POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT.

HL Deb 21 July 1943 vol 128 cc681-719

LORD SOUTHWOOD rose to call attention to the need for accelerating plans to avoid mass unemployment after the war through international co-operation for the development of trade and national reconstruction; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of the Motion I desire to bring before you is one which has a vital bearing, not only on the well-being of our own country but on the future of the whole civilized world. I have a double purpose in bringing it forward. I want, if I can, to stimulate among the general public a wider interest in this question of the world's future economic policy, and I want also to direct attention to the importance of the preparations for post-war reconstruction. I think your Lordships will agree that it is abundantly clear that the people of this country are very much concerned as to what is going to happen after this war. They are anxious about many things. This is made clear by the concern that is shown about the future of the Beveridge Report. That Report seems to me to have become to the ordinary man and woman what I might term a symbol of good intentions. But there can be no Beveridge plan, there can be no social security of any sort unless the world's resources are fully employed in the production and distribution of material wealth after this war. If the masses of the people are to have a better and a more secure life, very much more is needed than just a plan for unifying and expanding social insurance. Among the greatest problems that we have to face are those of securing the full employment of labour and the avoidance of those periodic slumps in trade which have been the cause of so much distress and poverty during the last two decades.

So now I come at once to the case I desire to put before your Lordships. It rests almost entirely upon one fundamental point—a point of vital interest. We must at all costs avoid, after this war, the recurring waves of mass unemployment which swept across the world in the pre-war years. I have spoken in your Lordships' House before of the human tragedy of mass unemployment and its degrading effect on the spirit, on the mind and on the physique. But at the moment I am concerned solely with the economic consequences of mass unemployment. Your Lordships, I am sure, will remember that between the years 1930 and 1934 the greatest industrial depression of all time affected the world. It is literally true to say that millions of workers were thrown upon the streets to idle away their time and to waste their skill. What was the loss of wealth caused by this wave of unemployment? It has been reliably estimated—and I believe the estimates are accepted by most economists—that this great depression caused the loss in national income to three countries alone, our own, the United States and Germany, of no less than £22,000,000,000. It is a staggering sum. Just how vast it is can be appreciated when I point out that it was a little less than the entire cost to the whole of the belligerents of the last war.

What is the real significance of this enormous decline? It is more than the fact that there was less money available to spend, important as that is in itself. No, the essential point is that £22,000,000,000 worth of goods and services which could have been enjoyed in those five years were just not there. This mass unemployment cut down the quantity of clothes, food, furniture, houses, household utensils and all kinds of other. essential articles available for the nation's needs—and also for the needs of others. It deprived the people of schools and clinics, of roads, parks and of holidays and all kinds of services. We could have had £22,000,000,000 worth of all these things. The plant was there, the raw material was available, transport existed in abundance and labour and skill were at our disposal. But those who could have given to us and to themselves this vast quantity of goods and services were forced into idleness and, being in idleness, they were in poverty, some in poverty of a most acute kind.

What we must remember is that mass unemployment impoverishes the whole of the community. It is a burden on us all because it cuts down the flow of essential things for every man, woman and child. Like war, it impedes the progress of human welfare to a disastrous extent. Mass unemployment, in short, is just bad business. I speak with some experience in the direction of big concerns. I know that those concerns could never prosper if we failed to employ the full skill of all those engaged in our service. In many ways, in principle, the nation is very little different from a business concern. If it is to prosper it must make full and continuous use of those who are available for employment. If its balance sheet is to be good it cannot afford to discard the productive skill of any of its citizens. Before the war this nation was prodigal in the waste of its labour and the talents of its people. In some towns in the so-called "distressed areas" the number of employable citizens permanently out of work was never less than 60 per cent. In places like Jarrow the total stood, month after month, at the staggering figure of over 73 per cent. of the insured population. That is, out of every ten more than seven were unproductive, idle, and a burden on the rest of the community.

I am sure your Lordships will agree that we must not—I almost said we dare not—return to that position. You must remember, too, that this war has provided additonal reasons for keeping our people in full employment. When it is over the war has to be paid for; the contributions of those who, by so freely lending of their savings, have postponed their enjoyment of goods and services, have to be refunded. If this bill is to be met—and it can only be met by the possession of things which people want to possess—it will be essential that every available citizen should be continuously employed in productive work for home and oversea consumption. In fact, full employment is at the root of practically everything. It is necessary, as I have said, to provide the means to pay for the war, and to provide the wealth to sustain the new standards of social security which we all agree must be established. For these reasons it is imperative that every step we can take to ensure that mass unemployment shall not recur should be taken, and taken now. The issues are far too vast and far too complicated to be left until hostilities end.

What can be done about it? It is at once evident that Britain, acting alone, can achieve only very limited results. The same is true of any other country. This is a problem that knows no frontiers. Its solution is not within the capacity of any one nation. It is true, of course, that certain internal measures can be devised. There is, for instance, the preparation of a long-term national housing programme, which I am glad to see the Government have taken in hand. Steps can also be taken as to the use we intend to make in peace-time of the factories and machines erected for the purpose of supplying munitions. But the root of the problem of mass unemployment is not merely national; it is also, and primarily, international, and it must be dealt with on an international plane. Agreed and concerted measures must be taken, designed to open up the widest possible channels of trade and commerce between the nations. This is particularly true of our own country. We are not a self-sufficient nation, nor ever could be, We are not even a self-sufficient Empire, nor ever could be. For good or ill, we British have become a great manufacturing nation.

Why, in the year before the war, we grew only enough food for two and a half days each week, enough for little more than eighteen weeks in a whole year! That was an appallingly low output of agricultural produce, and I am very glad to know that the war has brought about a considerable improvement in the cultivation of our land. I hope and trust we shall never again slip back. But even if every acre were in full production we should still have to import large quantities of essential foodstuffs and fertilizers. Our climate alone makes that inevitable. Then we require to bring in vast quantities of raw materials of all kinds. These are not to be found here, and cannot be produced here. If our machines and factories are to be fed we must ship from overseas huge quantities of these raw materials. In the calling in which I am engaged, for instance, we are almost entirely dependent on overseas supplies for our raw materials. Our newspaper industry is, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook will confirm, next to the United States the principal importer of wood pulp. In the year 1938 we imported over 1,500,000 tons of pulp, and besides these large imports of pulp there came from Scandinavia and other countries huge quantities of finished newsprint, mainly from Canada and Newfoundland. Other great industries are equally dependent on overseas sources for their raw materials. Without them the basis of a large part of our industries would be entirely destroyed. To pay for these imports we must ship adequate supplies of manufactured goods, to produce which, I think we may say without hesitation, we have the best workers in the world.

Clearly, then, the whole question of the employment of people within our shores is bound up with the economic life of countries overseas. That has been the case ever since the industrial revolution. It will be much more so after the war. Remember we have had to draw very heavily on our oversea capital holdings in order to pay for the materials to carry on this fight. Unfortunately our capital stake in the outside world has been sadly depleted. Since the war it has been reduced, I believe, by over one half. In the future we shall have to pay as we go. It is impossible for us any longer to rely upon the same source of income to pay for the goods which we shipped overseas in the last century. We must rely on our ability to produce, and the opportunity to exchange goods and services. The problem then before us is how to secure the best arrangement for the supply of the goods we need, and the widest facilities for disposing of the goods we must export to pay for them. We must not forget, too, that many of the countries formerly our customers for a wide range of articles now manufacture these articles for themselves.

