Lords Sitting of 20 March 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl Haig Took the Oath.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD AMMON: My Lords, we propose to have a very short formal sitting tomorrow afternoon at 4 p.m., as we are expecting to receive from another place the Dog Racecourse Betting (Temporary Provisions) Bill the passsage of which into law is urgent. I hope we shall have your Lordships' agreement to our taking this Bill through all its stages early next week, in view of the Royal Commission which is expected on Thursday next, March 27. I may perhaps also take this opportunity of informing your Lordships that we hope to be able to adjourn for the Easter Recess either on Wednesday, April 2, or on Thursday, April 3. After Easter, we shall resume the sittings for public business on Tuesday, April 15.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932. URBAN DISCTRICT OF BRIXHAM ORDER; URBAN DISCTRICT OF ELLESMERE PORT ORDER; URBAN DISCTRICT OF FELIXSTOWE ORDER:
LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Walkden, I beg to move that these Orderds be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section 1 of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECONOMIC SITUATION.
Debate resumed (according to Order) in the Motion moved yesterday by Lords
578
Rennell: to resolve that this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures hitherto taken and proposed by the Government to remedy the economic situation of the country.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, the raw material for the debate which began yesterday and is resumed to-day, was provided by the White Paper—Economic Survey (Cmd. 7046). The recurring theme of that Survey may be summed up in the word "gaps." There is the gap between purchasing power and the things available to be purchased—£7,000,000 of purchasing power chasing £6,000,000,000 worth of goods. There is the gap between the imports which we must have, in order to live, and the exports which we can make to pay for them, a gap for the moment precariously covered by the American and Canadian Loans. There is the general gap, to which reference is made in one part of the White Paper, between what we desire and the resources of manpower available for meeting that desire. I want to-clay to talk about another gap, riot so much a gap in the White Paper itself but a gap between the words of the White Paper and the actions, or inactions, of the Government. To my mind that is perhaps the most dangerous of all the gaps, although, for obvious reasons, it is not mentioned in the White Paper itself.
Your Lordships will realize, from my approaching the matter from this angle, that the picture presented by the White Paper is to me a very dark one indeed; and it grows darker the more carefully one studies the White Paper, if one reads not only the lines of that document but also between the lines. The White Paper sets out a target for coal production of 200,000,000 tons, indicating that that is indispensable but not enough, and we all realize how very uncertain it is whether even that indispensable, inadequate target will be reached. The White Paper tells us with regard to steel, perhaps with agriculture the next most important thing to coal, that a precarious balance is achieved by keeping steel exports to a minimum. The White Paper tells us that the position will get worse and not better. But it is when one looks at the balance of payments, which is the most urgent and serious matter of all, if one really studies the White Paper, that one sees that things are really worse than is indicated. It

579
states that we are going to budget for drawing £350,000,000 of the £950,000,000 American and Canadian credits remaining to us, but says it is quite certain that the actual drawings will materially exceed that figure.
If any of your Lordships have read (and I imagine that many of you have) those exceedingly interesting and authoritative articles on the balance of payments, which appeared in The Times last week, you will see the estimate that has been reached: that in 1947 we may expect to be drawing anything between £450,000,000 and £750,000,000, with £600,000,000 as a convenient middle figure, out of that £950,000,000. On that basis, some time in the second half of 1948, we in this country shall be in the position of having to live within our income and being no longer able to live upon borrowed funds. We all realize that that position is likely to arise some time in the second half of 1948. I shall be very glad if the Government can show that we are better off than that, but I do not think they can. If you look beyond, to the more remote future, you will see that when we have to live on our own resources, when we have to pay for all our imports by our exports, unless world trade increases enormously we shall ourselves probably have to do something like one-third of the whole trade of the world. It is quite impossible for us to expect to do that. It is utterly impossible for us to expect to do it unless our prices are very much lower than there is any immediate prospect of their being. In other words, unless we can greatly increase our productivity per head and cheapen the price of our products, we shall not be able to compete in the buyers' market which will ultimately replace the sellers' market. These are all things which are mentioned in the White Paper, but are not, I think, sufficiently brought out therein. So far as I can judge from the speeches of members of the Government, those facts have not sufficiently penetrated the active minds of the Government, although the theoretical minds may have been penetrated.
On top of all this, we know that the extraordinarily unusual weather has thrown us back in many ways. It has delayed our productivity and our export programme. It has certainly to a great extent reduced the possibilities of our
580
securing sufficient food from this country this year, and that means that we shall have to eat less or import more. We simply must realize that we are in for a very thin time this year. The whole standard of living in this country is in jeopardy, and not only the standard of living in this country but our influence in the world as a whole. Those two things are in jeopardy. To say that is not defeatist. I do not propose to go through the list of our assets which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned yesterday. He gave us a long list of our assets. I am only surprised that he did not mention, at the end of that list, that among our particular assets is the House of Lords, which is also a peculiar possession of this country, and I think a valuable one.
We need not be modest about our past achievements. When I read American journalists writing of us now as a country which is down and out, I suspect that if one had read what those same journalists said in 1940 and 1941 one would have found they were saying—as many of them indeed were saying—that this country was already defeated. They know now that we were able to do the impossible, and we were not defeated. Finally—I hope I shall be forgiven for mentioning this, because I have some connexion with it—I think in late years we have done something to show, through the development of social security, how you can get social justice and supply bread and cake for all, before cake and luxuries for a few. I mention that, not because I was connected with it, but as something which all the Parties and all the people in this country have achieved.
This country is not a "down and out" country; it is a wonderful country. But I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he says that the only thing that could defeat us is defeatism. Unfortunately defeatism is not the only thing that can lead to disaster. Another thing that can lead to disaster I describe simply, in the words of Dickens, as "Micawberism"—the trusting to luck; not facing facts, irresponsibility in the face of difficulty; not reconsidering one's attitude in new conditions and not cutting one's coat according to one's cloth. I suggest that there is still too much "Micawberism" in His Majesty's Government, and that is one of the dangers against which we should be preserved. I am delighted to think that in

