1748
time capacity. It would, normally, ultimately become available for reparations. But, at the present time Mathes and Weber is not being dismantled. It is in operation at the present moment. That applies to the other plants to which I have made reference before.
I should like to have spent a little more time on some of the constructive work which has been done in regard to the productive side of industry, and the constructive side in the social and political life of the country. When it is suggested that I have been too optimistic in regard to these developments, I would remind the House of the picture that faced us this time last year. It was infinitely more chaotic then than it is now. So far as the food situation is concerned, at the moment it is not better, but in many other matters the situation at that time was completely unmanageable. Now I go so far as to say that if the food situation can be assured, and if there is an increase in coal production, which is largely dependent on food, and if we can get agreement, Which I anticipate we shall get with our American Allies at least, and, possibly with our other Allies, we are in a position today very different of that of 12 months ago, a position in which we can make rapid progress in regard to reconstruction of the British zone. We are not out of our food difficulties, the housing problem is still a redoubtable problem, and our agreement with our Allies is not yet completed. But, within these limits, and recognising the difficulties, however serious and however massive the problem, it is one we cannot shift or fail in, despite any criticism or difficulties we may have to overcome. Progress has been made in many directions. Given the food—which must come first or all else fails—then we can go ahead.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'Clock.