What did we do before the war? In the decades before the war we tried to carry on with methods of wasteful competition. We and other nations openly fought one another for positions of economic advantage. There was ruthless price cutting, uneconomic subsidizing, there was gambling in basic commodities—all the features of open war; and then what? We had trade depressions every few years, millions of tons of food were wasted or destroyed, markets collapsed and unemployment in all these competing industrial countries rose to unheard-of heights. With it all, despite an enormous capacity to produce wealth, there was gross underconsumption and unsatisfied need, and in the end there was this war. The method of each nation fighting its neighbour is completely discredited. The world cannot afford again to follow that ruinous road. The Atlantic Charter points the right way. Much more than the future of world trade depends on how those great instruments—the Atlantic Charter and the Mutual Aid Agreement—are implemented into solid and workable plans of international co-operation. This is why I welcome the declarations we have had from leading spokesmen in the United States of their readiness to begin with us and the other Allied Nations the exploration of new methods of international economic co-operation.

I refer in particular to Mr. Sumner Welles. Speaking in Toronto only last February, the United States Under-secretary of State made a declaration of the most important character. He announced that his Government intended to initiate discussion between the United Nations on the "most practical and effective methods" of organizing international action to prevent a repetition of economic maladies. May I remind your Lordships of some of the things which this far-seeing state man said on that occasion? "There is to disagreement anywhere as to what the United Nations want," he said; they desire "full employment for their people at good wages and under good working conditions and the other physical and institutional arrangements which add up to freedom from want." He then expressed his belief that the conflicts and controversies which have so long in the past embittered relations in the international economic field would largely disappear if, as he said, "the United Nations were to set up machinery for the purpose of assembling and studying all international aspects of problems under the general heading of freedom from want.'' He then went on to support his appeal with a warning that delay was dangerous. "My Government believes that the initiation of such studies is already overdue," he declared. And further: "If we do not make a start now there is a danger that we should be brought together to make the peace with as many plans as there are Governments." In such an event he foresaw what many of us here have foreseen: the peace would be "no more than a brief and uneasy interlude before another and even more horrible war devastates the world."

Mr. Henry Wallace, Vice-President of the United States, has also had some notable things to say on this theme. A year or so ago in his stirring speech on the "Century of the common man," he declared: Those who write the peace must think of the whole world. There can be no privilege to peoples. We ourselves in the United States are no more a master race than the Nazis. And we cannot perpetuate economic warfare without planting the seeds of military warfare. We must use our powers at the peace table to build an economic peace that is just, charitable and enduring. These are inspiring proposals. Their sanity, their realism and practical idealism encourage the hope that this time we shall not bungle the peace. Pray God it may be so.

Here at home some of our leaders—how I wish there had been more—have been equally stimulating in their pronouncements on the future. But, as your Lordships well know, speeches alone do not dispose of problems. Some of these problems admittedly impinge extensively on long-standing interests and are in consequence matters of undoubted controversy. That is why we must face them now. We need discussion and inquiry followed by decision and action. We need adequate permanent machinery for the application of such plans as may be devised, As your Lordships know, a splendid start has been made at Hot Springs by the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture. This Conference, in the words of that great man, President Roosevelt, was "a living demonstration of the methods by which the conversations of nations of like mind can, and will, give practical application to the principles of the Atlantic Charter." In only seventeen days of discussion the delegates of over forty nations reached unanimous agreement upon principles which, if they are faithfully carried out, will take us a long way towards banishing under-nourishment from the world. Nor did they confine themselves to the discussion of principles. They took steps to set up a permanent organization which will co-ordinate the international effort to improve the production and distribution of food.

So far as the British Government are concerned, their acceptance of the resolutions passed at Hot Springs and the obligation of giving effect to them, have been expressed, I am glad to say, in the warmest terms by our Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, and in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, the Minister of Food. But food is only one of the long list of subjects which call for inquiry and action. The Hot Springs Conference itself expressed the view that its objects could only be achieved if the nations were equally ready to co-operate in other fields. Those other fields will have to be explored. To the best of my knowledge a full list of subjects to be dealt with has not yet been announced, but it is easy to name some of the issues which should be settled in advance of peace if the world reconstruction is to proceed smoothly and effectively.

There is, for example, first, the problem of money, or as the experts prefer to call it, currency. Your Lordships have already discussed this matter and I am sure we are all deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Keynes, for his admirably lucid exposition of the British plan for international currency control—a plan which he himself devised. An American plan has also been published, and I have no doubt that others of the United Nations will have ideas of their own. I believe that quite recently a plan has been published in Canada which is a kind of compromise between the British plan and the American plan. Obviously there will have to be an international conference at which all ideas on this subject can be pooled and decisions taken.

Then there is the problem of world communications, which was debated in this House only last week and on several occasions recently. I am sure we are all deeply indebted to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, for having brought this matter forward. What the nations have to decide is whether civil aviation is to become a medium for increasing international understanding or whether it is to be used as a weapon in fierce commercial warfare. If we take the latter course, then I feel that inevitably yet another war will follow. In other words, in simple language, is the aeroplane to be a blessing or a curse to mankind? That is what we have to decide, and the issue cannot be faced too frankly or too soon.

There must also be full consideration of the problem of finding means of avoiding those catastrophic changes in price levels of food and raw materials which have been so potent a cause of human misery. Any business man knows that there was no more fruitful cause of unemployment before the war than the sudden upward and downward swinging of the price levels of the basic commodities. A year ago we signed the Wheat Agreement. It took nearly 4,000 years to learn from Joseph this invaluable lesson. Wheat has been pooled and made available when and where needed at a reasonable price. Now what has been done for wheat can also surely be done for other commodities. I next put on my list the question of monopolies: I mean, of course, international monopolies known as "rings" or "cartels." I take the view that there is only one standard by which these organizations should be judged. Are they operating to the disadvantage of the community, or are they operating to the common good? I think it will be agreed that monopolies must be made the servants of the people, not their masters. They must be made to contribute, not to exploit. Mr. Henry Wallace, in the speech from which I quoted earlier, proposed that monopolies should be subjected to international control for the benefit, as he put it, of the "common man." Is any form of control, I wonder, being considered?

And I do hope, too, that consideration is being given to proposals which have been put forward both here and abroad for what has been described as a World Development Council working under the combined direction of the Governments of the world. I consider that a most vital and important proposal. The functions of that body, as I see it, would be to create full production and to organize full distribution. We have heard a lot in the past about over-production. But what does over-production mean? It does not mean that the world as a whole has more of this or that commodity than it requires. It means that great sections of the human race are unable, because their standard of living is so low, to purchase that commodity at the price prevailing; or do not desire to purchase it because they have not been educated in its uses. And so a surplus is created, and we have had such scandals as the burning of wheat and coffee to reduce the surplus. The simple fact that food is meant to be eaten has been overlooked. We have had such folly as the artificial restriction of output with its inevitable consequences of unemployment. Is it not time that we stopped thinking in terms of over-production and aimed instead at full production? We can do so if we take steps to organize full distribution. May I for one moment give your Lordships a simple illustration of what I mean? I shall not detain you more than two seconds upon this. When this war ceases, and the first period of reconstruction has passed, it is more than probable that the production of iron and steel may be far in excess of the normal requirements of the world. But there will still be vast territories, underdeveloped and backward countries, which could make use of the surplus iron and steel. A World Development Council would make plans for supplying the excess of iron and steel to backward countries, for use in their development. Just the same applies to foodstuffs, clothing and a vast range of the commodities which the highly developed countries produce.

I do not think it is always realized that considerably more than half the world's population is living at an abnormally low standard. The World Development Council would aid them on a lease-lend basis, or even as a gift if you like, to adopt schemes of irrigation, sanitation, transport and so on; to develop their own exportable resources and thus to improve their own standards of life. In effect this method of using surpluses would be a thoroughly sound investment, for, as the development of backward countries proceeded, they would be able to buy from us goods which were formerly far beyond their means. These countries are an enormous untapped source of purchasing power. And, all the while, by maintaining full production, the more advanced countries would be keeping their citizens in full employment. The planning and financing of the World Development Council activities would, I know, be a tremendous task. But I cannot believe that its performance is beyond the world's powers.