581
saying anything in this House against His Majesty's Government I shall not be doing anything that is likely to bring about a change of Government. It is one of the fortunate things about this House that we can say exactly what we think. We can even vote the way we like, without bringing about a change of Government. Frankly, I do not want to bring about a change in the main personnel of the Government.
I want to be quite serious for a moment—I am quite serious all through, really—and to say that I am glad that we have a Labour Government to-day, a Government which can convince the mass of the people that however much they produce they have the power to get a fair share of that production; that they are sure of social justice if they choose to demand it. That is a very great asset of this Government which I want them to use in the interests of the country as a whole. I do not want to change the main personnel of the Government, but I would like to change a little the minds of some of the members of the Government on certain things. That is why I want to talk of what I may call some of the gaps between the words of the White Paper and the actions or inactions of the Government. As my time must be limited—I know that many of your Lordships want to speak, and should speak—I will deal with only two or three points.
I would like to take, first, this question of the balance of payments. We all know that we have not enough resources to get everything we want. The words of the White Paper emphasize the determination of the Government to put first things first. I want to know how a Government which put first things first can reconcile that with spending on tobacco and films nearly 40 per cent. of the dollars we spend in America—and dollars are the hardest currency in the world. I am quoting the figure which I believe was given recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. How can that be justified? Let me say at once that I can only describe as pitiable the defence put forward in another place by the President of the Board of Trade of the continuation of the purchase of as much tobacco as we smoke (which is far more than it was) and of American films. It cannot be right to say that people must have films to maintain their
582
courage. Our ancestors did not have films to maintain their courage. To say that you cannot ration tobacco, and that therefore you must allow as many American. dollars to be spent on it as people are willing to spend, does not seem to me to be an argument that makes any sense at all. I recognize that under the terms of the American Loan the purchase of American tobacco probably cannot be cut down without cutting down the purchase of all tobacco. If the Government are in that position, then I still say it is not putting first things first to put tobacco and films before the food and the raw materials which we may eventually find ourselves unable to buy.
To come to another gap between the words of the White Paper and the actions of the Government, I pass to the question of output per man-year. The statement in the White Paper that the Government cannot afford shorter hours unless this can be shown to increase output per man-year has been quoted by many of your Lordships. We all know that the action immediately following upon that announcement by the Government has been to accept finally the five-day week in the mines. I will come to that question in a moment. I only want to say about it here that I do not feel that one should accept the argument which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, yesterday, that since people have shown that they do not want to work more than five days on an average, nobody should be allowed to work more than five days. That is the argument which the noble Lord put forward. If he will look at the figures for 1937 he will find that the average number of shifts worked was well above that number; it was in fact 5.2. That was as recently as 1937—not in the time of our really hard-working fathers, but just ten years ago.
For the moment I am going to assume that there is a case for the five-day week in the mines, and I think there is the strongest case there can be; but I do not believe it has anything to do with raising output per man-year. The strongest case that can be put for the five-day week in the mines at sane time or other—and it is a good case—is that in order to attract men to the mines you must make the underground working conditions in some way definitely better than in any of the more pleasant or safer industries.

583
If you admit this argument, then it follows that it is essential that the five-day week should be confined to the mines and should not be spread to all the other industries, because all the other industries wanting to get labour will be trying to improve their conditions to get it, and if that happens, the reason for having the five-day week in the mines is destroyed—if the reason is, as I think it should be, that five days underground ought to be equivalent to six days anywhere else. I must say that I consider that is reasonable. But the Government are not in a position to insist upon that, because, on principle, they have no wages and hours policy; they say they will leave it to the employers and the trade unions to decide those matters. I hope the Government are going to consider what they can do, until the emergency is past, to prevent this continual spread of working less and asking for more money, because it will only be more money and not a higher standard of living that will be obtained in that way.
I want to say a word about the problem of output in general because, quite rightly, the White Paper emphasizes the fact that output per man-year is the thing that is vital. In the building industry, our labour force is up to the pre-war figure, but our output is horribly below it—I do not know how much below. The figures given in the White Paper are that in 1937, with about the same labour force as now, we were building 30,000 new permanent houses a month, whereas we are now building 8,000 permanent houses a month, with 12,000 temporary houses. It is said in the White Paper that there is a great difficulty about timber and raw materials, but I wonder whether that is the whole explanation. Ought not the Government to make a really penetrating inquiry into output in the building trade, to ascertain the facts and face them? So far as the difficulty is due to the absence of raw materials, does it not suggest that the planning machinery has broken down a little if we are allowing so much labour to go into the building industry when we have not the raw materials with which that labour can work? I am not sure that does not suggest that there is a defect in the general planning outlook of the Government. I think that is illustrated by the fact that they have here a plan for only one year, but it is a plan for trying to do
584
everything at once in that year, including the carrying through of a great re-equipment programme for industry. I suggest that they should consider spending not quite so much energy on re-equipping industry. Let us use the older machinery we have, and make certain that we get the raw materials for the man-power we have.
I want to give one other figure showing where output stands. We are told that—including coal, I think—the manpower which used to be engaged in working for export was 1,150,000, and that it has now risen to 1,476,000, or by about 26 per cent. Yet we know that the actual volume of exports has not risen in anything like that proportion; it has risen by perhaps only 10 per cent. That shows that, so far from our export manufacturing industry having benefited by the experience of the war and having a higher productivity, it has a lower productivity. I suggest that a really penetrating inquiry into the reasons why we are not producing so much per head is a matter which the Government ought to put in hand. They are having some discussions with the industries, but they might, I suggest, have begun that inquiry long ago.
As a final illustration, I want to come to the problem of coal, because we all know that that is the central problem. In 1946 the output per man-year was 259 tons, whereas in 1937 under the inefficient capitalist system of that day, it was 308 tons. I say deliberately and seriously "the inefficient capitalist system of that day." I am one of those who believe that our coal mining industry could have been made a great deal more efficient between the wars by diminishing the number of separate units by something approaching nationalization; and therefore I have favoured nationalization, if properly carried out. Let me say, however, that I would not agree with everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, in the excellent maiden speech with which he delighted the House. I would not agree with his argument that if we had nationalized before, we could have got our output up so much in 1937 that we could now afford to let it decline from that point. With regard to his comparison with the Ruhr, I would remind him that, after all, the Ruhr was not nationalized; and with regard to the Dutch mines which were nationalized, I would remind him that they happened to be quite new mines. Therefore, in order to get

