Lords Sitting of 3 August 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

COAL BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 30.]
After Clause 2 insert the following clause:
Costs in connexion with severance of leases.
(". The proviso to subsection (3) of Section eleven of the principal Act (which provides that the arbitrator or the Court may direct that the Commission shall not be liable to pay costs in connexion with the severance of a lease incurred by a person who appears to the Court to have been unreasonable or guilty of negligence or default) shall have effect as if for the words 'who appears to the Court' there were substituted the words 'who appears to the arbitrator or the Court.'")
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. I can explain the purport of this Amendment, as indeed of the other two Amendments also, in a very few moments. This new clause merely corrects a slip in Section 11 of the principal Act which has come to light since this Bill was presented. The proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11 of the principal Act, which we seek to amend by this new clause, provides that the arbitrator or the Court may deprive a person of costs which appear to the Court, not to the arbitrator, to have been incurred unreasonably. Thus, as the proviso now stands, a person who has acted unreasonably in proceedings before an arbitrator cannot be deprived of costs by the arbitrator unless it is shown to the Court that he has been unreasonable. I think it will be clear to the
932
House that this is obviously a mistake and that the decision as to the costs of the arbitration proceedings should lie with the arbitrator. This clause will amend the proviso to Section 11 in that sense.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert:
("(3) Where a freeholder's lease is granted, the amount payable as consideration therefor under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to have been payable at the date of the commencement of the term granted by the lease, and shall carry interest from that date to the date of payment at the same rate as compensation under Section six of the principal Act.")
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Third Schedule, page 15, line 33, leave out paragraph 3, and insert:
("3. Unless the referee otherwise directs, not more than one expert witness shall be called, either by the Regional Valuation Board or by the person or persons claiming the review, to give evidence on the review, whether as to the value of the holding or otherwise; and accordingly sub-paragraph (3) of the said paragraph 12 shall have effect as if the words 'as to the value of the holding' were omitted.")
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the last Amendment which stands on the Paper perhaps requires a very short explanation. Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the principal Act provides that on a review of valuation only one expert witness can be called by any party to give evidence as to the value of the holding, unless, of course, the referee shall otherwise direct. Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the present Bill provides that unless the referee shall otherwise direct, no witnesses of any kind can be called to give evidence, apart from the single expert witness for whom provision is made in the principal Act. My right honourable friend's attention has been drawn to the fact that this provision is really valueless, because the

933
referee is quite unable to tell whether the evidence of non-expert witnesses is really material until he has heard them, and consequently he will have to allow them to be called in nearly every case. That is one point.
The second point is that paragraph 12 of the Third Schedule to the principal Act merely restricts the number of expert witnesses who may be called to give evidence as to the value of any particular holding, which means that any number of expert witnesses can be called to give evidence as to any other matters. It is now proposed to substitute for the existing paragraph 3 of the present Bill a new paragraph, which makes it quite clear that one expert witness only may be called, whether as to the value of the holding or otherwise. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER had the following Notice on the Paper: While accepting the present necessity for the restriction of rent, to call attention to the manner in which the Rent Restrictions Act of 1915, as subsequently re-enacted, operates inequitably towards those whose property is still controlled by its provisions; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. In doing so, I am only too conscious that many of your Lordships have far wider knowledge and experience of this matter than I have, but, if I feel some reluctance on that account, I hope that none is necessary in defending the rights of those who own house property. It would in my view, if I may say so with respect, be an unfortunate day for this country if an apology were needed for defending in your Lordships' House the rights of any section of the community where in-
934
justice is involved. I may perhaps add that my personal interest in this matter is very slight indeed.
In putting the facts before your Lordships, it will unfortunately be necessary to make some reference to the law. I shall be as brief as I can, and therefore I shall present the case only in broad outline. Rent was first controlled by an Act of 1915, which was repealed and reenacted in an amended form by the Act of 1920. This Act controlled property not exceeding £105 rateable value in London and, I think, £78 elsewhere. It fixed as the standard rent the rent payable on August 3, 1914, or, if the house were not then let, the rent on the last letting. It gave power to make certain increases of rent if structural alterations or improvements were made, amounting to 8 per cent. per annum on their value. If the landlord paid the rates, he was entitled to charge any increase in the rates. He was also entitled to put 15 per cent. on the net rent, and to add another 25 per cent., making 40 per cent. in all, where he did the repairs.
By the Act of 1938, decontrol was extended to houses in the higher range of values—that is to say, houses exceeding in rateable value £35 in London and £20 elsewhere. The last Act—and then I have finished troubling your Lordships with these Statutes—was the Act of 1939, which carried the principle of control much further, extending it practically to the limits of the Act of 1920, so that once again 98 per cent. of our houses are controlled. It also repealed the provisions for decontrol. This is the point to which I am endeavouring to take your Lordships. It follows, therefore, that those owners of property in the lower range of values— that is to say, up to £35 in London and £20 elsewhere—if they never obtained possession of those properties, have never been able to decontrol their houses or to adjust their rents to an economic basis, and they are tied in their standard rent to a figure fixed nearly thirty years ago. It is with those houses only that I propose to deal.
The position of the owner of property of this kind has never been an easy one. Many of your Lordships, like other people, may have accepted it as a social obligation, taking pride in providing homes for the people and keeping them in a proper state of repair. Others of humbler means,

935
however, have sought to find in property of this kind an investment which would bring them some small but secure income in their declining years. The position of the first class of owners has now become, I think, intolerable, and the position of those of the second class is, to say the least of it, unfortunate, for the demands made on the owners of property are great, and seem to be ever growing. The Housing Acts, 1930 to 1936, have greatly increased the standard of maintenance. It is right that they should do so, but the demands are heavy and are not easily satisfied out of the rents where these are small. Again, there is the War Damage Contribution. As your Lordships know, no relief in regard to Income Tax is permissible in this connexion. Whilst in the case of damage by enemy action it is true that the local authority may do firstaid repairs to render the house habitable, it is none the less true that under the War Damage Act the landlord may find himself liable for other repairs up to a value of £5, and that is an amount not so easily met when we are dealing with rents expressed in terms of shillings.
On what basis are the rents fixed in the cases with which we are dealing? We have to go back to the period of the last war, when cottages were let sometimes at 2s. and sometimes at 2s. 6d. a week. No matter what they were let at or why the rent was fixed at that figure, that remains to this day the standard rent. If, however, the house was not let, but was in the possession of the owner, as I understand the position we have then to go back to the last letting. Here we have a curious state of affairs. We are not then necessarily concerned with the time of the last war, or with the time of the Boer War; we may conceivably have to go back to the Crimean War to fix the standard rent, because in such a case there is no limit of time at all. Whatever your Lordships' views about that may be, you will, I feel sure, think it wrong that no consideration has been given to the surrounding conditions at the time that the rent was fixed. The landlord may, out of kindness or compassion, have fixed the rent at an exceptionally low figure, yet as a result of his leniency he is penalized ever after.
To show by one or two examples how the Statutes operate, I would take the
936
case of a man who owns controlled property which he has let at an inclusive rent. Now he has to pay much more for his coal, and far more for his service, yet he cannot increase his rent in any way whatever. I might perhaps read to your Lordships something from a letter which was sent to me this morning, showing also another way in which these Acts operate. Briefly, the writer states that he owns three ten-roomed leasehold houses, the standard rent of which was £40 per annum. He states that one of these has been taken by the borough council as a warden's post at an assessment of £46, and that the top floor has been re-let for the benefit of the Council —not a very happy position for the landlord.
Is it to be wondered at that under these conditions houses are falling into disrepair and decay at the very moment when every habitable house that we have is needed? This process of decay is progressive. As your Lordships are aware, if a gutter, for example, is not repaired, the moisture spreads to other parts of the fabric and so the process of decay goes on. I ought perhaps to have made it rather clearer to your Lordships that repairs are at present quite impossible. I do not know how much costs have risen since 1914, but they have risen very largely since the present war began. Speaking from memory, and omitting quantities, I believe timber has risen from £18 to £55, tiles from somewhere round five guineas to £15, and nails from 17s. to £2; so that for the people who own these properties, even if they can get the materials, the question of repairs is quite impossible. There is this further difficulty, too, that when they do wish to repair their property, they also have to pay for inferior materials at enhanced cost; and again, they may, owing to shortage of materials, be forced to substitute a more expensive article, when it is not needed. For example, they may put in a tiled sink instead of a stone one, but when they do that they are not allowed the 8 per cent. increase for improvements permitted by Section 2 of the Act of 1920.
Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that some added rent should be paid. I think your Lordships will agree that the standard of wages throughout the country has risen greatly, and that houses the occupants of which were collectively