I would also like to see soon a United Nations Conference of experts on questions of wages and conditions in industry. The whole question of the standards of living in the respective countries is very closely linked with the problems of unemployment. It is futile to plan for expanding output if we leave wage standards and working conditions to be settled on the old "beggar my neighbour" basis. The whole structure of international co-operation can be brought down by any one nation which insists on keeping its workers on a standard of life below that regarded as essential by more enlightened nations. I am a profound believer in the merits of trade unions, and I should like to ask the Government if they have any proposals for using their experience in a concerted attempt to establish in the industrial world uniform minimum standards—standards which will prevent countries on the "slave labour level" undercutting their neighbours. I know that in many ways this problem should be easier to solve than most of the others, for already we have an international organization established and with a great record in the building up of international working standards. I refer, of course, to the International Labour Office, familiarly known as the I.L.O. This institution set up after the last war has been one of the greatest boons in history. It is good to know that it is not only so active but is regarded by our Government as an essential organ of international collaboration. In this House only a few weeks ago the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, pointed out how wonderful was the work that this organization has done. I hope to hear that bold plans are being proceeded with not merely for the restoration of its former power, but for extending its influence and work in spheres which it has not yet touched.

In several speeches our Ministers have declared their belief in co-operation between the peoples. I believe the time has come for a fresh and more emphatic statement of that belief—a statement which would show that we desire international collaboration in the very widest sense, and are anxious to expedite all these conferences and consultations so that hard-and-fast agreements may be reached. If that desire is expressed with sufficient force on behalf of Great Britain, the result, I am sure, will be to invigorate and expedite the whole process. There is one other thing we must not forget. The favourable turn which the war has taken makes expedition all the more necessary. I am not one of those who expect an easy victory—not by any means—but we must never overlook the possibility that peace may come upon us suddenly and find us with our plans still uncompleted. If we delay or hesitate we shall be piling up for ourselves a mountain of trouble which may well topple over and bring us into ruin more devastating than anything we have seen in this war.

The war has given us an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild our civilization on a more durable and dignified basis. It has also aroused in the people everywhere a profound dissatisfaction with the old conditions which so acutely limited the boundaries of their lives. The men in the Fighting Services, the munition workers, and the women also are anxious about the future. When they have saved us from the Nazi horror will they have, once more, to face the terror of insecurity and unemployment? They are tremendously concerned to know what is going to happen to them when peace comes. Will they have a job? Will they have a home? Will their children be given opportunity? In other words, will they have a chance to share in the good things of life? These are the questions they are asking. And not only in the Services. There is to-day a lively questing spirit among common men and women everywhere. I think you will find that they are not going to tolerate the restoration of the old system which wasted their talents in peace and could use them fully only when war came. I want to say that for my part I welcome these signs of a rising consciousness of the dignity of citizenship among all classes of the community. The well-being of the whole of the people should be our first—our very first—consideration. It is unthinkable that private claims or vested interests should be put before the paramount claims of humanity to a full and happy life.

Statesmen must match this mood with bold, far-seeing action. They must apply themselves now to the task of devising the means by which the abundant fruits of man's labour can be used to contribute to the happiness and security of man's life. The people, I believe, want plans—definite, concrete plans—and not only promises. There, my Lords, I must leave my theme. I do so very conscious that I have left unsaid much which should be said on this supremely vital subject, but there are other speakers who will no doubt repair my omissions. I shall be disappointed—terribly disappointed—if the reply which is to be made on behalf of the Government fails to take the matter further. What is needed is tangible evidence that those in authority are proceeding with all practical expedition to prepare the shape of the post-war world, a world in which mankind can dwell in peace, in happiness, and in security. I beg to move.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, has taken this opportunity of bringing forward this supremely important subject for discussion by your Lordships. His personal record of public service would have ensured that his observations would be listened to with attention in any case, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that the speech he has made was so full of knowledge and the fruits of experience that it has made an admirable portico to the subsequent discussion. In one sense this debate may also be regarded as a sequel to the one initiated by my noble friend Viscount Samuel on Thursday and concluded yesterday. At first sight the two subjects of encouragement by the Government of scientific research and the prevention of mass unemployment do not seem to be very closely related, but, as a matter of fact, in the course of the luminous and weighty speeches that were delivered during the two sittings, a great many allusions were made and suggestions were offered on matters directly concerned with the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, has put before the House.

The main subject of that Motion is the prevention of mass unemployment, and the spectre of mass unemployment has haunted the minds of many who recollect what happened in 1919 and in the following years. In some respects perhaps the present prospect can be regarded as different from that experience. In the first place, the mere fact that it is being considered and discussed counts for a great deal. In the year 1917, for instance, I do not think a Motion of this kind would have been brought before your Lordships' House or that there would have been any attempt to discuss it. Also there are one or two other material differences. I think it is likely that the process of demobilization, which was so much hurried at the conclusion of the last war, will be a slower process on this occasion. No one, of course, can foresee what will be the last phases of the present struggle, but it seems likely that the return of men of all arms from overseas will be more gradual and more easy to regulate than it was when the war concluded in France.

There are also fairly hopeful prospects with regard to employment in this country. The noble Lord mentioned the vast building programme which is being considered, and there is no doubt that everything which is covered by the term "town and country planning" must necessarily involve the employment of much labour, both skilled and unskilled. On the other hand, I greatly question whether agriculture, from advances in which so much is hoped, offers much prospect for the employment of fresh labour. A number of farmers' sons and young agricultural labourers will be returning from overseas, and there have been a number of new recruits to agricultural work in the persons of the Land Army of women and girls some of whom, perhaps a good many, will be anxious to retain their places as farm workers. In many cases their remaining in that work will, I am sure, be welcomed by the farmers who employ them, because of the remarkable capacity that some of them have shown in certain branches of agriculture, particularly in the care and management of live stock. However, that is a minor matter.

I entirely agree, if I may say so, with the noble Lord, that for the prevention of unemployment on a really large scale we are bound to look to the revival of our foreign trade. It cannot be supposed that to bring that about would be in any sense an easy task. As the noble Lord reminded us, in a great number of cases the factories and workshops have been converted from their usual production to the manufacture of weapons and munitions of war. Time will be needed, and capital also will be needed, to enable them to revert to their former condition. But what is still more formidable is the disappearance of so many of the foreign markets on which manufacturers and exporters often solely depended for disposing of particular lines of manufactured goods. In the occupied countries, in particular, the means of purchasing manufactured goods are bound, for a number of years, to be greatly limited. But even supposing the goods to be there and the markets to be available, there are formidable difficulties to be met in respect of the willingness of foreign countries to attempt some greater freedom of trade and to accept our manufactured goods.

It is undoubtedly true that the idea of a nation being self-supporting had, so to speak, gone to the heads of a great many countries for a number of years past. We are bound to remember that of the reasons by which a nation can justify itself for attempting to be self-supporting, nine out of ten arc based on the possibility, or even the probability, that the country will find itself at war. If permanent peace, or even peace for as far ahead as one can venture to look, were secured, then by far the greater number of reasons for making a nation self-supporting would disappear altogether. And there is no doubt, I think, that the willingness of nations to agree to accept in large quantities the products of other countries must depend very largely on the extent to which they are able to look forward to a peaceful future. But, of course, there are many other reasons besides that one which have influenced all nations, our own included, in preferring a restrictive policy. My noble friends on these Benches, including in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—whose absence I greatly regret because he was one of the principal actors in the scene—in 1932 expressed their dread of the adoption of what was known as the policy of Ottawa. That policy was the legacy of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the momentous decision at which he arrived in 1903 to declare himself in favour of Protection and Colonial Preference. I have no wish to dig up those past discussions; I mention the subject only to say that the state of mind of all countries must change to a considerable extent in the direction of fair exchange if the hopes expressed in the Atlantic Charter are to be fulfilled.