585
the same result in this country, it would have been necessary to start with entirely new mines. That hypothetical argument about where we might have been if we had nationalized long before is a bit of ancient history into which I do not believe it is worth while to go now.
LORD SIMON OR WYTHENSHAME: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I did not say we should have obtained that large output if the mines had been nationalized. I said we should have got it if the mines had been worked in this country as well as they were worked in the Ruhr under a capitalist system.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I am not differing from that way of putting it. What I am suggesting is that the hypothetical argument of what we should have achieved by an increase in efficiency is not really to the point to-day, when all that we want to do, if we can conceivably do it, is to get back to the level of 308 tons per man-year which prevailed in the inefficient industry. If we were there, we should have a 20 per cent. increase in output, and we should get 230,000,000 tons in 1947. How happy everybody would be then! Why do we not get there? Why is the output down? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence mentioned as one of the reasons that, the total numbers being down, there was a reduction in the proportion of men al the face. That is true, but the reduction is very small. The proportion at the face was, I think, a little over 38 per cent. of the whole, and in 1946 it was more than 37 per cent. of the whole, so there is very little difference in it. Actually, the output per worker at the face has fallen; before the war it was three tons per shift per man at the face; now it is two and three quarter tons. That is a fact we know, as we know that absenteeism has increased. Instead of making a thorough investigation into why the output is down by as much as it is compared with 1937, what we get is the Government decision to adopt a five-day week for the mines.
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, gave us as a reason. that it was the considered view of the Government that since people had shown their unwillingness to work more than five days, the five-day week should be introduced. I paraphrase him, but I think that is the gist of what he said. What we know quite definitely is that at the present time anything from one-tenth to one-seventh of the output is produced on a Saturday.
586
think it is perhaps one-tenth when spread all over the country, but in certain parts of Scotland it is as much as one-seventh. Therefore, if we cut off the Saturday, in order to keep up output we must have an increase of output of that magnitude. Have the Government satisfied themselves that this increase of output per man will come about? Because if they have not so satisfied themselves, then they have gone directly contrary to the words of the White Paper that there must be no decrease of hours unless it can be shown that there is an increased output. When I come to look at how this actual change to a five day week has come about, I must confess that I feel very unhappy about the procedure. We were told that it was the Government's view that a five day week should be introduced. Is this not rather a technical matter, on which we ought to have the view of the National Coal Board, who should tell us what are the chances and under what conditions we can hope to maintain and increase the output when we are working five days instead of six? We have not had that. I suggest that this is a case of the Government intervening politically in what is essentially a technical question.
An announcement was made in June last by the Minister of Fuel and Power in which he said that the Government offered no objection in principle to a five day week provided that arrangements and conditions could be established, with the full co-operation of the miners, which would result in an organized five day week of a kind which would secure the output of coal necessary to meet the country's needs. I have no idea why that announcement was made then. The effect of it was to make the miners sure that they were going to get the five day week without any conditions, and before any conditions had been settled. Then it was left to the National Coal Board to make the conditions. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to tell me what is going to be done about wages. I mention wages, because only the other day I was talking to an employer who has introduced a five day week in his works—he has had it for a long time. When the workers asked him for the five day week he said, "Certainly you can have it, provided you do not alter the piece rates." They accepted that, and very shortly every-I body was actually earning in five days

587
as much as they had earned in six days. Are the miners going to accept no change of piece rates or wages, and earn as much in five days as they were earning before in six? I do not think any announcement has yet been made upon that point.
What really happened was that in June last year, in what I must describe as a rather Micawberish exuberance of the moment, this post-dated cheque for the five day week was drawn by the Minister of Fuel and Power which the Government is asked to sign. I speak of "Micawberish exuberance," because it was about that time (unless my memory is wrong) that the electricity companies said that they foresaw they would have to ration or otherwise restrict the use of electricity, and the Minister scouted that suggestion as unwarranted. I think also about that time the Minister of Fuel and Power was sympathizing with the objection of the miners to taking in foreign labour, saying that he would like to see British boys going into the mine. As we all know, there has been a great delay in that most necessary increase in the labour forces. Finally, before that time there was a period when we were not looking forward to what has happened and when it seemed clear from the stocking policy that the Government was counting upon a fine winter such as we have sometimes had before. I suggest again that that was purely a Micawberish instinct which has now come home to roost, and for which we are now suffering. We all know that the Government, like Mrs. Micawber, will never desert Mr. Micawber in this matter. I do not want to say anything against any particular Minister, but I would perhaps remind your Lordships' House that it does not always happen that a Minister who makes a resounding crash continues to be indispensable. We all know cases in this House of Ministers whose particular policies were not approved, and who left the Government while the Government continued. We also know that in the Senior Service a Captain who loses his ship, however honourable he may be, probably does not continue in charge of a ship. However, I recognize that the Government is Mrs. Micawber and will never desert Mr. Micawber.
Indeed, I find it difficult to avoid thinking of this Government a good deal in terms of a Charles Dickens' character—
588
not perhaps the character whom we should most admire, if they will allow me to say so. There was a certain character who, when he was doing something else, continually brought King Charles' head into it. The Government are always bringing the King Charles' head of nationalization into anything they do, whether appropriately or inappropriately, and also their dislike of the profit motive. I sympathize a good deal with the Government about the profit motive in regard to some things, but I feel a little sad that they should be taking so violent a dislike to the profit motive in the basic industries which are only trying to serve the community as a whole. On the other hand, we all know that the profit motive in some of its least useful and least noble forms is absorbing manpower, time and money—in betting and gambling in pools. If the Government would turn their attention to stopping the profit motive in these absurdly had and wasteful things, instead of interfering with the people who are running the basic industries, I am sure they would be using their time to better effect.
Now I must bring my remarks to an end. I want to say finally that our standard of living and our influence in the world arc in jeopardy. They cannot be saved by going on just as before. They can only be saved by a change of behaviour by all of us—the people as a whole, the leaders of various sections of the people, the employers, the trade unions and, above all, the Government. The people of this country must be brought to face the fact that the war caused more destruction than we realized. It has brought awful destruction all over the world, and it has also brought the destruction on of our position in the world. I hope the people of this country will realize that it is really not possible for this country to win a war. It may defeat the enemy, but it is bound to lose by any war, because its economic life depends upon the international co-operation of all nations. Therefore, any war is bound to leave us far poorer and with a far harder life than we had before. That fact is important, because your Lordships know that if you talk to people in this country they say, "We won the war; ought we not to be comfortable now?" The answer is, "No, because you cannot win wars in that sense."
We want a change in the attitude of the individual and we want a change, of