937
bringing in £3 or £4 a week before the war now find themselves in a position in which every member of the family is a wage earner, and they may well have £15 to £20 a week coming into that house in wages. In regard to the proper value of property of this type I see that local authorities who build, I believe with a double subsidy, one from the Government and one from the local authority, charge a rent of 8s. 6d. or 10s., to which rates have to be added. In addition to the increased value of the tenant's earnings, there is another matter in which the position of the tenant has improved. The local authorities, owing to war conditions, have been obliged to close their eyes to the overcrowding provisions of the Housing Acts. As a result, the tenant takes in lodgers. Now, lodgers are not subject to the Acts. If the tenant sublets, however, under Section 7 of the Act of 1923 the landlord will be entitled to a 5 per cent. benefit of the sub-letting. But the tenant in many cases knows the law and takes the other course. It is easy to see that these lodgers cause added wear and tear to property, and the landlord may find himself with no reward at all, having to pay for repairs to oblige the lodger—not a very enviable position. It is not altogether surprising, therefore, that when owners of property of this type are fortunate enough to get possession they should be tempted either to leave it empty —in which case they at least know the worst—or to furnish it, and without regard to local demands, without consideration of the people in the country, to let it furnished. It is true that in such cases they are still subject to certain restrictions, but they are then outside the main provisions of the Acts. One can imagine their relief on finding themselves in that position.
If in this hasty and imperfect review of the position I have seemed over-critical of these Acts, I hope that your Lordships will not feel that I resent the principle which underlies them. I do not. Few of your Lordships dislike control by Government or interference with private enterprise more than I do, but at the same time I accept without reserve the necessity for rent control during times of national emergency or acute housing shortage. But if I accept that principle, I do say that these Acts as they stand at present are harsh and in some cases unjust in their operation. As for a remedy, that
938
is not so easily put forward, certainly not in the time at my disposal. I can only suggest that the landlord might be allowed, in regard to an unsatisfactory tenant, the same powers of eviction as are now enjoyed by local authorities. In regard to rent I would not myself favour a flat percentage increase. I feel that this might in some cases operate harshly upon the tenant. Rather would I seek the establishment of rent courts charged with the task of determining the economic rent in the locality in which they operate, having due regard to the circumstances prevailing in that district. I hope your Lordships will not feel that these demands are unreasonable, and I hope my noble friend who will reply will certainly not feel that they are lightly to be rejected. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, you will all agree that we have had a most lucid exposition of the working of these Acts. The noble Viscount who made such an eloquent and clear speech spoke from one point of view—that of the landlord. I am speaking from the point of view of the local authority. Local authorities do not get much sympathy, but they are a useful portion of the administration of this country, and we have been asked by the Minister of Health to inquire into the present difficulties and help as far as possible in their solution. Owing to the fact that so many houses have disappeared, and also because so many houses are suffering from want of repair, there is a great difficulty in housing, especially among the poorer sections of the population. As I say, the Minister of Health has asked the local authorities to help. They are only too ready to do so, and, especially in London, I believe, all the boroughs have complied with the request and have set up committees of inquiry.
It is a very difficult question because the local authorities have hardly any power at all to remedy what may seem to the tenants or to the local authorities to be injustices. In the first place, there is much difficulty in getting information. The local authority have power to institute proceedings in the event of certain offences under these Acts. For instance, service of note of increased rent containing a statement which is false; demanding premium or giving pecuniary consideration in addition to rent; demand-

939
ing rent for a furnished letting which is extortionate; use by the landlord of a rent book which does not comply with the regulations made by the Minister of Health, and so on. In practice very little information comes to the local authority, and one difficulty is that they cannot help very much. As regards unfurnished lettings, if the notice of increase of rent does not follow the prescribed form, the tenant need not pay the increase. The people, however, often agree to pay either because they believe the rent is within the lawful amount, or because they have no information to check the accuracy of the standard rent. That is one big difficulty. Then the landlord cannot be required by the local authority to produce the evidence. Thus, if complaints are received, the Council is unable to help, and the tenant naturally hesitates to go to the County Court. He is frightened because he might not be able to get other accommodation. There is the other difficulty to which the noble Viscount has referred, and that is with regard to "extortionate" rents. What is extortionate rent? The term is a very vague one. Rent must be very excessive before it becomes extortionate; it therefore all depends on the circumstances. Then, as regards furnished lettings, there is no security at all against eviction. There again the tenant prefers to pay increased or extortionate rent rather than suffer the risk of being turned out.
For these reasons I hope something will be done, and done shortly. I put down a question a little time ago drawing attention to this subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Snell, said there would be an inquiry into the matter shortly. I asked him when, and he said he could not say; but since that time the Minister of Health in another place has told us that a Departmental Committee is going to be set up. I believe I am correct in saying that since that statement was made in another place on July 22, the names of the Departmental Committee have not been published, nor the date when the Committee is going to operate. The whole question bristles with difficulties. The law is very uncertain. Local authorities are put in a very awkward position. As the noble Viscount has said, owners are extremely dissatisfied with the situation. In ordinary times these tenants under the Rent
940
Restrictions Acts are very difficult to dispose of when you want to have a big development of property. My mind goes back to when there was a flood near your Lordships' House, and Westminster City Council wanted to clear out all property which had been damaged by the flood. We could not make any development at all because all the tenants were under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Sixteen acres quite close to your Lordships' House could not be developed, and it was only by getting an Act passed through Parliament that we were able to deal with the problem. The ground landlord, the Duke of Westminster, came to the rescue, and agreed with the Council that he would pay any extra cost incurred by the tenants because of the change from the old dwellings to the new. You do not come across people like that every day, and that makes it very difficult.
I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time. The matter has been very ably discussed already, but I do hope the noble Lord (Lord Snell) will be able to assure us that something will be done, and done soon, that this Departmental Committee will get to work very quickly, and that whatever conclusions they reach will be put into force without further delay. The noble Viscount has done a very good service in raising this question again. It has not been lost sight of either by local authorities all over the country or, as the noble Lord knows very well, by members of another place. From the point of view of the tenants, the landlords, and the local authorities I earnestly hope some legislation will soon be passed putting these matters on a proper footing.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I wish to add just a word with regard to the agricultural cottage, although I know many members of your Lordships' House are more competent to speak from that point of view than I am. It is a great mistake, as I am sure everyone who lives in the country knows, to say that as a rule the country landlord does not look after his tenants. He does. He takes a great deal of care, and does the best he can to house them properly. I know one member of your Lordships' House who, within the last twenty or thirty years, along with his father, has spent over £100,000 on cottages which bring in no return at all. There are, of course, a few owners of country cottages who possibly "sweat" their tenants, but it is a very

941
rare thing. Putting it on its lowest ground, it does not suit people to do so. The present position is that, with the increased cost of building, a cottage which used to cost £600 now costs £1,000, and under the law it cannot be let for more than 3s. a week. It requires a very little calculation to see what that means. One would expect on an expenditure of £1,000 to get in the ordinary way £30 a year, but you are not allowed more than £8. In addition the landlord pays Schedule A taxation, the rates, and for repairs. In the days when agricultural labourers were only getting 30s. or 35s. a week it was a very close thing, and nobody quarrelled with their having these cottages at such low rents. But now, when their wages have increased by a very considerable sum, and there is talk of more, it is not unreasonable that some alterations should be allowed in the rent which the landlord is permitted to charge—not an economic rent, possibly, but something a little more nearly approaching it.
This matter may be urged not only on the ground of equity but also on the ground of expediency. What is happening, and what will continue to happen unless some alteration is made, is that owners of cottages will sell them, as they easily can do, for a very much higher freehold price, and the agricultural labourer, who is the man who ought to be living in them, will be crowded out. I am sure that that is not wanted and I would like to ask the noble Lord a specific question on that point. Do the Government wish the private landowner to build cottages or do they not? because if the Government wish him to build cottages they must envisage something approaching an economic rent. As an instance of the sort of thing that is happening, the noble Lord behind me has spoken of a local authority taking over a cottage, paying a very low rent for it and then reletting one floor at a sum that would recoup them for the whole of their rent.
Remedies have of course many elements in them which require careful consideration, but if it were possible for some small proportion of the labourer's wage, say 20 per cent., to be set off against the rent of his cottage, something in the way of indemnity to the owner of the cottage might be achieved. I hope your Lordships will not think that I am pressing the claims of landlords against the agricultural worker. That is not the case in
942
the least; but one does want to have the agricultural worker living on what might be called an economic basis of rent, not upon a charity rent, and one wants the agricultural population to be kept in the country and not turned out by people who come down and convert cottages into bungalows without contributing in any way to the benefit of the countryside.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has raised a question of some importance in itself and of very great interest to many people, both landlords and tenants, and no sort of apology was needed from him for having brought the matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. The complaint that the noble Viscount made, as I understood his speech, was that the law as it now stands operates inequitably towards the owners of controlled properties.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? There are two sorts of property, that which is controlled by the 1939 Act, which I was not discussing, and that which was never decontrolled from the beginning.
LORD SNELL: The general statement I think stands that the noble Viscount's complaint is that property owners of one kind or another are subjected to certain inequities owing to the law as it now operates. In regard to that complaint I have at once to say that I do not propose to contest the general accuracy of the noble Viscount's statement, but your Lordships must remember, and I call upon the noble Viscount himself to remember, that it is equally true that if some form of rent restriction did not exist the results would operate inequitably towards countless rentpayers in small houses. Therefore the probability is that no law that is passed by Parliament operates with complete equity towards all people. We legislate on the broad principle of the general good and we cannot legislate, as it were, for individuals. Let me take two illustrations. If we have unhappily to provide for acute famine relief we have to provide a general ration and we cannot consider the claims for a special dietary until the main need has been satisfied. Or take again the question of education. Our aim is presumably to provide a basic minimum instruction for all, but that too