By what kind of machinery that change of mind can be brought about was dealt with in the later passages of the noble Lord's speech. It will obviously be a very difficult matter for the different Governments in some cases to go against the expressed feelings and desires of their own people in order to put before this central body, whatever it may be, which discusses these matters from a European standpoint, the advantages of a neighbourly rather than a purely selfish policy in matters of trade. Perhaps some of your Lordships may have seen a pamphlet brought out under the auspices of an extremely competent authority, Sir Edgar Jones, dealing with this matter and with the possible plan of creating a central body not directly representative of the various Governments but able to speak with authority, although not actually exercising the powers of the Governments themselves. There again it is no easy matter—no easier than it was found to be in the case of the League of Nations—to bring the different Governments to accept the agreed policy of the majority of nations on some particular subject; but it is obvious that the attempt will have to be made, and I join with the noble Lord in hoping and believing that a plan of that kind can be made a success. I also agree with the noble Lord that unless the questions of exchange and currency can be satisfactorily dealt with—and it is most encouraging to know that they are being seriously considered by the most competent minds—no trade agreements will be of any service or value. I conclude, therefore, by once more saying that I hope and believe that by taking matters in time, as I believe that they are being taken, these very difficult problems can be brought to a happy solution.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I join with previous speakers in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord for introducing this subject to the House. I think that it is almost impossible to give too much thought and consideration to this question of employment after the war, for I know that it is very much in the minds of a large number of people to-day. Especially those who are away from home, and who have been away from home for some time, are often haunted by the fear of what may happen to them at the end of the war. They remember the vast armies of the unemployed in the past; they know that frequently the work in which they were engaged has been stopped or transferred; they often know that others have been carrying on, perhaps since the beginning of the war, the particular work in which they were engaged. In some cases their own business has had to be closed. I know that there are very large numbers of men who are wondering what will happen to them when peace comes, and I think that nothing could reassure them more than to know that the Government have a definite policy for dealing with employment after the war.

I am not going to follow the noble Lord in the very full and valuable statement which he made about international methods. I agree with all that he said. International methods before the war, so far as industry and commerce are concerned, were often farcical and tragic, for there could surely be nothing more tragic than that some countries should be quite deliberately destroying food while in other countries there was the most serious malnutrition. I recognize as fully as the two noble Lords who have just spoken that we cannot have permanent employment at home unless there is international co-operation in matters of trade and unless there is international peace and good will. I propose to devote the very few observations which I have to make to the last words of the Motion—namely, those dealing with national reconstruction. There is, of course, a great deal which we have to do here to secure full employment after the war. In the first place there must be full, careful and comprehensive planning. Industry will for a very long time have to be controlled and organized, and it will be essential that those industries which produce the most necessary goods and which employ the largest numbers of men shall receive the greatest support. Industries which are engaged in luxury trades will have to come very low down on the priority list for a long time to come. Unless there is. continued planning after the war we shall have chaos again, and a very large amount of unemployment.

There are two industries in particular in which useful commodities are produced and at the same time a great deal of employment is given—the building trade, and agriculture. That is one of the reasons why we are so anxious that the Government should have their housing policy ready to put into effect the moment the war comes to an end. We shall have before us at that time the largest housing problem which the nation has ever had to confront. People will be clamouring for homes of their own when they come back from the war, and the building trade almost more than any other affords the opportunity of employing a very large number of men. I would say very much the same of agriculture. No doubt it is true that agriculture will not employ so many men as some other industries, or will not give such opportunities of increased employment as will some other industries. But we do not wish agriculture to decline into its past deplorable condition, and we are anxious for the sake of the welfare of the nation as well as the production of food to see more people attracted to the land to work on it. But we shall not attract people to agriculture unless more houses are provided for them in which they are to live.

Then there is a second condition in any plans we make in the future for internal reconstruction in this country—and I am referring now to a more controversial matter. There must be greater flexibility of labour. Labour is surrounded with all sorts of restrictions which belong to an older period, which were quite necessary at the time but many of which have now become obsolete. Very many men have been trained in one particular trade and are quite unable to take up any other work. Of course we are all suspicious of the man who says he can turn his hand to anything. That usually means that he can turn his hand with good effect to nothing. But there are a large number of men who can work at one trade and one trade only. I wish that all of us had some secondary trade upon which we could fall back if our present profession failed, and I am often perplexed as to what I should fall back upon if such a necessity arose. But I am sure we ought to give men an opportunity of learning more than one trade, and that after the war, when men come back and find that very little labour is required in the trade in which previously they were engaged, opportunity should be given for training them in some other trade which they might take up.

Also labour ought to be moved much more freely from place to place than it is at present. I wish so much that we had in this House some trade unionists, who could speak with real authority on this matter. We have representatives of every profession in this House, most of whom can speak with great authority of some matter or other, but as far as I know there is not one representative of the trade unions in this House, and I doubt if even among noble Lords opposite there is one who is a direct representative of the trade unions. This matter of the flexibility of labour is obviously one which would have to be primarily dealt with by the trade unions themselves. In a remarkable report which has been produced by Nuffield College, and which was drawn up by a large number of experienced men among whom there were trade unionists, the statement is made: Flexibility will be of paramount importance. As long as in each trade the fear of unemployment or, alternatively, a big degradation to a lower class of work exerts a dominating influence on policy and attitude, there is bound to be much opposition to industrial changes which, even if they lower costs, do so at the expense of large groups of skilled workmen. This opposition will become much less formidable the moment the workers concerned have been induced to believe that the policy of full employment has been adopted and will be adhered to in face of impending crisis or depression. It may disappear altogether if the workers can be induced to believe not merely that they will not be left to fester in unemployment, but that their welfare and continued usefulness to the community are to be regarded as primary objectives of industrial policy. I hope that the Government will be able to make some definite statement that they are determined to avoid mass unemployment at the end of the war, that they are taking such steps as are necessary for international co-operation in matters of industry and are planning for the flexibility of labour at home. I know that the members of the Government are overwhelmed with every kind of problem in connexion with their first immediate duty of winning the war and establishing peace. But if there is a large amount of unemployment at the end of the war some of the noblest fruits of victory will be utterly destroyed. And it is for the sake of the men who deserve so much of the country that we urge that no effort should be spared to avoid the horror of mass unemployment.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

My Lords, it is time I rose to congratulate my noble friend Lord Southwood on a most admirable speech—a speech that I admired very much. I admire, too, those post-war planners of ours who make speeches about the future; but at the same time I would like to bring to the discussion the sense of reality. There are the two major prophets of our post-war projects, Lord Nathan and Lord Southwood. Lord Nathan a week ago spoke on the home front; Lord Southwood this week takes the whole world for his sphere. Lord Nathan spoke on plans for agriculture, land settlement, social security, housing, education, location of industry. All that distance he covered in half an hour. But this week Lord Southwood comes in with a wide world plan, and he talks of conferences, and of food, of unemployment, of communications, aeroplanes, price levels, wages, conditions of labour, production, distribution and currency. He joins Lord Strabolgi in denouncing international monopolies—well, if they are bad he denounces them; and then he recommends a World Development Council. All in twenty-seven minutes—three minutes short of the time taken up by Lord Nathan. The Bible tells us that God made the world in six days, but Lord Southwood is going to re-make the world in twenty-seven minutes. I think it is a bit fast, and a bit ridiculous when I hear his account of what he conceives to be Hot Springs.