589
course, in the attitude of the leaders of the workers; that is, the trade union leaders. If only the trade unions would suddenly turn round and realize that the most important thing for them to do is to increase productivity, and realize that so far from thinking only about higher wages and shorter hours they need not worry about the division of profit any longer because they will always get that in due course, how much better would things be ! Finally, there must be a change in the Government's mind, and I do not see sufficient change in the Government's mind. I have read every one of the speeches made in another place in a recent debate on behalf of the Government, and it seemed to me that there was too much looking for alibis and almost rejoicing in the weather because it gave them a let-out, too much waiting on Mr. Micawber and too much bringing in of the King Charles' head of nationalization. I therefore support the Motion moved by my noble friend, Lord Rennell, not so much upon what the Government have done or not done in the past, but upon the insufficiency of what they propose, because I find they have no new proposals for the future.
I hope the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will make quite a different speech from any speeches hitherto made on behalf of the Government—a speech showing that we propose to cut waste upon tobacco and films; a speech showing that the Government will stop, either by agreement or, if that cannot be done, by legislation, this absurd pursuit of shorter and shorter hours for more and more money until we are through the emergency; a speech showing that they will get to the bottom of the reason why our output is so low; a speech showing that they will plan for years ahead instead of for one year at a time, and, finally, that they will make a study of manpower and how best to use it. If the noble Lord can make a slightly different speech from the ones we have already had from all other Government speakers, I for one will rejoice, and I am sure all noble Lords in this House will rejoice.
4.43 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I listened yesterday to a great variety of most interesting speeches. Noble Lords tactfully refrained from any criticism—at least so long as I was in the Chamber—of the Government, and they were
590
duly congratulated by the Government spokesmen on their statesmanlike approach to the problem. I confess I find a little difficulty in emulating them, and I have no doubt I shall be castigated by my noble friend—if I may call him so—Lord Pakenham, when the time comes for him to reply. In his speech, the Secretary of State for India referred again and again to the Plan apparently written with a capital "P" The Prime Minister in his broadcast also referred frequently to this wonderful plan. So far as we can make out, however, no plan has been set out in black and white. When I see Ministers congratulating one another and the Government on this beautiful plan, I cannot help thinking of the fairy tale of the Emperor who was flattered by his Court on his beautiful clothes, until a small street arab, not duly coached, burst out, "Why, he has not got any clothes on at all." I do not wish to suggest that there is any similarity between my noble friend, Lord Rennell, and the street arab, but he did seem yesterday to expose the fact that the Government did not have any plan at plan all.
When I moved for Papers concerning the economic position ten months ago I was criticized for giving way to gloom. I do not think any one to-day would repeat that criticism. I do not refer to the fact that India and Btu-ma are on their way out of the Commonwealth, that we have lost control of Suez, nor to our waning prestige. I am concerned with economic matters—food, work, and homes, which it was agreed are the primary needs of the people. Our rations to-day, at 1,400 calories, are worse than at any time during the war; something like 2,000,000 persons were thrown out of work at a week's notice as a result of Government action, or rather inaction. And the number of permanent houses built since the Socialist Government came into office has been most disappointing. It is less than the number built every two months before the war Although the Government collected 40 per cent. of the national income in taxes this fiscal year, the Chancellor budgeted for a deficit of f600,000,000; and although imports were less than 70 per cent. of what they were pre-war, we had to finance by borrowing abroad a deficit in the balance of payments of £150,000,000. three-quarters of which is in hard currency.

591
Meanwhile the buying power of the pound in this country has decreased in one year by two shillings, and its dollar value abroad, whatever the official rate of exchange may be, is so low that it is being refused in some South American republics. Although we have the same number of people producing for home civil use as in 1938, shortages are almost universal. And although we have 30 per cent. more people working for export, our meagre imports cost us £200,000,000 more than what we obtain for the goods we send abroad. And our hope of reducing or cancelling our adverse balance of trade has now been set back at least another six months by the complete dislocation and stoppage for several weeks of industrial output owing to the disgraceful failure of the Government to maintain coal stocks at the minimum distributional level. This is the lamentable position of the country, after less than two years of a Socialist planned economy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered Party speeches up and down the country. He tells us he has a song in his heart. I do not know what it is, but if he has any sense of the fitness of things it must be something out of the Beggar's Opera. I do not deny that the Government have very difficult problems to face, nor do I pretend that all these calamities are of their making, and I do not for a moment dispute their good intentions. But I do say that instead of getting the country back to work they wasted time and effort trying to force upon it some sort of prefabricated Utopia which could not come into effect for many years even if it were workable and which most of our countrymen would hate if they ever got it.
I will now consider one or two points. The question of inflation has been mentioned. In the last quarter of 1945 prices had risen over the last quarter of 1944 by 1.6 per cent. in the case of manufactured material, and 3.6 per cent. for building material. If we compare the last quarter of 1946 with the last quarter of 1945 we find that manufacturing materials have gone up by 9 per cent. and building materials by 15 per cent., and with a drop of between 2s. 0d. and 3s. 0d. in the there is a loss in the value of everybody's savings or covenanted benefits.
In these circumstances it is difficult to reconcile our consciences with the ad-
592
vocacy of the investment in Savings Certificates if there is a prospect of their dwindling in value without limit. do not know whether the Government have considered the suggestion made in another place that the Savings Certificate value at any rate for the smaller amounts should in some way be linked with prices. I do not wish to go into detail about the causes of inflation or—as I think it is more fashionable nowadays to call it—inflationary pressure. We all know that cheap money is one of them. A second important point is that a large amount of capital is overhanging the market which will become liquid when the various industries are nationalized. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, yesterday denied that, but I cannot say that he carried me with him in his argument. He said that these quantities of money were available now, whether they were in the form of shares in coal mines or in Government securities. But surely there must have been very many family coal mines and great businesses, in which people had their money invested, which they fostered and built up and which they did not sell and thus put the money Into circulation. All that money will now be available in Government securities, and will be just as liquid as any other.
Another important factor in causing inflation is the unbalanced Budget. Perhaps even more important are the large amounts of money which have been paid out and which do not figure in the Budget, such as refund of Excess Profits Tax, compensation and the like. If we want to check inflation—and I hope we do—the only thing we can do is to 'balance the Budget. But I would suggest that that ought to be done by economies, and not by increasing taxes. Extra taxes, as I think I showed last year, must inevitably come out of the pockets of the workers, for there is nothing morn left in the pockets of the rich. If the workers find that they have less money to spend they will demand higher wages; that 'will mean higher prices, and the fatal spiral will be almost impossible to stop. I do not wish in the slightest to question the validity and the desirability of all our social services, but I think there is something to be said for making the contributions pay for the insurances. Why should we fool the worker into thinking that he is getting something for nothing; that the Treasury is paying, when what it really means is