943
leaves a sense of inequity to those of us who are deprived of the advantages of a higher systematic education. That is to say, the law must deal, as I understand it, with the general good and we are so imperfect that no law that we can pass is free from the possibilities of inequitable pressure upon one section of the population or another. We arc frequently compelled to pass amending legislation when the most glaring anomalies can be dealt with.
That is the position, as I understand it, in regard to the matter which the noble Viscount has brought before your Lordships' House. Let us for the moment assume that there had been no Rent Restriction Acts. It requires very little imagination to realize what would have happened. Rent charges would have increased until first the very poorest and then a quickly mounting number of people would be able to retain their homes only by underfeeding and under-clothing and by restrictions in education and in other matters. This does not mean, however, that the Acts have not imposed hardships upon property owners such as the hardships to which the noble Viscount has called attention, but the object of the Acts is to prevent the inflation of house rents during a period of acute housing shortage, when the building of houses has practically ceased and when thousands of homes have been destroyed through enemy action. When the Rent Restrictions Acts were introduced in the last war it was expected that the need for restriction would be only temporary, but as events proved it took much longer to produce houses than was at that time foreseen and lower-rated houses have remained controlled.
On the outbreak of the present war the scope of the Acts was widely extended and now they apply to all houses of a rateable value in London of £100, in Scotland of £90 and elsewhere of £75. The control of rent is effected by fixing as a maximum the rent that was paid on a specified date plus certain permitted increases and by giving the tenant security of tenure. The relative date for houses which have been subject to control throughout is August 3, 1914, and for houses which became controlled or re-controlled on the outbreak of the present war September 1, 1939. The permitted increases
944
are (a) 8 per cent. of the cost of any structural alterations or improvements carried out by the landlord since the house became controlled; (b) the amount of any increase in the rates payable on the house if the landlord pays the rates; (c) 15 per cent. of the net rent; and (d), where the landlord is responsible for the whole of the repairs, 25 per cent. of the net rent. "Net rent" means the standard rent minus the amount of rates payable by the landlord. Items (c) and (d) are not permissible in the case of houses brought into control in 1939, but are together known as the 40 per cent. increase authorized in 1920 following the recommendation of the Departmental Committee which investigated the operation of the Acts. That is how the matter actually stands to-day.
The scheme of control is based on the principle that rents should not exceed those payable on certain dates. Therefore the scheme of control would be jeopardized, to say the least, if increases were allowed from time to time to meet any additional financial obligations imposed on the landlord. It has been represented to the Minister that among the burdens bearing heavily upon landlords of controlled properties are, first, repairs; secondly, War Damage Contributions; and thirdly, national taxation. In regard to repairs it is undoubtedly true that costs have been increased; on the other hand, restrictions of labour and material have prevented a great many repairs from being done. Therefore the actual hardship has not meant payments out of landlord's pockets to a vast extent.
My noble friend Viscount Mersey asked what the Government wanted private landowners to do. I do not accept as a personal outlook on this matter the generous tribute which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, paid to the landlords when he said that they fixed their rents by compassion. I believe other motives frequently enter into the settlement of what the rent should be. But the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, as I understand it, is that it is no use building houses now if the rent is to be restricted to 3s. per week, a rent nominally paid by the agricultural community. But very few individual owners can now get the necessary licence to build new houses and if they are fortunate enough to be able to build one the rent is not restricted to 3s. The standard rent is the rent at which the house is first

945
lot and the owner can fix that for himself. In regard to War Damage Contributions and new taxation, I have to say on behalf of the Minister that these matters do not come within his control and he is not responsible for them. When the War Damage Act was passed it was quite clearly intended that the contributions under it should not be passed to tenants on short leases and the Act protects tenants on leases of seven years against increased rents. So the position now is that representations have been received by the Minister of Health from both owners and tenants that the Acts operate inequitably in certain respects.
The report which was recently made to him by a conference of representatives of associations of local authorities and of the London County Council pointed out that the difficulties which arise under the existing schemes are considerable and that these difficulties will increase as the war continues and go on increasing after the war until large numbers of new houses have been built. The report concluded that action was therefore necessary, but recognized—and I am sure your Lordships will agree with this—that rent restriction questions always rouse acute controversy, and recommended that an Inter-Departmental Committee on the lines of the Committees which have previously considered the subject should be set up at once to review the whole question. It was because of this, and because of the fact that they realized that a decision on rent control will have a fundamental effect on house building, and that such decision must be taken before the end of the war so that private enterprise can see just where it stands, that the Government authorized the Minister of Health to announce on July 22 their decision that an Inter-Departmental Committee should be set up by the Minister and by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Consultations as to the constitution of that Committee are now proceeding. It will be set up shortly and will no doubt take evidence from all concerned in this matter. The debate which has arisen on the Motion of the noble Viscount has served a useful purpose, but your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that the wisest course at the present time will be to await the report of the Inter-Department Committee which will be set up without delay.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I confess to a considerable feeling of disappointment at the reply of my noble friend. Your Lordships listened to me so generously that it would not be right if I were to detain you now, but my noble friend, if I may say so, appears to have misunderstood what I have said. I was dealing only with houses controlled before the present Act. Their rents are based on the rents charged on August 3, 1914. To fix a rent on the basis of the rent charged on September 1, 1939, is a very different matter. Those who have property controlled by the old Act would be very glad to exchange. I am surprised that my noble friend should have sought to confuse the two. I have the greatest respect for him and his political ability, but I am sorry that he should have suggested that I thought landlords always fixed rents on grounds of kindness or compassion. I never suggested any such thing. What I did suggest was that where a landlord had been kind, had been generous, had been lenient you do not say, "We will treat you with some sympathy, some consideration." You say nothing of that kind, but you say, "Because you have done that, for ever afterwards you shall be punished for it." As for the cold comfort of an Inter-Departmental Committee— which will be set up when I do not know, the recommendations of which no one can know and whether they will ever be accepted no one can guess—I will leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions. But I confess, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, to a very great sense of disappointment and dismay concerning the answer he has given. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DEMOBILIZATION.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to move to resolve, That this House, while welcoming the statements of the Minister without Portfolio at Liverpool on 17th June last on the subject of plans for the demobilization of the members of the Armed Forces on the conclusion of hostilities, is of opinion that further information on this subject should be given on behalf of His Majesty's Government as soon as possible.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' permission to move this

947
Resolution which appears on the Paper under my name. The opinion expressed in it, I may say, is shared by my noble friends on these Benches who were good enough to ask me to bring this matter before your Lordships, and, particularly, before the Government. At first sight, to speak of the problems of demobilization might appear to be premature and the fruit of undue optimism. I hope that I shall not be accused by my noble friend Lord Croft of undue optimism about the outcome of the war. I think that he and I see eye to eye there, and that we both recognize that there is still a very hard and bitter struggle in front of us, both in Europe and in Asia. But for reasons which I hope to give briefly, I think that some details should be given as soon as possible, and as soon as they are decided upon, to the public. This should be done for the education, so to speak, of public opinion, and for the information of officers and men in the Services so that the situation may be understood. I believe that those of your Lordships who have—as most of you have—means of contact with the Armed Forces will agree with me when I say that a good deal of prior information and education, and even propaganda, will be required if we are to avoid a lot of misunderstanding and discontent.
In addition to the great statement made by the Minister without Portfolio, Sir William Jowitt, to which I refer in my Resolution, we have had views expressed on this matter by the Secretary of State for War in another place, and yesterday by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Labour, in Edinburgh. It is clear therefore that these important Ministers do not consider the subject premature for examination and public discussion. Well before the end of the last war, as your Lordships will remember, a wonderful scheme for demobilization was worked out in Whitehall. On paper it looked perfect. There was to be selective release from the Colours, preference being given to what were called key-men, and to men with their own businesses to return to, etc., etc. It was a perfect example of mandarins in action, and the scheme broke down completely in practice. Those key-men whom it was proposed to release first were, in many cases, the ones called to the Colours last. Therefore in practice it meant that men with the shortest service were to be
948
released first. This led to a lot of heartburning and discontent, and the whole scheme had to be abandoned. Inevitably, there was suspicion also of favouritism and preference being extended in the case of men with influence. Once soldiers and sailors get an idea of that kind into their heads there is always trouble.
I understand that the Government have learnt from that unfortunate experience, and that this time they accept what I suggest to your Lordships is the only fair rule: "First out, first home." All this talk of key-men and of men who can aid the economic life of the country and provide employment for other men—the whole complicated system should give way to this simple idea. That idea, put in other words, is that men with the longest overseas service should be released first. My right honourable friend Mr. Bevin, I see, put it a little differently in "his speech at Edinburgh. He said: "First in, first out." That, I presume, means the same thing. I will go so far as to suggest that the only exceptions which should be allowed to this rule—and these very sparingly—should be in the cases of students who have joined the Forces during their studies. Then, for the sake of 1he country, it may well be that these potential professional men should be given some preference in order to enable them to become prepared and qualified to fill the notable shortages which exist in certain professions. But here again the reasons will have to be explained well in advance. You must not face men waiting to go home with a scheme which has not been explained to them and which they have not had opportunity to think about and to discuss.
I notice that some suggestion has been put to the Minister without Portfolio that there should be differentiation between men who have served in different theatres of war overseas. Sir William Jowitt had, apparently, been pressed on this point for he asked in his speech at Liverpool how could you distinguish between service which is spent in North Africa, Iceland, Madagascar or anywhere else. I entirely agree. And I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War agrees also. You cannot differentiate between one theatre of war and another so long as it is overseas. Then men who have given good service in Britain during the whole war, and who no doubt in many cases tried to get sent overseas, have