I doubt if very many of your Lordships have read about Hot Springs. Hot Springs was a very curious and strange proceeding. In the first place, Hot Springs determined that the promotion of co-operative societies would lower costs of distribution and marketing. Without any consideration at all, without any debate, without any argument, it determined that co-operative societies would lower the cost of distribution and marketing. Is that the opinion of your Lordships? Is that the opinion of Lord Southwood? Next we are told that tariffs cause hunger and must be reduced. Who said that? Without any argument they put in a document at the Government expense that tariffs cause hunger and must be reduced. I deny that tariffs cause hunger, and on that denial I shall have the support of the great majority of your Lordships in this House. Tariffs do not cause hunger. Tariffs have not caused hunger. What is the meaning of this doctrine? And we are told that we must barter commodities in future. Britain does not believe that co-operative societies lower costs; it does believe in the individual trader, the small man. Britain does not believe that tariffs cause hunger; Britain believes that tariffs saved this country some few years ago from unemployment more terrible than anything we had confronted in our history. And Britain will not take to barter.

I object to the preamble of the document. The preamble recites "Freedom from want," and then the project outlines a plan for freedom from want in 1945 or 1949, or some other date, but no freedom from want now—not at all. My noble friend Lord Addison spoke in most enthusiastic terms about this document. He said it was a most ambitious document, a most worthy document. But this enthusiasm of my noble friend misleads the world, it deceives the world, it persuades the world to believe that out of this document we are to have freedom from want. I do not object to the Conference at Hot Springs. I am glad it was held. I hope more conferences will be held. My objection is to the overstatement of what flows from Hot Springs, when you hear my noble friend and other speakers. The enthusiasm for this Conference does nothing whatever to alleviate hunger now. At the Conference Russia asked for more food. The Russian delegation went to the Conference and asked for more food now, and the Conference said, "No we cannot talk about food now, we cannot talk about that, but come inside and we will prepare a menu for 1945 or 1949, and we can rejoice together over that menu."

Russia wants food at this moment. The Governments of Britain and the United States should labour together to provide more food for Russia now, forthwith. Why, it is said that one million people have died in Leningrad through want of food. We are holding food conferences to talk about 1945 and 1949, and one million people have died of starvation in Leningrad! There is hunger now in Moscow. The Russians are very hungry. This all comes at a time when Russia has lost one- third to one-half of her production of grain and three-quarters or more of her production of sugar. I plead with your Lordships—send more help to Russia now. Do not let us talk so much about the post-war world and all the things we are going to do. Let us perform some deeds now. Send more food forthwith. The greatest battle in history is going on in Russia at this moment. On six hundred miles of front a battle rages the like of which has not been conceived before. The Russian claims and the German claims of the destruction of tanks and aeroplanes are bigger far than anything that has gone before. The scale of this battle is comparable with any battle that has ever taken place, and I am criticized by my noble friend's paper for wanting to send more food to Russia now.

Sometimes in this House it is said that newspapers adhere too slavishly to the views and opinions of their proprietors. i have heard that accusation made against me. I congratulate my noble friend, for he adheres to the viewpoint of his newspaper. In 1929 he was a Conservative supporting tariffs, as I was, but he acquired an interest in the Daily Herald and forthwith began to appear in Socialist circles—he who had been a member of a Conservative Association. That report was published in a newspaper called the Weekly Dispatch over the signature of a responsible individual.

LORD SOUTHWOOD

He apologized for it.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

He did not. He said that the noble Lord belonged to the Conservative Association of Hornsey and contributed money to the association. That was stated in that newspaper. There was the accusation. He becomes a Socialist, and in no time at all we see him—Saul among the prophets—sitting on the Front Bench. He will hold the red flag flying here! Just the same, his newspaper will criticize me for wanting to provide foodstuffs for Russia now and here. His newspaper said that I called your Lordships' House a chatterbox. I did not. It was a mix-up. I did not call your Lordships' House a chatterbox. That is the name of one of my noble friend's important publications—Chatterbox. When he advertises for contributions for it he says they want no fairy tales.

I am not complaining, let it be understood, of the noble Lord's speech. I thought it was very fine. I am complaining of the high hopes held out in these speeches that cannot, and will not, be justified by events. I am complaining of the proceedings at Hot Springs being represented as something in the direction of relieving want. We have had all this before—all this and a great deal more, all this and far more, in 1918. In 1918 we had 196 Committees dealing with postwar affairs. I recommend your Lordships to get a document, Cmd. 8196—it is thirty to forty pages long—giving the name, members, and secretary of Committee after Committee dealing with post-war affairs. It gives the names of all the bureaucrats who were engaged in operating these Committees. Pamphlets, books, booklets, literature, and memoranda of proceedings were all published. And what came of the whole thing? These Committees were never acted upon. They were so many gold bricks, and it is my desire to expose the shine on the gold bricks. I am not against Committees—not at all—but I am against Committees being made use of to raise high hopes in the hearts of people who are afterwards completely disappointed. I am entirely against Committees set up by Ministers for the purpose of escaping from responsibility, as has been done over and over again, times without number.

These Committees should be examined in detail to see if (1) the Committee are in the nature of gold bricks setting up high hopes in the hearts of people; and (2) if they are Committees set up for the purpose of allowing Ministers to escape responsibility. If in either case this House condemns the Committees, I submit that this House will be doing well. The tragedies that followed the end of the last war flowed directly from these 196 Committees—"homes for heroes" and all the rest of it. The promises that were made by these Committees were responsible for the disappointments sustained by the people.

LORD ADDISON

They were made by the Prime Minister.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

That may be. I am not attributing them to anyone. The 196 Committees set up under the Prime Minister, and their findings, gave him the hope that he could provide homes for heroes, I suppose. I do not think he spoke without the encouragement of his Ministers and the belief that these Committees meant something when in fact they meant nothing. We must avoid the tragedy of the last war. This time we must provide for employment in the factories as in the fields, but we are not going to do it by talking about Committees or World Development Councils. We must place the responsibility for unemployment in the factories and in the fields directly upon the shoulders of the Government of the day, upon the Prime Minister who is then in office and the colleagues he selects for the Government. The most reverend Prelate referred to unemployment. After the last war, for twenty years we had more than a million unemployed year by year, and we were purchasing food from abroad to feed these unemployed. That was the folly of our economy after the last war, and I hope and believe it will not be the folly of the economy of our country when this war comes to an end.

Now is the time to make a plan. But the plans must be the responsibility of the Government, not of a series of Committees set up here and held there with members who owe no responsibility to the public. The duty must rest on the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Next time we are not going to have any Rhondda Valley, we are not going to have any Jarrow, we are not going to have any Durham or Cumberland; but if we are to avoid these things, and I am sure we will, we must place the responsibility here at home. We must lay the duty upon the Government and we must not let them ride off on any speeches or any accounts of international action for world-wide conferences.

VISCOUNT DAVIDSON

My Lords, I am not going to detain the House more than a very few minutes, partly because my voice is somewhat feeble. Perhaps I may say in my opening remarks that I will not; follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, into the far-off country into which he wandered in this debate. I must say also that I profoundly disagree with his concluding sentences. It is perfectly true that the Government must be made responsible for the policy of this country, but, unfortunately, full employment does not depend on this country alone. Unless we export we die, and unless we can sit round a table with other countries and come to international agreements as to the distribution of trade and. as to the development of the undeveloped, parts of the world, taking a long permanent view, there is no hope of maintaining full employment in this country. Therefore it is not a question of being fantastically idealistic, or impracticable, when such a suggestion is made by business men here and by many people abroad as well. The frightful results following the last war were mainly due to the fact that then, as now, trade channels had been altered in order to supply the necessary machinery for conducting the war. The normal channels had been interfered with, and after the last war came the demand, the insistent demand, for the removal of control. One pin was knocked out after another, chaos followed, and there was no machinery to take the place of the Government controls.