593
that the workers pay, for, as I have said, there is nothing left in the pockets of the rich?
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has said, all these things arc dwarfed by the impending imminent catastrophe which the failure to balance our trade is likely to call down upon the country. It is not a matter of the slow fall in the value of the money, but of positive bankruptcy and famine staring us in the face. No doubt it would have been very nice to eke out the American and Canadian Loans until the election. But that prospect has been blighted by the rise in American prices and also by extravagant Government expenditure abroad. Again, of course, the prospect of the achievement of any sort of equilibrium has been set back many months by the fuel crisis. The position, as Lord Beveridge has said, is worse than appears in the White Paper. It is not merely a matter—though this is bad enough—of whether we will be able to maintain our exports at the desired level when the sellers' market vanishes, as it is in process of doing. There is the formidable difficulty that whereas 42 per cent. of our imports come from dollar areas, only 14 per cent. of our exports go there. Unless the Government alter this fatal ratio in the corning year, it means that we shall have to pay £440,000,000 straight out of the Loan merely to finance our dollar purchases. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said yesterday that the Government were going to reduce the margin of exports to soft currency areas. Eighty-six per cent, is going there now, and I call that rather a large margin.
There is another point as to the convertibility of current account sterling credits which comes into effect on July 15. I do not know how much the amount involved will be, but it may be very large. There is also the dollar expenditure in Germany. If we make allowance for these factors, far more than half the margin of credits will go in a single year. I submit that exports to-day are useless unless they are paid for quickly in either gold or dollars. It is no use chalking up a credit on the slate or, worse still, crossing off or cancelling some paper debt to-day; that is merely to use manpower and effort in making for no return, something which we ought to sell elsewhere. A case which I have very much in mind in this respect is that of the sterling balances of India
594
and the Middle East. How, for instance, are exports reckoned that go to India and the Middle East? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that balances held by sterling area countries in the United Kingdom had diminished by £149,000,000. What does that mean? Presumably that our debt was written
down in return for exports. If so, our real trade balance should appear as £149,000,000 worse. Anyone who has looked at the question of these Middle East and Indian debts must realize that they are grossly inflated. Contracts were placed at extravagant prices, even judged by local conditions. Rupees were converted at Is. 6d. although inflated to less than half their value.
Then the United Kingdom was charged for all the defence works and all the effort which we had to make to defend India and the Middle East against the Japanese and the Germans. Surely, in justice, these countries ought to pay for their own defence. At any rate, we ought not to be charged three times what it cost. In my view, sterling balances ought to be blocked until permanent arrangements are made about these things. I very much hope they will be scaled down or funded over some very long period at negligible rates of interest. But we ought not to allow these countries to make hay while the sun shines, and get a lot of exports merely by crossing something off their inflated balances. What matters now is that current exports should balance current imports—not whether we nibble at these paper debts—£2,000,000,000 or £3,000,000,000 to India and the Middle East. In equity, at least half ought to be written off. Britain cannot be the milch-cow of the world. It is time that the small Allies realized that we were all in the war together, and it is not Britain's duty to pay them for any effort which they made, or to replace every ship they lost.
Another point relates to terms of trade. In December, 1945, I notice, the terms of trade were about level in 1938. We paid about 1.96 times as much for what we bought and we got about 1.96 times as much for what we sold. In December, 1946, imports had gone up in price by 13 per cent., whereas the price of exports had gone up only 5 per cent. That sounds a fairly small difference, but on these vast sums it makes a difference of something like £70,000,000. I think we ought to make an effort to get higher

595
prices for our exports while the sellers' market lasts. No doubt we shall be told that it is important to establish markets abroad for the later period when the buyers' market supervenes. But we do not get any credit for the cheap goods that we sell abroad; the middle man takes it all; and when other countries reduce their prices and we have to export in competition with them we shall be very much at a loss if we find that we are not able to reduce ours.
The prices we pay abroad, of course, are very high, and many of us think that this is largely on account of the Government bulk buying. Argentine wheat, we know, is bought by us for twice as much as the farmer in the Argentine receives. Linseed oil, I am told, used to cost £23 a ton, and it is now selling at £200 a ton. Then, of course, we get the celebrated King Charles' head that I have raised many times—the buying of these dried eggs instead of buying maize and feeding our poultry. We are told that the maize has to go for human consumption in the Balkans. If this is so, it is a strange thing that the Balkans are able to feed their poultry and to export poultry and eggs to this country. I am not going into the question of films and tobacco, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, dealt with that fully. But I would point out that together they make up only 14 per cent. of our expenditure; 86 per cent. of our expenditure is on food and raw materials. If we could cut the latter expenditure by io per cent.—as many think we might, if we were to cut out this Government bulk buying—it would more than pay for our tobacco and films. When we find the Government insisting on closing the cotton exchange and doing it all themselves, I think they might give some attention to the fact that the prices of our imports have gone up very much more than the prices of our exports.
What can we do about this balance of payments? Of course, the first thing to do is to try and foster agriculture, so as to grow more food here and not to import so much. I do not deny that the Government are trying their best to do that. Another point is the enormous amount of money which the Government are spending abroad. In 1946 they spent £300,000,000 abroad. Before the war we spent £13,000,000 abroad; now we are spending twenty-three times as much—
596
more than enough to pay for all the wheat and all the meat we import, In 1947 they propose to spend £175,000,000 abroad. I do not know where this is to go; presumably a good deal goes in the £120,000,000 which it costs us to administer Germany. I do not know where the £58,000,000 comes into it—the amount that it was recently found had escaped notice and had been acquired by members of the Forces and of the Control Commission in Germany, who had been selling cigarettes in the black market and exchanging the marks for pounds. I do not know where that comes in exactly, but I am sure that no one in this House will echo the description of it in another place as a "merry game."
I have always vigorously opposed this desire of ours on administering Germany. I maintain that all we needed was a small number of troops in armed camps in that country who could have made sure the Germans did not do anything we forbade them to do. They had got into the mess, and it was their business to get out of it. They could have done it much more cheaply than we can, and probably much better, because they know their people, they know all the circumstances, and they know how to get their people to work. Of course, a few minor Nazis would have remained in office, but I do not think that would have mattered very much. They would have been blamed, instead of us, for all the restrictions and shortages, and anything we could have done would have been mat with gratitude instead of, as now, with complaints for any shortage that arises. Then, again, another part of our expenditure abroad is the running sore of Palestine, involving an expenditure of something like £40,000,000 a year. The Government seem to make the worst of both worlds wherever they go. We cannot leave Palestine because there might be riots between the 2,000,000 inhabitants, but we must quit India and leave 400,000,000 inhabitants to tear each other to pieces. It does seem to me that with a logical approach a good deal of this £300,000,000 could have been saved, and I hope the expenditure of £175,000,000 which is forecast for 1947 will be justified and explained before it is spent, and not afterwards.
What are the root causes for our present unhappy situation? Noble Lords opposite would no doubt like to say "Twenty years of Tory misrule." That seems to me to