949
nevertheless had advantages over men serving abroad, and I think it would be regarded as just and equitable that these men should stay in the Forces for the time being. They could be given extra leave and other privileges. But these men who have been serving overseas, in whatever theatre of war, should be given—and I think everyone will agree to this—first preference in the matter of release. All the information which I have received on this subject—and I have had a good deal of correspondence since the Motion appeared on the Paper—is that the overbearing thought in the minds of all men in the Forces directly hostilities cease will be to get home. They will not ask whether there are going to be jobs or anything else for them—all they will want to do is to get home. It is a very human impulse, and it is the impulse which was felt by the men at the end of the last war. I do not think that there will be arty change in that regard.
But there will be complications, and this is why I, with all humility, plead with the Government to make up their minds as soon as possible and let these things be talked about, argued about and thrashed out in the light of open day. There will be, I think, two complications in regard to demobilization. Firstly, we may need Armies of Occupation, and, secondly, the Eastern War, that is the war against Japan, may go on for some time after all serious fighting has ceased in Europe. I believe that the second obstacle will be the more difficult with which to deal. We are pledged—and all Parties support the pledge, and I am sure the public supports it too—to carry on the war against Japan with all our resources and armed might after the end of the European fighting, if the Japanese are still in the field. Yet, as was suggested very plainly by the Prime Minister in a famous speech in another place recently, it will hardly be possible to ship more than a fraction of our great Armies in Europe to the East, and the men already in India and the East generally will have to continue on active service. Many of these men will have been abroad for years. I am not overlooking the six-year rule, which I think works very well, or the special case of the men in the Royal Navy; but the fact remains that the bulk of the men in the East will have to remain out there, and indeed be reinforced.
Now, what is to be the solution there? By mere luck in the drafting office one man will be serving in India or Burma or China when the fighting stops in Europe, while his brother is fighting in Europe and immediately, or very soon afterwards, will expect to be demobilized and returned to his home. How are you to compensate the man who is in the East? I can see only one solution for this. Some of your Lordships may have other ideas, but I put forward this suggestion. After the fighting ceases in Europe, if the Eastern war continues, and in any case to find the garrisons which will undoubtedly have to remain out there for some time as Armies of Occupation, the pay of those Forces should be raised. The pay of the Forces who will have to continue the fighting in the Eastern theatre of war should, I suggest, be raised to the American or to the Dominion level, or to the average rate of skilled wages in Britain. Soldiering and sailoring are highly skilled jobs. Sailoring always has been, and is more so today than ever, and soldiering is now highly skilled work also. We should then try to get as many volunteers as possible.
There are precedents for that. Your Lordships will remember that when the European situation was rather dark, in 1912 and 1913, before the last war, men serving with their regiments in India whose time expired were given bonuses if they re-engaged for another two or three years. There is a precedent, therefore, for what I am suggesting, but instead of a bonus I suggest that these volunteers should receive the pay which I have mentioned; and in any case, of course, the men who are compelled to serve out there will also have to have this higher rate of pay. I believe that that would do away with a good deal of feeling of natural disappointment, and would help us through this difficult period. I need hardly remind your Lordships that matters have changed a good deal in the East. Whereas it used to be cheap for a soldier to live out there (and he could do himself very well on his Army pay in the old days), now everything is much more expensive in Eastern countries; especially have those small luxuries, which mean a great deal to the serving man, gone up in price enormously.
With regard to the first point, the question of the Armies of Occupation, Sir William Jowitt, in his Liverpool speech,

951
expressed the opinion that we should not be able to abandon some form of conscription for some time after the war. I suggest that we had better make up our minds to this, and the sooner the better; and it should be done, if possible, by agreement between the principal political Parties. We should begin to prepare people's minds for this idea that we cannot abandon compulsory service directly this war is over. The idea that we can do so is, I think, very unsound indeed. I remember very well what happened after the last war. Everyone immediately insisted on conscription being abandoned; very few members even of the Party opposite recommended its continuance, and public opinion was against it, because the public had not been warned and educated in time. The position will be even more difficult after this war than it was in 1918 and 1919, but we shall have to face the fact that some system of compulsory service will have to be continued for a considerable time. If we can keep the numbers of the levies down, so much the better; but the principle had better be accepted and acted upon by agreement between the Parties, and the people should be informed of this in good season.
Why should young men who, because of their age, will just have missed their calling-up notices for the Forces, be relieved of all obligation, while the veterans who have been for many years abroad, often in vile climates—men with family responsibilities and so on—have to continue to safeguard British interests and preserve peace? In any case I suggest that the broad outlines of the policy which we believe that we shall have to carry out, making allowance for circumstances as far as they can be foreseen, should be decided upon at as early a date as possible, and made known and publicized. In particular we should allow the men in the Army to discuss them and to thrash them out with their officers to guide them and help them towards an understanding of the difficult problems which will have to be solved, and to assure them, as I am certain that we can do, of the good will of Parliament to all our men in the Forces, and of our desire to give them the best possible treatment in very difficult circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House, while welcoming the statements of the
952
Minister without Portfolio at Liverpool on 17th June last on the subject of plans for the demobilization of the members of the Armed Forces on the conclusion of hostilities, is of opinion that further information on this subject should be given on behalf of His Majesty's Government as soon as possible.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think I am correct in saying that this is the first time that your Lordships have discussed the general subject of demobilization in this House, although various statements about it have been made from time to time in another place. I have listened, as no doubt all your Lordships have, with close and rapt attention to the speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in moving the Resolution which stands on the Paper in his name. I was anxious to hear any reasons which the noble Lord might propound which would call upon the Government to give further information as soon as possible on the subject of demobilization. Lord Strabolgi referred to the speech which was made in Liverpool on June 17 by the Minister without Portfolio, who indicated some of the difficulties which would be experienced in preparing detailed plans for demobilization. My right honourable friend further stated in that same speech that he was convinced that in any scheme one cardinal rule must apply—namely, that the scheme must be fair and regarded as such by all the many millions whom it would undoubtedly concern in the future. He pointed out that he saw very strong objection at the present stage of the war to involving the Armed Forces of the Crown in rival controversies over various schemes of demobilization.
I can see no reason—and the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I have heard none as the result of his speech—which leads me to suppose that the state of the war has altered so fundamentally in the last few weeks, (that is, since the Minister without Portfolio made his speech), that an additional statement is now called for from the Government to let the world know here and now their intentions for dealing with demobilization. For myself, I cannot believe that public discussion of this matter is really desirable at a time when the war has not yet ended. Although it may be true to say that at the present time we are in one of those periods when startling events may be anticipated, it should certainly not be

953
thought that we are at the end of our struggles, for surely the military power of our enemies is still very formidable. I have heard it said that there is an assumption in the mind of some persons—I agree that they are very few in number—that the war will end simultaneously all the world over. That is an event which is most unlikely to occur, and that fact tends to complicate any scheme or plan which we may have for demobilization. I think it is sometimes forgotten that the military forces—and I use that phrase in its widest possible sense—are literally composed of the whole nation, and therefore any plan which may be devised for demobilization —and no plan can be just extemporized— must be fair and equitable and regarded as such as between man and man. It must also possess the merit of simplicity and be capable of being clearly understood by the dullest as well as the brightest among us. Finally, any plan must take into consideration the military necessities, which must always be paramount.
I should not like it to be thought that the Government are unaware of the importance of this issue. We should realize, better indeed that anyone else alive, the immense work of reconstruction that lies ahead, and that the task of rebuilding the world is going to be far more difficult than merely arranging for its destruction. Whatever plans we may finally adopt and publish must, as I see it, be subject to criticism and examination and must stand the test of close scrutiny. Above all— and this is what the noble Lord said as well—we must avoid those pitfalls into which we fell, and which produced results causing such widespread dissatisfaction, at the conclusion of the last war. May I remind your Lordships—for this is an important matter—of some of the undertakings that have already been given by Ministers? It has been said that no fighting man can expect to be demobilized at all if and so long as his services are required for some definite military purpose, but, subject to that broad principle, it is accepted that his discharge will be based in the main on age plus length of service. We have also given an undertaking to consider the claims of service overseas, but there is a very large number of reasons, which I could give but which I will not go into this afternoon, which
954
would show some of the many complexities of that particular issue.
It is true that there is much to be said for meeting the claims of industry by authorizing men who have been absent for the shortest possible time from that industry to be the first to be demoblized. The noble Lord mentioned this matter in the course of his speech, but such a scheme is quite obviously grossly unfair, and it would not for one moment be accepted either in this House or anywhere else in the country. There may, however, be certain special classes in which key-men should and must be released at the earliest possible moment, but this category must be kept at its lowest number in order not to damage or to wreck the general scheme which will undoubtedly be published. No one need doubt that the Government have every intention of producing a scheme for general or partial demobilization, but it would in our judgment be folly to publish any plan here and now, when no one can possibly foresee what the circumstances will be when the war comes to an end. I can, however, give your Lordships this assurance—and beyond it I am not prepared to go to-day—that all our plans and all our motives will be directed to securing a scheme which is based on equity and justice, in fact, based upon the principal foundations of British law and fair play.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl did not think that I brought forward the Resolution in any spirit of hostility. I thought he was rather resentful in his reply, but he reassured me by the substance of it. Perhaps I do occasionally manage to hide my gratitude from the Government, but on this occasion I have no complaint at all. I am very grateful for the reply; I think it is very satisfactory. I understand that the plan in broad outline will be made known as soon as possible, but the time has not come yet. I quite agree with what the noble Earl said that the end of the war is not yet here—I said the same, not so eloquently, in my opening remarks—and I can only hope that these plans will be available at the earliest possible moment. In view of what the noble Earl said, I do not desire to press the Motion, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCHANT NAVY COMFORTS.
VISCOUNT BENNETT VISCOUNT BENNETT asked His Majesty's Government, whether it has been finally decided that coupons are to be required for comforts given by the Merchant Navy Comforts Service to merchant seamen of all nationalities; and moved for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I seek your sympathetic consideration of the Motion which I have put down on the Paper, not for myself personally but on behalf of those who, with such high courage and devotion to duty, have made possible our continuing to live by transporting food supplies across the oceans. When the war broke out in this country, as in other countries affected, there were many organizations that cared for seamen. There were missions and missionary societies, there were hostels, but there was no organization that charged itself with the duty solely of supplying comforts to those on ships. There had been in this country the British Adoption Society which is still functioning, of which Mr. E. H. Watts was Chairman, and its members thought it might be desirable to organize a separate society for the purpose of providing comforts for the seamen on the ships. Accordingly there was organized the Merchant Navy Comforts Service, which began to function on February 1, 1940, registered under the Statute on that behalf. It supplied, according to the Minister of Transport, some 78 per cent. of all the comforts that have gone to the sailors on ships. Therefore its case becomes the one of most importance, so far as coupons are concerned.
In the first place, the question of distribution had to be considered by the society. That is a most difficult question. The question of distributing comforts to sailors on ships coming to these ports, and doing it effectively so that the supplies themselves are not traded by the sailor before he goes on board his ship or, if he had coupons, that they are not begged or stolen from him before he goes to sea—all these are questions of very great difficulty. The difficulty in this case was solved by determining that comforts, packed in cases, would be handed over to the purser if it were a ship carrying a purser, or to the master or an officer of a sailing ship or a steamship that had not a purser. He would give a receipt for that. and
956
the day after the ship went to sea he would distribute these comforts among the sailors. Each one would receive a small parcel containing comforts as follows. First of all, there was a woollen helmet; that carries no coupons in any event. Then the seaman received two pairs of socks, a woollen scarf, a sweater, and woollen gloves. In some cases, in heavy wintry weather, when going north, he received also a pair of those long socks called sea-stockings which are so essential to his comfort. No coupons were given, issued, or received in connexion with them, and it will at once be apparent to your Lordships that these comforts went directly to the men for whom they were intended. That is the main thing.
I note that in another place the President of the Board of Trade indicated that in order to ensure a fairer distribution, and to prevent any waste, of the comforts for members of the Merchant Navy, "I propose at the request of my noble friend the Minister of War Transport to include in the rationing scheme comforts for the Merchant Navy." Up to the moment there are no coupons demanded in connexion with the distribution of comforts to the Royal Navy, and naturally the question arises, as was said in another place, why the Merchant Navy should be discriminated against. That stands for answer; it has not yet been answered. As to the charge that there has been waste and unfairness in distribution, I need hardly point out that fairness of distribution is one of the things that is provided for by the scheme I mention, for the simple and obvious reason that every ship that comes to port is dealt with, as far as is humanly possible, in the same way. The master, who is a man of honesty, integrity, and authority, sees to it that these comforts are distributed amongst his men. Surely if every man receives the same kind of comforts and the same number of comforts, from the responsible officer, the distribution must be regarded as fair. I cannot see that anyone has any possible right to make a charge of unfairness with respect to it.
Now comes the charge of waste. It may well be that, at times, there is a duplication. It may be that a seaman who desires to secure two sets of comforts may, by skilful manipulation, do so, but