Many of us feel that the time has come now when the Government should do what they have done at Hot Springs—namely, call international conferences, whether with the United States jointly or by ourselves, in order that there should sit round a table the people who are engaged in and know the mechanism of trade, in order to come to some arrangement by which a machine can be devised for after the war that will enable the world's markets to be divided and us to have our share. I say for myself that I think the time has come now, because I am conscious that if the situation is allowed to drift vested interests may grow up which will influence or control, much to their detriment, not only our own country but other countries, and which, unless we sit down now and place all the cards and facts on the table, may redound to our disadvantage and the disadvantage of the world when peace comes. I believe the time has now come when these conferences should be called to discuss plans for the future.

There is one aspect of it about which I would like to say a word. I believe the post-war period will be divided into two periods, and that we are going to have a chance in this country of avoiding what we did not avoid after the last war. We will have time given to us when we can explore rapidly and work out to perfection international agreements with re- gard to the development of the world on a basis of expanding production, and also be able to get our own markets organized abroad. For some years after the war full production can be almost guaranteed, I should have thought, in this country and other countries by the rebuilding, re-equipping and reconstructing of destroyed Europe and the partially destroyed East. We therefore should have a breathing space in which we can perfect the machinery without which we cannot look into the future and feel that our people will have not only a stable but a rising standard of life, happiness and amenities. For these reasons I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Southwood has brought this Motion forward. It has called the attention of the Government to the especial need for not allowing the situation so to drift that when peace comes—and it may come like a thief in the night—we shall be found without any machinery to meet the situation which has arisen.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I think that the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, must, at all events to those who are like-minded with myself, have brought a great assurance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, took note of it. I am sure he did. I rise for a few minutes only in order to express to my noble friend Lord Southwood my appreciation of his action in bringing this vastly important subject before the House, and to reinforce the noble Lord who has just spoken. Notwithstanding the speech of Lord Beaverbrook, I am completely unrepentant. In common with the whole House, I listened with the utmost pleasure and enjoyment to the speech of Lord Beaverbrook, the greater part of which had no association whatever with the Motion before us. So far as I can see the provision of plans to prevent postwar unemployment have nothing whatever to do with the political allegiance of my noble friend Lord Southwood in the year 1929. There were a number of other points made by the noble Lord which had no connexion with the subject under discussion, but when the noble Lord had said all that, I derived very great comfort from his final observations. I came to the conclusion—the scriptural phrase does not fit with complete accuracy—that there is still hope for the noble Lord.

There is still hope for him because he said we must at all costs avoid the tragedies of the last war, that plans must be the duty of the Government to prepare, that we must have no more Rhondda Valleys and no more Jarrows. We are all agreed on that. The only question I suggest that we should ask ourselves is: How are we to avoid a recurrence of those tragedies? I think the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, pointed in the right direction, but I suggest that it is not right to describe the bringing forward of this matter for discussion as raising high hopes which cannot be realized. It is because we are afraid people will have high hopes that cannot be realized that we are exhorting the Government—I am sure quite unnecessarily—to pay close and practical attention to these matters. The Conference at Hot Springs, notwithstanding the criticisms of the noble Lord, produced one of the most practical documents I have read for a long time. It did indicate what ought to be done to prevent these things occurring. It was not simply an airy plan. I hope the noble Lord will re-read the speech I made on the subject. I hope he will agree that I faced the difficulties and did not seek to shirk them, but pointed to fundamentals which I think ought to receive a much greater share of recognition from the noble Lord than he has given them up to the present. I am not without hope in view of his concluding observations.

We shall never escape recurring mass unemployment until we can increase the purchasing power of the world. That is the bedrock. I say it does not raise high hopes to talk about it. It is the business of Parliament to direct attention to this matter of fundamental importance and the matter can only be approached through international action. That is why I think recognition at Hot Springs of the fact that the prime cause of unemployment is the gross poverty of primary producers all over the world, and that international action ought to be taken as far as practicable to lift up their standard of living, coupled with the fact that forty nations agreed upon the matter, is a very hopeful sign. It is true that it does not carry things very much further, but there is agreement upon something which the nations ought to desire to attain. In bringing the subject once more before your Lordships my noble friend Lord Southwood, notwithstanding his political tergiversations, has performed a real public service. I am not in the least interested in what he was in 1929; that has nothing to do with it. My colleagues will return to the charge on every appropriate occasion, because we know that the removal of the causes of unemployment is the only hope for the future.

We want His Majesty's Government to do all they can to encourage other Governments to do what they can to remove those causes. I am not suggesting that His Majesty's Government are not doing that. They deserve immense credit for Hot Springs. The Memorandum circulated to your Lordships' House before our delegates went to Hot Springs was, in my opinion, a document of first-class importance, and the world is under an obligation to the British Government for initiating and guiding that Conference at Hot Springs. It is only a beginning, but it is an essential beginning, and I hope the noble Lord sitting on this Bench with his vast influence, which I fully recognize, will not do anything to depreciate the continuance of efforts to explore the causes of unemployment and to remove them as far as we can.

LORD WARDINGTON

My Lords, I was unfortunately unable to be present to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, but I am very grateful to him for having brought up this subject for discussion. I believe, with other noble Lords, that there is no more haunting fear throughout the country generally than the fear of unemployment. The few remarks I want to make will be directed to the importance of using our export trade in getting rid of that fear. My noble friend Viscount Davidson has already referred to it, and I want to emphasize how essential our export trade is and how our life and our livelihood depend upon it. It is a commonplace to say that to your Lordships, who are aware that a large portion of our food and a large portion of our raw materials come from abroad and have to be paid for. They have to be paid for not only by our old exports but by all the new exports which we can manage to produce, because our former invisible exports have largely disappeared and the other alternative means of paying for food and raw materials by gold is under eclipse. All the things which plan- ners dream of—social security, freedom from want, freedom from unemployment—depend on our being able to maintain and increase our export trade.

So much do I feel this that if I were condemned to preach a sermon in the presence of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—heaven defend us both from that fate, although I think I am entitled to say there would be some poetic justice if I did threaten him with a sermon, because he has given those associated with me in business many homilies on our misdeeds and shortcomings—I think I should choose for my text something to this effect: "What does it profit a man if he gain the whole of the Beveridge Report and lose the wherewithal to put food into his mouth and work with which to employ his hands?" We have had many exhortations from different Ministers of the Crown, particularly perhaps from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on our export trade and the desirability of industry throughout the country making plans in advance, so that as soon as the war is over and transport becomes available they may get into the full stride of their export trade. But he has crippled them at the start with his 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax.

I do not want to say anything against the Excess Profits Tax in principle. It is repugnant to everyone that anyone should make undue profit out of the war, and I do not suggest that profits made in that way should be dissipated by distribution to shareholders as dividends. But it is rather absurd to insist on exporters having their plans ready so that immediately the war ceases they will be able to send their goods out all over the world, if they are handicapped by having 100 per cent. of these excess profits taken away from them and put into cold storage, so that they cannot renew their machinery and do all other things that are necessary in order really to get their export trade into full swing. When they try to carry out the exhortations of Ministers, when they make their plans, and send out their commercial travellers to discover what is wanted in foreign countries, to try to meet the demands of those countries, and to ascertain what prices are legitimate and how they compare with those of their competitors, they are then up against the cry: "We must not have any scrambling for markets; that is immoral. We must not have any cut-throat competition; these are things which must be done away with."