597
be the slogan outside. I would point out that between 1924 and 1938, in spite of this "Tory misrule" and private enterprise, in spite of the economic blizzard which burst upon the world and which we were told was the worst in history, the national income went up by more than 16 per cent. and real wages went up by mere than 17 per cent. All this harking back to twenty years of Tory misrule is really rather out of place. I cannot help recalling a comedian who used to describe his first efforts to entertain the public. He would explain: "I came on amidst a burst of applause after a certain singer. When had finished my turn, would you believe it, that ignorant public harked back to the singer and started hissing and booing."
The root cause of our disaster is, as has been frequently said, the drop in output. We have more people in civil employment than before the war. We have 30 per cent. more in the export trade, we even have 17 per cent. more men in the coal industry digging for home consumption. For those who believe in it, we have 45 per cent. more people in the Civil Service. Why are we all not very much better off than we have been before? The reason is that we had this drop in production generally, and above all, this drop in output per head. I need not go into the question of building, which has been admirably exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. I do think that one of the most important things for the Government of to-day is to go into this question of restrictive practices which the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, described, and try to get rid of them. More than anything else they stand in the way of increasing productivity.
In the coal mines, as has just been said, the average output has dropped from 299 tons in prewar days to 270 tons. Lord Simon of Wythenshawe tried to put that down to Tory misrule. I think it is only right to point out that, if we except the year of the great strike, 1926, productivity rose steadily from 1922 to 1937 in spite of the horrors of private enterprise. Every year from 1922 to 1937 the output per head was greater than the year before, except in the year 1923 and in the period 1929 to 1931—periods, if my recollection is correct, in which a Socialist Government were in office. I do not want to make too much of 'that; coincidences are sometimes unkind; but I think it only right
598
to mention the fact. The real handicap of the coal mines, as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said, is the Coal Mines Act of 193o, with all the quotas and so on. The effect of that was to keep alive the bad mines at the expense of the good mines. The reason the Germans and the Dutch increased their output was because they got rid of the bad seams and concentrated on the good seams. Now, if ever, is the time for us to do that.
The only economic excuse for nationalization surely was that it would facilitate this. Of course, we shall be told it would mean moving a lot of miners. do not think that is quite so bad as it is pictured. 1 once looked into the matter during the war and came to the conclusion that by moving people's places of work by a very few miles, great improvement could be made. I hope the Government will look into this question. Of course, now that the coal industry is nationalized it will he a great achievement if the Government can increase productivity. They will no doubt attribute it to nationalization. I shall then be compelled to point out the fact that in the nationalized French mines productivity is down 20 per cent. on the pre-war level, whereas that of the French mines in private ownership is nearly up to the pre-war level. One will always find some statistics to support one's contention.
I now come to the maldistribution of manpower. I emphasized this difficulty at considerable length last year, and think that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who replied, seemed to think that it was manageable. It is very easy to demobilize soldiers if you come to the conclusion that you have got too many; or even if the Government are strong enough, it is easy to discharge some of the extra 665,000 civil servants that have come into employraent—almost as many people as are engaged in the whole of the mining industry. Of course, as we all know, the trouble is how to make sure that these people go into essential industries. With prices and conditions apt to be controlled and wages, therefore, inelastic, how can one prevent those people going into football pools and that sort of occupation, where there are enormous profits and which are able to pay enormous wages? I very much hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will tell us whether the Government accept the totalitarian solution which I think was