957
that does not prove that the scheme is bad. I notice in the daily papers from time to time that even so perfect a machine as the Government is occasionally deceived, and that proceedings have to be taken in the criminal courts. The fact that there is an occasional difficulty arising, and that there is duplication by means of which one sailor out of large numbers receives more than he should, does not seem to me a very good excuse for changing the existing system.
I submit that this society, which came into being on February 1, 1940, so far as effort is concerned, has functioned with success and efficiency. I am not going to burden your Lordships by reading the extent of their efforts, but it may surprise you to know that the Canadian Red Cross Society has promised to supply woollen comforts to the number of 10,000 a month to this organization. I have letters in my hand written by seamen on board these ships—written by the masters and signed by the seamen—indicating their appreciation of what they have received. From February 1, 1940, to January 31, 1941, there was distributed 152,737 articles; in the next twelve months, 392,191; and in the next twelve months—that is, from February 1, 1942, to January 31, 1943— 599,246 articles. During the months of February, March and April of this year there was a distribution of 227,700 articles, making a total distribution of comforts in the manner I have indicated of 1,371,873 articles. Of these articles the Canadian Red Cross Society supplied 278,000.
LORD STRABOLGI: Did my noble friend mention the name of the society to which he is referring?
VISCOUNT BENNETT: The Merchant Navy Comforts Service. I hope I mentioned it at the start; I think I did. These supplies come from men and women throughout this Kingdom as well as the contributions from Canada. Men make contributions of money, with which wool is purchased, and the wool is distributed among the women of the country. The knitting groups now number somewhere about 6,000 or 7,000. That is the number of parties, but the actual number of knitters may be multiplied by the size of the parties throughout England, Scotland, and Wales. The exact number of knitters engaged is not known, and it is very difficult to say how many people make
958
up the knitting parties, but many thousands of women arc engaged in this way.
Originally the society had its headquarters in this City. It was moved down to Canfield Moat in Essex after it became impossible to remain longer in London. The other day I went down to see their work so that I might have knowledge of how affairs are carried on. In the first place the wool, under the sanction and authority of the Board of Trade, is purchased in substantial quantities, and I saw there something I have not seen in other places of that kind. There was a typewritten notice detailing the purchases of the wool and the progress and distribution from week to week, so that anyone working there could ascertain the expenditure on supplies and what had become of them. That was thought to be desirable because this is a voluntary organization and the money to purchase the wool comes from people who make donations.
In addition, the society began to look after Merchant Navy prisoners of war. I wonder if your Lordships are aware of the fact that no provision apparently had been made for merchant seamen who are prisoners of war. Great difficulties were experienced until at last the society itself put up the necessary funds to provide for the sending of parcels to these prisoners of war. The society undertakes to pack these parcels for the next-of-kin, and under the regulations of the International Red Cross Society the contents of these parcels have to be strictly supervised. There is only one 10-lb. parcel per man allowed a quarter. These parcels are sent on behalf of the next-of-kin of the unfortunate sailors who have been made prisoners of war. In addition, the society has undertaken to be next-of-kin of those who have no next-of-kin, so far as is known—in other words, the society has become the nearest relative of the imprisoned or interned sailor and sends him his parcel as next-of-kin.
Then there came a further difficulty about which, I am sure, all your Lordships will have read. Torpedoed seamen very frequently were rescued in very cold and inclement weather. Some of them had no clothes and, as the pictures will have shown, some wore blankets as the only clothing they had. The organization conceived the idea of providing against this difficulty and so they prepared what

959
are called rescue kits. So much did these commend themselves to the Admiralty that to-day, under the authority of the Admiralty, up to twenty-five of such rescue kits are put in each escort naval ship—a destroyer or whatever it may be. There is accommodation in a destroyer for twenty-five of such kits. These kits contain ten articles, including two handkerchiefs, a suit of underclothes, a pair of trousers, a belt, a coat and a shirt. The poor unfortunate man who has been cast up and has lost his clothes therefore finds himself at once provided by the escort ship with something which serves his purpose, at least temporarily. Letters have been received—I will not take up the time of your Lordships by reading them—expressing, in terms that are really very saddening when you think of the difficulties and dangers through which these men have passed, extreme gratitude for the provision of these rescue kits. In addition to all that, it was thought desirable that rescue kits should be provided for the transport ships of a certain type—the operative ships of the Ministry of Transport. An agreement was made by which the organization provided these kits for the war transport ships engaged in operational duties other than those undertaken by naval ships.
This work has been going on for three years. The expansion of this work will be indicated to your Lordships by a reference to the last published report read at the annual meeting. Some of your Lordships may have seen that report. There are branches of the organization at Cardiff, Glasgow and Liverpool, and comforts service depots at Dundee, Hull, Leith, London, Manchester, Newport, South Shields and Swansea. In addition there are sub-depots at London, Birmingham, Cheltenham and Camber-ley. These have all come into being during the last fifteen or eighteen months, and by their means, I submit to your Lordships, most valuable service has been rendered. That service was built entirely upon the voluntary efforts of those who provided the supplies and by the Canadian Red Cross Society. No coupons were required. With the secretary of the organization I met by appointment the President of the Board of Trade and he gave most careful, courteous and considerate attention to everything that was said, but indicated that it was the
960
Ministry of War Transport that was concerned with the matter. We have had no notice from that Ministry, who presumably thought that the Board of Trade would deal with it as we had suggested, and that it was unnecessary to discuss it with anyone other than the Board of Trade.
I suggest that if coupons are to be required at all, they should not be required until there has been ample time for the organization to accommodate itself to meet that need. Let us see what coupons would mean. There is no one in your Lordships' House who is not familiar with the general lack of business capacity of sailors as they come to our ordinary ports. The sailor is given a clothing ration book. On the back of it there are to be sixteen coupons. These are given to him so that once a year, with the sixteen coupons, he would be able to acquire from any society which had the comforts to give those items I have mentioned, less one pair of socks, because seventeen coupons would be required to carry out the coupon requirements in respect of the items I have mentioned. Now imagine the sailor with this book and coupons in his hands. He is the victim of every harpy around the docks who is endeavouring to get his coupons or, if not his coupons, what he has got with the coupons. Then he has to go to the place himself. You know exactly what his attitude of mind is towards these matters. There is not one of your Lordships who does not realize it. He comes off the sea, perhaps after having been torpedoed, it may be having been torpedoed two or three times before, and your Lordships can imagine the effect upon him of his having to go to some voluntary organization to receive comforts and give up coupons, and then to answer all sorts of questions, fill up a form and sign it, and get the coupons adjusted. I submit that that is wholly unnecessary when you are dealing with sailors of the Merchant Marine who are doing so much for us at this particular time.
No one for a moment contends that the method of distribution is perfect, but it has worked out satisfactorily. In addition to that, strange as it may sound, it has been applied to our coastal men. Our coastal men usually run steadily on their ships and there is little chance of there being difficulties in their case by reason