Really what is the poor manufacturer and the merchant supposed to do? If they turn to the Atlantic Charter for general principles, they find that co-operation internationally is essential in these matters, and spheres of influence are indicated as between nation and nation. If international co-operation and the division of spheres of influence is right and proper as between Governments, why is it held up to be absolutely the reverse of right amongst industrial concerns? If there is any agreement internationally between one firm and another, the word "cartel" is hurled at them, and they are subjected to abuse on the ground that they are trying to set up very anti-social monopolies. I entirely sympathize with them in that they are placed in the position of really not knowing which way they are supposed to turn. It is quite true that cartels are capable of great abuse. It is also perfectly true that they can be exceedingly useful, and not in the least anti-social; quite the reverse. They have very often proved capable of eliminating improper competition, of increasing the number of men they employ, and, above all, of reducing prices to the general community.

There has been, in recent years, a mass of literature issued upon this question of post-war planning. So much has this been so that one is really almost tired of the term. I have no doubt that your Lordships have suffered as I have suffered. I have no more room left on my bookshelves for the books which I receive and which I am told that I ought to read. My table is littered with pamphlets of every kind, some good, some bad and some indifferent, and my ears are getting dull through listening to the innumerable speeches and other exhortations that are delivered on this subject. I have done my best to read and to absorb as much as possible, but I find that I am left in a state of great confusion in regard to various general principles. If the Government can provide industry as a whole with a thread which will lead it out of the labyrinth and maze of all these different theories and principles they will be doing a most useful service to the country as a whole.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, I rise for a very few minutes to support most warmly the Motion which has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Southwood. He dealt in a very vivid manner with those issues that have promoted social unrest on an international scale, the natural product of which has been—as he pointed out so clearly—war. The noble Lord very rightly points out that the cause of this difficulty is an out-dated economic system that turns international trade, which should be a bond of union as between nations, into a fierce battle in which each attempts to get the other into a state of unpayable debt. We must, surely, never again allow a situation to arise in which men in need of the necessities of life are denied the money with which to buy such necessities, on the ground (for that is what they are told), that their labour is not required to produce more. Such a dreadful condition of affairs must not be allowed to develop again. The noble Lord, Lord Southwood, referred to the term "over-production." As he pointed out, the term was quite wrongly used. The term "under-consumption" more accurately applied to the picture of those pre-war years. Surely the economic system was designed to operate in a condition of a world shortage of consumption goods. The age of power production in which we live has changed all that completely. Therefore, what we require, as the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, said, and I fully agree with him, to meet the issue, is an economic system that will encourage and not restrict the demand for the necessities of life.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, there are few problems confronting the nation more worthy of the attention of your Lordships' House than that which the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, has brought before us to-day. He has rightfully, and usefully, called attention to the urgency of the matters with which he dealt. I think he will not resent my saying that what he gave us was more in the nature of a picture of the problem that we have to face, its magnitude and its complexity, rather than a specific cure for the evils which exist. The tone and quality of the speeches which have been delivered have shown the importance which your Lordships attach to this question. The need for accelerating plans to avoid mass unemployment after the war, whether by our own action as a single nation or, as the Motion states, "through international co-operation for the development of trade," is one which most people will admit and few will dispute.

There has been an implied censure—perhaps not specifically expressed—of His Majesty's Government for not giving sufficient attention to this great matter. It is an astonishing thing to me that in this country there is always praise for what Britain was and what she did, and nearly always dissatisfaction with and even reproach for what she is and what she is actually doing. My noble friend Lord Addison, with characteristic fairness, did admit that the Government had taken certain action which was commendable, especially in regard to the Conference at Hot Springs, but I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the record of His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter. Since the beginning of this year, this subject of national reconstruction, in one form or another, has been before your Lordships' House in no fewer than forty separate debates, and in another place there have been at least thirty debates, some of which have covered several days.

I do not know whether your Lordships can endure it if I give particulars of what has happened during the current month. On July 6 there was a debate on town and country planning, in relation to the Interim Development Bill, and on the same date there was also a debate, on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Addison, on the United Nations Conference at Hot Springs. On July 7, the question of agricultural equipment was brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill was considered in Committee. On July 13, the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, brought before your Lordships the question of civil air transport, "with special reference to the need for the organization of research and other educational facilities in universities, technical colleges and schools." On July 14, there was a debate on the proposed construction of a great ship canal between the Clyde and the Firth of Forth, a matter which was brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. On the same day, my noble friend Lord Nathan drew attention to the importance of the time factor in the preparation of schemes of post-war reconstruction. On July 15, we had the Report stage of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill, and there was also a Motion for the further expansion of scientific research, brought before your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Samuel, the debate on which was continued yesterday.

I venture to say, therefore, that the Government have really not been treading the primrose path of dalliance, nor have the Departments nor those on these Benches who have to answer for the Government been enjoying an undisturbed rest-cure. But, looking ahead rather than backwards, after this date there are on the Paper six Motions on post-war matters for which days have been assigned, and there are five Motions of a similar character for which no day has yet been named. I do not complain of this; after all, it is what Parliament is for; but it does show that the subject has not been neglected by your Lordships' House, nor has it been neglected by the Government, who have to reply to the criticisms made. We might generously remember that at the present time there is a very great strain on the Departments and Ministers, and the preparations necessary to meet the criticisms made in some seventy debates in Parliament constitute a slight additional burden upon them.

However much we may appreciate the need for avoiding mass unemployment, it is useful to say that mere generalizations do not help us. It is not possible to solve the problem by aspirations, by good will, or by general expressions of anxiety. The fact is that in life, as I have understood it, the reformer cannot go where the student has not been, and Governments cannot act unless it is clear what they should do. When it is clear, they should do it promptly. The noble Lord who introduced this Motion is able to assume, from the advantageous position which he occupies, that the right thing to do is to go straight ahead, minding nobody. The Government, however, are not quite in that happy position. The wailing of the anti-planner may be heard throughout the land every day. We are told that to plan ahead will further encroach upon our dwindling personal liberties, that there will be more forms to fill up and more typists to employ, and that it may even be necessary to set up another Committee. My noble friend Lord Beaverbrook was good enough to say—to the surprise, I think, of your Lordships' House—that he was not opposed to a Committee. I believe that is so, provided that it is a Committee of one, and that he is the member of it.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

That would be a good Committee!

LORD SNELL

Some of us have worked on Committees almost all our lives, and I do not know anyone who has been more Committee-driven than myself. We know that there are virtues in Committees as well as disadvantages. It is a great thing to get a body of men and women sitting together and hammering out the questions which confront us, so that when a decision is arrived at it is not the sudden, jumping conclusion of a single person, perhaps rather jaundiced after a not very good breakfast, but the decision of a body of men and women who have given voluntary attention to the subject and have given spiritually of their best.

The Government have the duty in these matters of carrying the nation with them in their proposals, and they cannot assume that hostility towards systematic planning does not exist. But what the Government can do, and what at all costs they will do, regardless of all criticism, is to determine what is right and possible, as far as they are able to determine it, and then carry out their decisions. This involves two major decisions—(1) what is possible and expedient; and, (2), a policy and a plan to make their decisions effective. There is no short cut in this matter. The way towards cure of all these problems is not clear. You cannot, I suggest, tear civilization asunder, you cannot burn up the savings of centuries, you cannot sacrifice precious human lives and then expect to cure the resultant evils by some magic formula. There is no one cause, there is probably no one remedy, and there is no ready-made cure. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, we all receive confident and allegedly infallible cures; they reach us by the dozen. They vary from decimal coinage to reformed spelling, and they are urged with all the assurance and innocence of enthusiastic inexperience. I do not know whether your Lordships remember that Carlyle, who influenced me a great deal, savagely attacked Dr. Morrison's "pills to cure earthquakes." That was before the time of my right honourable friend the Minister for Town and Country Planning and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, so he did not write it in relation to them. But I cannot help remembering, as far as I have understood life and politics, how very often the merely wise have to repair the damage of the good.