599
advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
LORD STRABOLGI: What is the alternative, may I ask?
LORD CHERWELL: If I were sitting on the Government Bench I should do my best to reply. Before coming to the reasons for the fall in output, I must say a word or two about the terrible body blow delivered on our reeling economy by the fuel crisis. I need not go into the whole sorry story of Government ineptitude and mismanagement: how impending catastrophe was plain ten months or more ahead when it was quite clear that stocks must fall below the distributional minimum; how warnings were given and brushed aside; how no attempt was made to buy coal abroad, or spread the shortage by the Minister who, on his own confession, was the only person in the country who did not realize that a fuel crisis was coming. The Minister of Health, I think, said in the election campaign in 1945: "In an island like ours, almost made of coal, only an organizing genius could produce a shortage." Well, the shortage is here. I think we may leave it at that. What are you going to do about it? The Government, very rightly, are determined to build up our stocks so that we do not again have another of these crises, and fall below the distributional minimum. How do they propose to do it? Apparently the possibility of expanding the intake does not seem to cross their mind. We are to have more restrictions and control." Domestic space heating "—a typical Civil Service euphemism for a fire in a living room—is to be forbidden for six months this summer. I believe that summer officially begins to-morrow. Industry, which, as we have seen, could not produce enough in 1946 for our needs, internal or external, is to be cut in 1947 to 8o per cent. of last year's consumption.
Surely it should be possible, in such a critical moment, to find 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 tons of coal in some part of the globe, even if you cannot persuade the miners to dig it up, which they could do merely by raising their productivity to pre-war levels. It is sheer defeatism, a counsel of despair, to throw up the sponge and go in for all-round restriction. Is the whole of our industry to be throttled for the sake of 3 to 5 per cent. of our annual coal output? Is the whole of our
600
export drive to be hamstrung for the sake of 1 per cent. of the annual American production? We have suffered enough, in all conscience, by the dilatory incompetence of the Ministry in charge of this particular industry. The Government must try to battle against this spirit of complacent resignation. Coal in 1947 is as important to us as munitions were in 1940.
I now come to the re-equipment of industry. I was very pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, said about that, because I think the importance of it is greatly exaggerated. It is so easy to say that salvation lies in re-equipment rather than in hard work, but I maintain that it is quite false. Take the coal industry, about which we have heard so much. I wonder whether noble Lords realize how much coal is already cut mechanically. As much as 75 per cent.
of our coal is cut mechanically, and 70 per cent. is carried mechanically. We are not going to make a vast difference by converting the last quarter to machine cutting. Consider the fact that between 1938 and 1944 the proportion cut mechanically rose from 6o per cent. to 72 per cent.; yet the output per head during this period dropped from 299 tons to 270 tons. It is an absolute delusion, and a dangerous one, to think that mechanization, rather than hard work, will solve our problems. Of course, every one likes to have the best equipment, especially if one gets it at the expense of the Treasury. There is then a great temptation to make out a case for getting it But if we look at it from the national standpoint, that is all wrong. We must get a proper balance so that the effort in renewing is equated to the effort saved by using new machinery. That is one of the great advantages of double shifts. In double-shift work machines are used up twice as quickly and replaced twice as often. That is why, in my view, we often find that American plant appears to be more modern than British plant.
The four main causes, in my view, for falling productivity are these: In the first place, there is under-nourishment. A consumption of 1400 calories a day, plus 200 from points, is not enough. In Germany, according to the Chancellor of
the Duchy, 64 per cent. of the population get between 2500 calories and 3990 calories. I think it is quite likely that the apathy to which the most reverend Primate called our attention, and the general drop in output in this country is

601
due to shortage of food. I am not going to enter to-clay into the question of the alleged world food shortage. I think noble Lords realize that I do not believe it is genuine. I believe we are suffering by reason of the fact that other countries put up exaggerated claims, which we take seriously and then allow ourselves to be cut unnecessarily. Of course, if the Minister of Food parades America asserting, quite inaccurately, that we are better fed than we were before the war, it is not surprising that we do not get any increased allocations from the International Emergency Food Council to whose good graces the standard of life of our people has apparently been handed over.
The second factor is one which was also. mentioned, arid that is the shortage of raw materials. That has been, and I believe in increasing measure will be, one of the real reasons for our decreased output. All our raw materials, except coal and a certain amount of iron, come from overseas. We imported only 72 per cent. of the pre-war amount last year, and if it had not been for using up a great deal of stocks we should have found that our production would have dropped even more than it did. Unless factories can get more raw materials they cannot produce more manufactures. On top of the general difficulty, of course, is the question of bottle-necks. Unless you have incredibly efficient control, you are bound to find that allocations do not exactly match one another, factories using semi-manufactured materials are unlikely to get the exact quantities punctually from their suppliers, the whole rhythm of production is interrupted and of course output drops: and if you divide output by the number of men employed, you say, "Oh, output per man is down."
Therefore we must try hard to increase our stocks of raw material, and not to get down to the distributional minimum, the importance of which has been made so painfully clear in the case of coal. The third big handicap is bureaucratic interference. As was said yesterday, this not only diverts workers to the Civil Service, but it diverts typists and clerical labour to filling in forms, and holds up production simply by the delays caused. Previously, if a manager of a factory was short of coal he would ring up the supplier and order Too or L000 tons, or whatever it was, to be delivered. Nowadays he has to go to the local fuel
602
controller, and probably from there to the regional fuel controller, who asks for further and fuller particulars, and probably weeks elapse before the unhappy factory manager can get what is required to work to capacity.
The most important reason has been mentioned several times, and that is the psychological reason. Wages in this country are seldom directly proportional to output. If, on top of that, a man who produces a lot has his income cut by taxation, it is certain to be a great impediment to effort. The rich man, we are told, ought not to worry about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that the rich man pays his super-tax with pleasure. I am not really an expert on these matters, but, at any rate, I am sure that the poor man does not pay his tax with any pleasure, especially when any extra earnings he gets have to be spent in shops which are pretty well denuded of goods. Of course, it looks like the wicked profit motive coming in. But I believe the Labour Government have now made an honest woman, or an honest motive, of the profit motive by calling it incentive. This happened in Russia a long time ago. Nearly all work in Russia is piece-work. If the Government can persuade their colleagues, or masters, or whatever they are, at Transport House, to accept some change in the wage structure which directly links wages with output, I believe our production will leap forward and half our difficulties will be at an end.
The last and perhaps the biggest hindrance to production is generations of Socialist propaganda. They have preached in season and out of season, that the great part of the national wealth was swallowed up by the wicked capitalist; that once they, the Socialists, were in power they would increase the standard of life and everybody would have his hours of work reduced, simply by soaking the rich. As I pointed out last year, if you took everything away from everybody down to £750 a year, it would increase by only two and a half per cent.—that is sixpence in the pound—the national income. So there is nothing more to be got from soaking the rich. But the poor Socialist dupes still stick to their illusion. They think they can get an increased standard of life with less exertion, and nothing will persuade them that the standard of life they get is directly proportional to the amount