961
of duplication. They asked that they might be able to receive these comforts. Presumably in many cases their wives and daughters are engaged in making them. A distribution is made to them, which has been entirely satisfactory and has drawn the warmest commendation from those most vitally concerned—the men themselves.
In addition to that there has to be considered, I submit, the effect of the gift of these comforts and the manner in which it is made upon our international relations. I have with me letters from members of no fewer than nine nations. It is common knowledge that the seamen on our ships are of every nationality, and in addition to the United Kingdom, the countries represented in these letters are Belgium, China, Denmark, Eire, France, Holland, Norway, Poland and the United States. Even at the risk of being a little tiresome I should like to quote one or two phrases from these letters to your Lordships. Here is one, for instance, from Belgium. The master gives his address as at Antwerp and he adds this P.S.:
"Remind this was my pre-war address and I hope it will be my post-war very soon."
That is the spirit in which he writes. Another master writes:
"The above signatures are of all the members of the crew. In the loneliness of their life the thought that so many people in this country are thinking of them is helping their souls surely as much as your gifts will comfort their bodies. They thank every one of you from the very deep of their hearts. The hospitality of Britain is not a simple word and they won't forget it."
Then there are letters from Chinamen. There is one written in Chinese and the master of the ship, in a covering letter, says:
"The fact that they are Chinese makes the gift all the more appreciable, for they are doing a splendid job of work and are darned good fellows. Also it touches them to think that 'English' people do consider and think of them sufficiently to make such a fine gesture.".
There is the same kind of thing from the Norwegians—and Norwegian sailors seem to outnumber those from other countries. "Gifts from unknown friends," they say, "we value very highly." There are also letters from Danish sailors, sailors from Eire, France and Holland, all expressing great satisfaction. One sailor from Holland, who apologizes for his use of English, put it in this way:
962
"I hope you all find the same pleasure in knitting them than I do in wearing them, it isnt that we cant buy our close, but the happiness to know that People how you did never met are working and take care of you. We have hard times and good times but I never will forget how friendly the British people were to me. I hope you can understand my Englisch and again thank you very much may God bless you all."
A Norwegian seaman writes:
"May good bless the British people who so kind hearted think of the merchant seaman. Many times we are better off than you on this Island because when we leave Canada or U.S.A. we store the ship with all kinds of good food. The sailors get ham and eggs many times a week. But then again in the Atlantic in a stormy night with these Huns around you it is not so good. I was wounded in the last war but I had the time of my life in the Torquay hospital."
There are many similar letters. I have read them to indicate the international effect of this work. These men who carry food across the ocean, subject to being torpedoed—as many of them are in fact —write letters not merely to express personal gratitude but to say how great a thing it is that the British people should have this attitude of mind. Is not that something to be valued now, and something which will be an asset after the war?
If we are to have coupons, I do not know just what may be the effect on the knitting, but I do know that it must mean engaging a very large number of people to do work which is now done voluntarily. We have a welfare board in our ports under the Ministry of Labour. If coupons must be given, then obviously the coupons should be handled through the Ministry of Labour, for the simple reason that more man-power will be required to take care of them. There will have to be an accumulation of stores, there will have to be machinery to deal with the coupons, to check and re-check them, and the Ministry of Labour which is caring for the welfare of the port would be obviously the Ministry to care for it if it must be done in that way. With their understanding it is just possible that it would go forward with less friction than there would be otherwise. As I say, I cannot speak of the general effect, but I certainly know beyond all question, having been born by the sea and knowing something of the ways of seafaring men, that the sailors will not receive as many comforts as they have received heretofore. Certain articles have been sent out to the troops, and a Field-Marshal said

963
that in the last war in France they saw many village women and girls with those things. I think it is fair to say that the harpies who will besiege sailors with comforts to give away or coupons to distribute will be very much in evidence. I say that from my own observation in many ports in the world.
We have in existence an efficient medium for the distribution of 78 per cent. of the comforts to the Merchant Navies. It has functioned since 1940. Shall we scrap three years' experience? Shall we lose the value of three years' experience? An index is kept on every ship to which these comforts are sent. Though it might be that now and then there was duplication, in the main there has been very little because of the sense of obligation imposed on those who receive them to see that they are properly dealt with. Shall we lose the benefit of the international aspect? I submit that if this work must be done, then it should be done through the medium that will secure the best possible results. This society is only one of many, but it does one thing only. It deals only with the physical comfort of the individual man. It does not undertake to care for the spiritual welfare of the sailor. That is left to the missionary societies. These are very numerous and at times highly competitive in the desire to look after the spiritual welfare of the merchant seamen. This society does not attempt to do that, but simply looks after the physical comfort of the individual.
I should say that this society itself, realizing that it had an obligation which was not shared by others because it was a new proposal at the outbreak of war, set up a Management Committee. That Committee represents not only individuals but the Shipping Federation, the British Ship Adoption Society, the Scottish Committee, the Welsh Committee, the Marine Engineers Association, Ltd., the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Seamen's Union. The National Seamen's Union, of course, is the trade union of sailors. There are two members of that Union on the Management Committee and they have given most excellent service knowing much more than others about the individual side of the organization. The British Ship Adoption Society and the South Shields Committee and the Liverpool Branch Committee are also
964
represented. The report for the second year showed the sum total of their transactions to be £70,000. Last year it was £248,000. If they carry into effect the arrangements made to supply emergency rescue kit at the rate of 10,000 a month, that would involve an expenditure of £20,000, which is that much gain to the Treasury at least, and that much real gain to the standard of comfort of those who are wrecked at sea.
I hope that the Government will at least not put into operation these proposals with respect to coupons without a more complete and thorough discussion and investigation of the implications of what is proposed. One cannot say to what extent the imposition of transactions governed by coupons may have upon this whole matter. It may considerably dry up the source of this work. And because of the dislike of sailors to go through the paraphernalia of putting in coupons and getting supplies which they must take on board ship, I submit with some deference that it will be a difficult thing to induce them to do. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am sure that everybody who is interested in the welfare of the seamen of the Merchant Navy will be rejoiced to have such powerful support as has just been given them by the noble Viscount. He mentioned in his speech the generosity which Canada has shown towards this particular branch of our services. I do not think anybody in this House can now be surprised by any fresh evidence of Canada's generosity, for during this war it has been tremendous. In view of the comprehensive, and, to my mind, unanswerable case which the noble Viscount put up, I do not propose to say more than a few words in warmly supporting him. I would like to ask whether it is really necessary to introduce this friction—for this matter of coupons will inevitably introduce friction—into a machine which is running perfectly well. This innovation has not been asked for by the Merchant Navy, and it will be interesting to hear what saving it is really expected to make, and whether that saving will be so great as to compensate for the amount of irritation which is going to be caused. For there will most certainly be irritation. Coupons are an irritation in private life, and it is an irritating and unpractical thing to introduce them in this way into the life of the merchant seaman.

965
I do not pretend to know intimately the conditions under which the merchant sailor lives, but I have lived a great part of my life with his brother in the Royal Navy. Of this I am certain, there are no better men serving us than the men of our Mercantile Marine. For the most part, physical grounds have to be considered in selecting them, and, therefore, great numbers of them are healthy, strong and active fellows. You cannot expect men of that type to go about with their coupons in some safe place, steadfastly resisting all temptation to get rid of them. It might well be that through their coupons they might be able to get some little pleasure, some added contribution to an evening's entertainment. They will part with these coupons, no doubt, in many instances in a manner which is not always provident. It will be no use expecting that they will keep their coupons safely stowed away, and always handy. The great thing about coupons is to have them handy when you want them, but a sailor wants his kit when he is in need of it, and not necessarily when he may have coupons available. I must say that I dislike hearing of all these comforts being dispensed through charitable organizations. The sailor ought not to have to depend on charity to keep him warm when he is serving his country, it may be under Arctic conditions. At the least, he ought to be as well supplied with comforts to keep him warm as is the naval man when he has to go into cold latitudes. The Minister of Labour, I understand, is the Minister responsible for the seamen. Is there an organization ready now to put these coupon transactions into being? If it is not ready yet, how long will it take to get it ready? It needs a world organization with branches in every port to ensure the replenishment of ships and their personnel with everything needful after voyages.
I submit that this innovation will not be worth the irritation and the trouble that will be caused. It means interfering with a machine that is a practical affair; a machine that is running well, and giving satisfaction. It means, as I say, introducing an irritant. What is really going to be asked of these men is that they should do something which is quite foreign to their natures. I have lived in ships and I know how difficult it is, even in the Navy, to get men to keep their kits up to the mark, although you may have weekly or monthly inspections. It is
966
really extraordinary the way in which items of kit go a-missing. In the Merchant Service the men have not got the same facilities for mustering, and it is impossible to maintain the same check. It may happen in some instances that the men have got rid of warm clothing improperly, but I am sure that the people who provide these comforts for our seamen would not wish a man to suffer acutely the discomforts of cold weather even if the remedy were to give him his supplies of comforts three times over. They would rather, I am sure, provide him with three lots of comforts than that he should suffer on one occasion by going short. I submit that far closer consideration and deliberation ought to be given to this matter. I am perfectly sure that this innovation will make for unhappiness, which is the last thing the nation wants for men who are living in such unhappy and uncomfortable conditions at the present time.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I have been very much interested to hear an exposition of the point of view of a very distinguished Admiral of the Royal Navy, and I am sure that the noble Viscount sitting behind me is gratified that the Royal Navy has, on this occasion, come once more to the assistance of the Mercantile Marine. I confess to a little astonishment concerning what is apparently intended to be done. I should have thought that there was, in the first place, no real distinction between the case of the sailor in the Royal Navy and the case of the sailor in the Merchant Navy so far as these comforts are concerned. I understand that the same organization is available to both. One is also a little astonished to learn that, apparently, when the noble Viscount went to the President of the Board of Trade, the President had nothing to say in defence of the course that is being adopted. He merely passed the buck quietly to my noble friend the Minister of War Transport. That, I understand, is what happened. No one could possibly accuse the Minister of War Transport of any lack of sympathy with the men of the Mercantile Marine, and your Lordships may, therefore, find yourselves in rather a difficulty as to what is the real solution of this question.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, has put forward a case which is extremely well documented and which left us all with the impression that new barriers are to be imposed between those diligent ladies