When we come to the terms of the Motion which my noble friend Lord Southwood has brought before the House, one notices that it covers so wide a field that it is difficult to select the point on which one should try to meet it. But in regard to the great question of international co-operation, that has been abundantly recognized by the United Nations, first through the Atlantic Charter on August 19, 1941. The terms of that Charter are well-known, and I need not do more I think than refer merely to one or two points. It provided for the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement, and social security. And in Article 6 it set out its aims for a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want. In regard to unemployment Lord Southwood's statements are incontestable. Only those of us who have known acutely the agony of unemployment know that it is not merely the physical privations that have to be faced, but it is the humiliation, the spiritual degradation of feeling that you are not wanted in the world, and that somehow or another you ought not to be there. Therefore I at least have no temptation to undervalue the urgency of the matter which the noble Lord has raised. But His Majesty's Ministers have made similar statements to that of Lord Southwood, and I do not want to delay your Lordships by quoting them, as they are well known in recent political declarations.

The question arises: What is the remedy? What definite thing can we do? It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook to assume that things can be done now without reference to the future. What wrong is there in thinking out what we ought to do in 1944, if we do our duty as far as we see it to-day? Does the noble Lord or anybody else think that we shall withhold from Russia at this or any time any help that we can give to her? So far as I could understand Lord Beaverbrook, what he would give them would be tariffs. I am not ingenuous enough to think I can satisfy her on those lines. And it is no business of mine to take up the cudgels on behalf of my noble friend Lord Southwood; but what does it matter what any man thought in 1929? It is his best judgment of to-day that is required. I think it was Emerson who said, "Say what you think to-day as loudly as you can say it, and then say what you think to-morrow as you may think to-morrow." I should be very sorry to be logically consistent throughout my life. I often wonder how I came to say such foolish things as I remember myself saying during the course of any one day. And if my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook was right in saying that he did not call the House a "chatterbox," it is nevertheless true that in much of what he said to-day he was "shadow boxing," which he claims is what he actually did say.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

I might add, in answer to the noble Lord's question, "Would I send tariffs?" No, I would send food. And furthermore, I would make plain to the noble Lord, before he criticizes me any further, that I am not blaming Lord Southwood for being a Tory in 1929; I am pointing out that his opinions followed his newspaper instead of the newspaper following his opinions.

LORD SNELL

Supposing that the newspaper were worth following, that is not a bad thing to do. What the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has done to-day has been to give us what I might irreverently call a new "Beaveridge" Report. I must not quarrel with the noble Lord further.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

That joke smells.

LORD SNELL

All I might say to the noble Lord is that there will be no war to-day. Some criticism has been made in regard to Hot Springs. I cannot help feeling that it is a great good thing if men from 44 nations can meet together and come to a common outlook and common purpose. That is a thing of the first promise for the world, and may lead indeed to the World Development Council which has been pleaded for. It seems to me to be clear that if the resolutions which they passed can be implemented and followed up they will approximate in time to that World Council that is desired. Let us for our part encourage it, and believe that from the effort so auspiciously started a great deal will come, other things will happen, opportunities will occur, and then the whole thing will blossom like Aaron's rod to the good of mankind.

I would like to say one word in passing with regard to a comment made by the most reverend Prelate who apologized for not being able to remain. He referred to the need for trade unionists in your Lordships' House. It is no business of mine, but I would like to say that I should watch their entrance into your Lordships' House with a calm and resolute courage. In regard to self-sufficiency, which Lord Southwood mentioned, the Government are at one with him in that respect. So also are statesmen of other countries. There is a world opinion growing up. We are transcending national barriers. That is how humanity has developed. There was first the love of the family, restricted to that. Then the idea widened to a conception of the parish or the tribe and eventually to the nation. Now we are transcending even that barrier, and begining to think of the whole world being bound together for a common good. Mr. Cordell Hull said that it is for all the nations to give and to receive help. We must have trade relationships with other nations, not merely because from exports we must partly live, but because we cannot grow within our own shores all the things that we desire. It was Nathaniel Hawthorne who said that the English people could hot grow fruit and other things with a sun that was crying its eyes out every day. We have to recognize that, and I am sure the way of development is not by building walls round ourselves, but rather by reaching out to further possibilities.

I need not trouble your Lordships with any further comments upon the criticisms that have been made. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to all the problems that are before us, and are doing the very best they can to shape a policy without undue waste of time. I fear I may not have done full justice to the speech and plea of the noble Lord. It is difficult for me to speak impersonally on matters upon which I have the deepest personal feeling, but I am sure that the more we are called upon, in this House and elsewhere, to think on these things the better we shall be able to act on lines which will lead to the realization of our hopes. The goal we are aiming at is to obtain greater measures of social security and general well-being. We have to plan as far as possible for the demoralizing misery of unemployment, and we have to plan for the benefit of all, not of sections, of our population. I end on a note of personal belief. It is that in spite of the manifold difficulties which surround us, I nevertheless feel that if we approach these problems with honesty, intelligence, vigilance, and courage all good things may yet be ours.

LORD SOUTHWOOD

My Lords, I have had the honour and privilege of being a member of this House for a little over six years, and I can say that most certainly in all that period I have never listened to a more sincere or eloquent reply than that we have had from the noble Lord. It touched me, as it must have touched every other member, most deeply, and it would be wrong on my part to criticize anything which the noble Lord said because he and I think so much alike. Therefore I am not going to attempt anything in the way of a second speech. I only want to say one or two things. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Beaver-brook, whose friendship I am proud to have, will not mind my mentioning one or two points.

The noble Lord suggested that I attacked monopolies. I did nothing of the kind, and to make the matter quite plain I shall, with the leave of the House, quote the words which I used. They are very short: I next put on my list the question of monopolies: I mean, of course, international monopolies known as "rings" or "cartels." I take the view that there is only one standard by which these organizations should be judged. Are they operating to the disadvantage of the community, or are they operating to the common good? I think it will be agreed that monopolies must be made the servants of the people, not their masters. Your Lordships will see that there was no attack on monopolies at all. I believe that monopolies can serve a useful purpose, but equally they can serve a bad purpose. That is a matter for conference and agreement. The noble Lord mentioned that I had said we should not send food to Russia. I have not the slightest recollection of ever having said so. I can definitely say I never said so in any of my newspapers. The noble Lord must have read that in some other paper than that which comes under my proprietary interest.

LORD BEAVERBROOK

Mickey Mouse!

LORD SOUTHWOOD

I know the noble Lord will not mind my saying this. He also complained that in one of my newspapers in a report of a speech of his we said that he had spoken of a "chatterbox," when in fact what he did say was "shadow boxing." I think it was a justifiable mistake. The report containing that term was sent out by a Press Agency and directly his Lordship called our attention to the mistake I apologized to him on the following day. Therefore I hope I made all the amends which could be expected of me.

I have no more to say except this, that I rather thought Lord Snell at the beginning of his speech took my Motion as being a vote of censure. I want to say definitely and clearly that it was nothing of the kind. No one realizes more than I do the tremendous magnitude of the task of the Government at the present time. All I am anxious for is that in dealing with the terrible task we have immediately before us we should not forget the future and should not, to use a hackneyed phrase, win the war and then, by our unreadiness, lose the peace. I am now satisfied from all the noble Lord has said that he and his colleagues in His Majesty's Government realize the urgency of the task of winning the peace as well as winning the war. I hope my Motion will have served some useful purpose. It only remains to me now to thank the noble Lord most sincerely for his remarkable reply and ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.