967
whom we have all seen at their knitting, busily engaged making comforts for the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy, and the actual recipients of the products of their handiwork. I do hope that His Majesty's Government, in their desire to avoid any waste, will refrain from adding complications which will not, in fact, give additional security, and that, unless there is any grave waste of material, they will not seek to burden the sailor man when he comes home after a stormy voyage, perhaps after being torpedoed, with all the irritating concomitants of life ashore. He has enough trouble without all that. There was only one point in the noble Viscount's speech with which I found myself a little out of accord. That was his passing reference to the competitive nature of the missionary societies which cater for the spiritual welfare of seamen. My connexion for some years with the Missions to Seamen leads me rather to think that they are a most co-operative body, and, indeed, an example to most of us on shore.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this question to-day, and for enabling me, so far as I am able, to clear up this matter and to inform him and your Lordships of the reasons why the Government have elected to introduce a system of coupons for comforts for the Merchant Navy. I do not think that the time has been at all wasted. After all, we arc dealing with the question of comforts for men to whom in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of all of us, we really owe our existence. In whatever way it is done, with coupons or without, His Majesty's Government, like everyone else, have only one object in view, and that is to do the very best possible for the men of the Merchant Navy.
It is quite true that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, at the request of my noble friend Lord Leathers, proposes to include comforts in the rationing scheme for the Merchant Navy. In order that the grounds for this proposal may be fully understood, it is necessary that I should go back for a few moments to the institution of the clothing rationing scheme just over two years ago, in June, 1941. At that time, when the scheme for the general population was introduced, it was not practical to introduce a clothing rationing scheme
968
for the Merchant Navy, and it was not until some considerable time after that date that it was possible to prepare the outlines of a Merchant Navy scheme. However, it became clear in the summer of 1941 that the supply of knitting wool in particular was becoming so short that some effort ought to be made to control the knitting and distribution of comforts not only for the Merchant Navy but for the other Services as well, in order to avoid waste and maldistribution. For some time now the other Services have instituted a close control over the distribution of comforts. As their clothing is issued by the Services, the men are not given coupons, but steps are taken to ensure fair distribution. In the case of the Royal Navy the issue of comforts is recorded.
At the request of the President of the Board of Trade, my noble friend the Minister of War Transport convened a meeting of the numerous societies interested in providing comforts for the Merchant Navy in August, 1941. In the absence of any rationing scheme, it was not possible at that time to secure any close control of the distribution of comforts, but it was agreed at the meeting that the distributing societies in the ports would co-operate with a view to avoiding overlapping, and that all distributing societies would distribute only on the application of a responsible ship's officer. It was realized that this was only a rough and ready control, but it was all that was possible at the time. It will be seen that as far as distribution of comforts to the individual is concerned, the responsibility of seeing that a man gets only what he needs has lain really on the ship's officer. Although these officers are naturally interested in the welfare of their men, it is not in accordance with the tradition of the Merchant Navy that a ship's officer should make this kind of inquiry into a seaman's needs, nor is it part of an officer's duty; and in the discussions which have been taking place in recent months the representatives of the navigating officers, on whom such a task falls, have made it quite clear that they are opposed to such a duty being imposed on them. My noble friend—rightly, I think your Lordships will agree—does not desire to impose this duty on them against their will.
It was explained in the discussions in 1941 that, although a coupon scheme would be an obvious method of securing

969
fair distribution, it would not be possible, in the absence of a general rationing scheme, to set up a scheme of coupons for comforts only; but when the Board of Trade were able to put forward proposals for a clothes rationing scheme for the Merchant Navy, it became clear that a satisfactory scheme for controlling the supply of comforts according to the needs of the individual could be associated with the main scheme. The whole object of the rationing scheme is to make sure that the clothing needs of these individuals can be met. With the supplies of raw material and of the finished products as short as they now are, it is essential that we should do our best to secure that every man can get what he needs for his work, and that in so far as some of his needs may be met by the supply of free comforts, the distribution of these comforts shall be as fair as possible.
It has become increasingly clear that the present system of issuing comforts leads to considerable waste, and does not result in fair distribution. The societies distributing comforts adopt different systems. The comforts may be distributed on shore on the requisition of a ship's officer, or taken on board ship and distributed on a similar requisition. The Merchant Navy Comforts Service, who distribute about three-quarters of the comforts, send them to the ships in standard sacks, with the object of ensuring that each seaman gets one set, consisting of a sweater, scarf, helmet, pair of gloves and two pairs of socks. A substantial number of seamen change ships frequently, and may therefore get more than they need; on the other hand, unlucky men who are not in the ship when the standard sacks are received may miss issues of comforts. If the seaman gets more than he needs there is room for waste and abuse, and in so far as there is present waste in distribution there will be more comforts for other men when that waste is prevented.
It is proposed, therefore, to associate a coupon scheme for these comforts with the clothing rationing scheme which is designed to replace the present system of clothing certificates issued by Mercantile Marine Offices. The proposal is to issue an extra 16 coupons, specially marked, to each seaman, over and above his ration for other clothing. The seaman will thus get 93 coupons which, together with the extra 16 coupons for comforts, will make a total of 109. The 16 specially marked
970
coupons will be available for free comforts, or they can be used for shop purchases in the same way as the other coupons. The number 16 was arrived at with the idea that it would about absorb and fairly distribute the quantity of comforts coming forward. Your Lordships will see that the total number of 109 is more than double that of the ordinary civilian, who gets 48, but no one would wish to quarrel with that; in fact, as my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said a few days ago —and I think his remarks were partly quoted by my noble friend Lord Bennett —in the answer which he gave to the honourable Member for South Paddington:
"… the last thing any of us wish to do is to penalize the Merchant Navy or to discriminate against them. So far as I am concerned, they are at the top of the list."
I may say here that Allied seamen based on our ports will continue to be treated on the same footing as British seamen.
My noble friend Lord Bennett said that he thought that this scheme would mean that the men would not get so many comforts as before, and would be short. I should like to emphasize the fact that in the opinion of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade the scheme will not in any way reduce the supply of comforts available. What it does is to supply a simple method of ensuring that a man will get the clothing that he needs, and it will give him the opportunity of securing free knitted garments if they are available. No scheme can ensure that every man gets an equal share of these free knitted garments, because it is impossible to link up closely the supply of such garments with the immediate demand; but if any man does not receive comforts, or if for any reason he would prefer not to have them but to have other garments instead, he can use the coupons to get other garments in the shops. Another advantage of the scheme will be to ensure that the time and care spent by knitters are used on garments which are really needed by the Merchant Navy. Hitherto it has been impossible to obtain a clear indication of the exact quantities of garments which men require. As the men will not be inclined to surrender coupons for comforts of a kind which they do not need, the organizations will have a direct indication of the type of comfort for which there is a

971
demand, and knitters will no longer waste time knitting articles which may not be wanted. At the same time, nothing in the scheme will stop the knitters attaching a card or other message to their gifts.
My noble friend Lord Bennett, and I think my noble and gallant friend Lord Cork and Orrery also, expressed the hope that the President of the Board of Trade would not adopt this scheme without due thought. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are going to do nothing of that kind, and I am glad to be able to inform my noble friend Lord Bennett that further discussion about these arrangements is to take place later this week between representatives of the Board of Trade and representatives of the Ministry of War Transport and also with some of those connected with the comforts organizations.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I interrupt to ask the noble Lord who will collect these coupons? Who will be responsible for the coupons which the sailors present?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I have not been given notice of that question, and I am afraid that I cannot at the moment answer my noble and gallant friend, if he will excuse me. It is realized that these arrangements may put rather more work on the distributing organizations, but I can assure my noble friend that they will be given such assistance as is possible by both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of War Transport in making such arrangements as may be called for. I have dealt at some length with this matter but I hope your Lordships will not think I have been too long. After all, as I said at the beginning, this is a very important question—the supply of comforts to men to whom we really owe the fact that we are sitting here this afternoon. I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Bennett for giving me the opportunity to clear up this matter as far as I have been able to do so, and to express what is in the mind of the Government in bringing in this scheme. I am afraid I have no Papers to lay, but I hope that, although not quite satisfied, he is not too dissatisfied with my answer, and if that is so, possibly he might see his way to withdraw his demand for Papers.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the LORD DENMAN.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the National Union of Seamen, who I am sure are most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, for the excellent case he has made, have been good enough to ask me to note the Government's reply and, if it called for any answer, to make it on their behalf. It is therefore my duty to tell the noble Lord who has spoken for the Board of Trade that the present situation as described by him is unsatisfactory, and I hope that Lord Bennett will press the point of view of the seamen if this further conference does not produce results. I notice that my noble friend Lord Templemore referred to the conference between the Board of Trade, the Minister of War Transport, and certain persons who have to do with this Comforts Fund, but he did not mention the Minister of Labour. The people who could really help most in this matter are the port welfare officers, who are responsible to the Ministry of Labour, and whose good work has been referred to by Lord Bennett. You do not want any humbugging about with coupons which will only annoy and create irritation and injure the whole spirit of this welfare work.
Bring the whole question under proper control, which is what the sailors and the officials and those who work so hard and so successfully for the Merchant Navy Comforts Service themselves suggest. I have in my hand the suggestions sent to the Ministry of Labour by this association itself. They are too long to read, but they do make this plain. They think it advisable that there should be a control of the distribution of comforts, which should be administered with discretion and flexibility, and that it should be supervised by the port welfare officers, in conjunction with the Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen. That is their own proposal. They admit that there must be some control, to avoid overlapping and waste, and they proposed to the Government what I suggest is a perfectly sound system of control. I hope that their proposals will be before this meeting, which I understood from Lord Templemore will take place on Friday. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, for whom I have great admiration, has burnt his fingers already on this coupon question in the case of the Home Guard. There are a million and a half Home Guards and they

973
can make their voices heard, but the seamen are scattered over the seven seas, and it is only because they have good friends like Lord Bennett who can speak for them that we have heard about this matter. Do let the Government take warning and adopt the suggestion put forward by responsible people who have been working so hard for the last few years to help our seamen.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, asked me who is to collect the coupons. I have now obtained the necessary information. I understand that the people who knit comforts will send them to the societies who distribute them. These societies will have offices at the different ports, and any man who wants comforts will go to these offices and collect them.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I I do not want to press the matter, but there may be the case of a man who is doing what we call a pierhead jump, and who has to go to sea at the last moment. Will he get any comforts?
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Temple-more for the statement he has made. I hope it does not mean finality—that coupons must be exacted—because it certainly will create a situation which I think is undesirable in this country at this time. I am not going over the reasons again, but there are two points I want to make. What evidence is there of waste? And what evidence is there of unfairness of distribution? This matter goes back to 1941, and in consequence of the discussion that took place then the National Union of Seamen investigated the matter, and this is the resolution they passed:
"At an Executive Council meeting of the National Union of Seamen held on the 19th March, 1943, the question of the distribution of comforts was considered. There was no report of unfairness under present regulations, and by a. unanimous vote the Council authorized the Union Executive to back the Merchant Navy Comforts Service methods against a Government coupon scheme, which was considered unworkable."
The noble and gallant Admiral who asked the question, "Who is to collect the coupons?" put in definite form a point which I suggested—namely, that a great increase of man-power will be required to deal with this matter in the manner now indicated. You are going to set up vast machinery as compared with the simplicity
974
of the present methods. For this reason the Ministry of Labour should deal with the matter as the Department responsible for finding man-power. I do not see how you can get away from the fact that it does mean an increase of personnel and a demand on man-power. The difficulty I have is in getting any evidence as to either unfairness or waste.
There is another point, the question of the distribution of wool. That does not touch this matter at all, for the simple reason that the Board of Trade regulation with respect to distribution of wool has been in force now for months. This comforts organization and other comforts organizations have to obey the regulations in respect to the distribution of wool; all the comforts that can be made depend upon the amount of wool that may be made available; and the amount of wool that can be made available is covered by the regulation of the Board of Trade. It may be that fewer comforts will be produced, but that is only because they have less wool. But the Board of Trade is dealing with the wool question on a broad and general plane, and not on the specific instance of this or any other organization. Its decision is determined by how much wool is available. Certainly that does not touch the question of coupons, because all the coupons in the world will be useless unless the wool question is favourably determined by the Board of Trade. The noble Lord suggests that this will result in the production of fewer comforts. Therefore there will be an economy although there should be sufficient to meet the demand.
As I have said, the Canadian Red Cross Society undertook to produce up to 30,000 articles per month, and during the first quarter of this year they handed over to this organization 227,000 articles, which is on a much larger scale than heretofore. But, 10,000 is the limit, and if they find that the demand exceeds 10,000 your Lordships will see what may happen. Supplies from the Canadian Society could not be increased, and the efforts here might slacken because of the effect this would have on the general situation. For smooth and easy running you are going to substitute friction, and the tried and known knowledge and experience, which have extended now over three years, are going to be all lost and scrapped. Lastly, you are going to lose the benefits that have

975
come from an entirely different feature which we have to consider. You are going to lose an international asset which will be of tremendous value after the war. I did intend to say what the noble and gallant Admiral has said, that the essential feature of this scheme is that it is not a charity. Those who contribute are allowed to put in a card, "From a friend ashore to a friend afloat"—I think these are the words used. The effect of this is indicated in the many hundreds of letters which have been received. I am afraid I shall have to renew this discussion if the result of the discussion between the Ministry of Transport and the Board of Trade is not satisfactory to the seamen who are primarily concerned, consistent with national policies. I feel that I should in all fairness withdraw this Motion this time, but I do so with the very distinct promise that it will be renewed if a satisfactory solution is not forthcoming.
LORD STRABOLGI: Would not my noble friend move the adjournment of the debate instead of withdrawing?
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My knowledge of Parliamentary practice has changed since I have been in your Lordships' House and have come to recognize that your Lordships can make rules of order for yourselves. Under the rules of the House of Commons the discussion ends when the originator of the Motion has replied. If I say that I shall renew the Motion in somewhat different terms, but meaning the same thing, if satisfactory adjustments are not made, that will cover the case.
LORD KEYES: My Lords, my noble friend who replied for the Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE LORD SPEAKER (LORD DENMAN): If the noble Viscount wishes to withdraw his Motion, I would ask whether it is your Lordships' desire that the Motion be withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: In the circumstances it will best serve the interests I have at heart if I ask your Lordships to permit the Motion to be withdrawn on the understanding I have already given as to my future intentions.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COST OF FOOD DISTRIBUTION.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the statement which has received wide currency that the cost of distribution of the food consumed in this country in a pre-war year was £850,000,000— namely, the difference between the estimated prime cost at the port or the farms, £650,000,000, and the cost to the consumer, £1,500,000,000; and whether any similar estimates can be given on a comparable basis for a later period.]
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of clearing up the misconception which appears to exist in regard to figures which have been quoted by the noble Lord. Those figures include all forms of drink as well as food. The sum of £850,000,000 in a pre-war year to which my noble friend refers does not represent solely costs of distribution, but includes other important items in the make-up of the final prices to consumers. In particular it covers the entire cost of processing, manufacturing and otherwise preparing for sale, whether for consumption in the home or in catering establishments, and the entire amount— roughly £150,000,000—of Customs and Excise duties on food and drink. If allowance could be made for these items, the cost of distribution proper would be far less than the figure quoted, and the resultant margin would cover all costs within this country of transportation and delivery of primary foodstuffs and finished products, as well as overhead expenses—rent, salaries, wages, etc.— and profits of trading, besides such ancillary items as storage, deterioration, wastage, breaking bulk and packing. The Ministry of Food has attempted to estimate for 1942 the cost of distributing finished foodstuffs to the civilian population, but I would emphasize that no comparison is warranted between those estimates and those to which the noble Lord has referred. The estimates of my Department cover all foodstuffs except chocolate and sugar confectionery, while alcoholic beverages and mineral waters are also excluded.

977
The retail cost to the consumer of the commodities covered by the inquiry is estimated not to exceed £1,350,000,000, whereas the value at which they entered the chain of distribution in their finished state is calculated at rather more than £900,000,000. Thus, the costs of distribution of food ready for sale to the consumer are unlikely to have greatly exceeded £400,000,000. By far the greater part of this total would be attributable to retail distribution. In view of the valuable services which food traders, both large and small, are rendering in maintaining the distribution of essential supplies under very difficult conditions, during these war years, I am glad to have been afforded the opportunity of explaining figures which have been given wide circulation and I think have not been generally understood. Perhaps I may be allowed to add one general and obvious comment. The costs of distribution must be greatly affected by the standard of distributive service demanded by the public.
LORD LUKE: I thank the noble Lord for his very full reply.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE COST OF PRIVATE BILLS, ETC.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report by the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
That the Committee have met and carefully considered the question of the cost of Private Bills, and have come to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served in further considering the matter during the war emergency.
They recommend that the Committee should be reconstituted after the cessation of hostilities, with instructions to consider the whole matter in the light of such developments as may have taken place in the interval.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, you will remember that about three years ago this matter was touched upon by my noble and learned friend Lord Sankey, and it seemed to me it might be desirable to look into the question again. It was examined carefully in the time of my noble friend Lord Donoughmore just after the last war, and a Report was made to your Lordships' House. It has also been examined in another place. The Committee
978
have had several meetings, and the results are as stated in the Report now before your Lordships' House. I need not say very much on the subject or go into it in any way, but we came to the conclusion that at the present time there was nothing to be done to further the reduction of costs on Private Bills. The matter should, we consider, be left open, and after the war should be re-examined. I beg to move, That the Report be now considered and agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Third Report by the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—Civil Service War Bonus.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Circular No. 8/43 for payment of War Bonus to the staff of the House of Lords to whom it applies.
2.—Library Attendant—Due for Retirement.
The Committee approved an extension of service to Mr. Albert Edward Pettit, M.C., Library Attendant, from October 14, 1943, to May 4, 1944, inclusive and sanctioned a pension and additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1935, payable to him thereafter.
The Committee authorized payment of salary to Mr. Pettit on his reappointment from May 5, 1944, as a temporary Library Attendant.
3.—A.R.P. Palace of Westminster.
The Committee sanctioned a weekly increase in pay to the Custodian Auxiliaries and an additional payment to Mr. W. Lewis, fireman, for clerical work in the A.R.P. office, as recommended by the Fire Committee.
4.—Salary of Resident Housekeeper.
The report of the sub-committee on the salary of the Resident Housekeeper and on certain salaries and retired allowances was approved by the Committee.
5.—Official Report.
The Committee agreed to the addition of the word "Hansard" after the words "Official Report" on the Title page of the Parliamentary Debates.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and agreed to. I do not think I have anything to say as it concerns only minor matters.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

CHELTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DE TERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMEND MENT) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House: that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle: that the Order is founded on precedent: that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House: that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle: that the Order is founded on precedent: that in the opinion of the Committee the Order
980
cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE ADJOURNMENT: MERCHANT NAVY COMFORTS.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD KEYES: My Lords, I understand I am allowed to speak on the adjournment about a matter to which I desire to call the attention of my noble friend Lord Templemore. In the course of his remarks he said that the Mercantile Marine officers objected to having anything to do with the distribution of these comforts. I am very closely associated with the Officers' (Merchant Navy) Federation and the Navigating and Engineer Officers' Association, and I am sure that if the matter is properly explained to them they will gladly undertake the distribution of these comforts. May I suggest to my noble friend that he brings that point to the notice of the Board of Trade who are dealing with this matter?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: In answer to my noble friend the noble and gallant Admiral, I will certainly bring what he says to the notice of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, on the same question may I add this? After the debate on Lord Bennett's Motion had ended, it was pointed out to me by seamen's representatives who heard it, that a point which was missed out of the debate and which certainly remains is that a great many of the Asiatic seamen and Indian seamen who do such good work in our Mercantile Marine do not speak English, and do not read English, and that there would be difficulty with them over the coupons. These representatives asked that that point should be made at the first opportunity and I now make it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.