603
which they produce. Can you blame them when you have the Minister of Health saying:
"Expanding exports are the silly will-o'-the-wisp private enterprise is compelled to pursue by underpaying its workers and eliminating its own markets."
Or the Minister of Fuel and Power when he says:
"Increased exports are demanded. There never was a greater fallacy. You might imagine if you fail to increase exports this country's standard of living will diminish."
Or the Minister of Food when he says:
"Hard work will not make the workers any richer. You remember the 'Produce more' cry. I suppose we shall get it again."
Well, we have got it again.
Can you wonder that, with slogans of this sort in their minds the workers disbelieve the Government's exhortations and go on pressing for their five day week, or their forty hour week? If they get it—they can get it no doubt—it will mean a drop in their standard of life. It is no good looking to improving scientific methods to make good these cuts in hours. If you cut the hours from forty-eight to forty a week you lose 16.6 per cent. of your production. Science improves general output by about 1½ per cent. a year, so that we would have to wait ten years to make that good. If everyone does one-sixth less work there will be one-sixth less of everything. I maintain that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to make these facts known to their followers. It is no use the Conservatives saying it, as years of propaganda have made them suspect. The Government will have to cat their words and reverse the propaganda machine. It is very hard to do, especially when this propaganda put them into power; but unless they can persuade the public in this country that their standard of life is directly proportional to the work they do, then even if we survive this failure to produce coal, and the balance of payments, we shall be in for a steady decline. Agricultural Russia has had to substitute the New Economic Policy for the "Gospel According to St. Marx." Surely in this industrial country it is ten times more important to do so. I can only hope that the Government will see the error of their ways and do this before it is too late.
5.28 p.m.
LORD RUSHOLME: My Lords, in his concluding remarks the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, suggested that it was the duty of the Government to make known the facts. I claim that in the White Paper which
we are discussing at the present time we have a most fearless and frank document upon the issue of which the Government ought to be sincerely congratulated. It must be quite clear from that document that those who are responsible for the administration of national affairs are in no doubt whatsoever about the serious situation of our country. It has been suggested that the facts disclosed in the
debate which took place in another place have made people depressed and alarmed.
I am not surprised, but I would like to think that that alarm was shared by
every citizen in this country. I think it is right that people should be alarmed at the situation, because I believe too many people were of the opinion that immediately we reached the termination of hostilities we should enter upon an era of prosperity. To some extent that outlook was not surprising, for it is only right that people should expect, after a long period of strain and sacrifice, that they are entitled to some reward for their labours.
But the facts which are now before us in the White Paper make it quite clear that we must now modify any expectations which we had of a life of ease and leisure in a world of plenty. One of the sentences which most impressed me in
the White Paper was:
"The central fact of 1947 is that we have not enough resources to do all we want to do. We have barely enough to do all that we must do."
That, I think, sums up the present economic situation of this country, and it is a situation which should concern everyone living in the country at the present time. It is true to say that during the past two years we have been living in a quite unreal situation. I was almost inclined to say that we have been living in a fool's paradise, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it -has been far from a paradise during the last few years. I want to support the plea which was made by the most reverend Primate yesterday for every possible step to be taken by the Government to assure themselves that every one in this country is made aware of the situation with which

605
we are faced. It is indeed of course as has already been said, it is not
hopeless. I believe that with the spirit of the people of this country wholeheartedly behind His Majesty's Government we shall once again surprise the world, and place ourselves on a sound financial and economic basis.
During the course of the debate it has been suggested that the responsibility for our present situation can be laid at the door of His Majesty's Government, primarily because of the fact that they have retained systems of control. I must confess that I was very interested in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, when he was referring to the difficulties he was meeting in his applications for the permits which were necessary before he could undertake certain building operations. I derived a certain sort of satisfaction from the knowledge that, after all, it is not only the distributive trader who has to face the harsh judgment of the disappointed customer. In the distributive trade we have the saying that the customer is always right. Of course he is not, but unfortunately it is the disappointed customer who is the most vocal. We hear very much more from one complaining customer than we do from a thousand satisfied customers. I am hound to say that in my experience it is unwise to form any conclusion from the one disappointed customer, because my experience leads me to believe that, generally speaking, it will be found in cases which on the face of them seem to be extremely grave that there are sound and good reasons for the disappointment of which the particular customer has complained.
I am glad to see that in regard to controls there is some opinion in favour of their retention. I have recently been reading a very interesting series of articles in the Manchester Guardian on the question of our productive needs. In one article, where reference is made to the withdrawal -of the Essential Works Order, I find the following:
"Opinion about other controls varied. Most manufacturers agreed that they were still necessary, and one even hoped fervently that they would not be lifted from his industry while the shortages remained."
I also find:
"In a modern mass-production factory one was told 'the controls are all right'."
I think the causes of our present situation lie outside the actions of the pre-
606
sent Government, and indeed arose prior to their accession to office. I was very interested yesterday afternoon to listen to the maiden speech of my noble friend and fellow townsman, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe. I feel bound to say that I thought he was perfectly justified in the suggestion he made that had the Labour Government been in office twenty years ago, and introduced then the nationalization of the mines, we should not be faced to-day with the situation which is worrying us so much. The Reid Report, surely, made it perfectly clear that there were three things which were necessary to give us that large increase in the production of coal which would have enabled us to meet our present situation with equanimity.
There was the reorganization and re-planning; there was the increased mechanization of the industry; and there was the whole-hearted support of the mining community. The last, it seems to me, is assured to our Government. The two former are long-term questions of planning which the Reid Report made it perfectly clear could only he assured on the basis of a nationalized industy. I take the view that if, twenty years ago, we had had a Labour Government in office, proceeding with the nationalization of the coal industry, we should not now be facing our present situation; nor should we be facing our present difficulties in regard to the manpower in the industry, because mechanization would have reduced our manpower requirements.
Why have we this great difficulty in regard to manpower in two of our basic industries—the coal and agricultural industries? Surely it is because in the past the workers in those two industries have not enjoyed conditions, either in regard to wages or housing, which were commensurate with the hard tasks which had to be performed. It is perfectly clear to me that so far as the housing conditions of these workers are concerned, they were so depressing that the children of the workers in those industries would not remain in the class of industry in which their fathers were engaged. No one, surely, can suggest with equity that within a period of two years after a great world war it would be possible for any Government to remedy a situation which had been created over the past century or half century. I have been impressed, during the course of the debate, with the insistence which has been laid upon the necessity for an increased

607
output per man-year. What I would point out is that this is not a matter which depends solely upon the workers in industry. A great deal depends upon the efficiency of management, and whether machines and mechanical appliances have been put into industry as fully as they ought to be.
LORD CHERWELL: How does the noble Lord explain that when mechanization went up by 20 per cent., the output per head in the coal mines went down by 10 per cent.?
LORD RUSHOLME: In what year was that?
LORD CHERWELL: In the years 1938 to 1944.
LORD RUSHOLME: They were surely the war years.
LORD CHERWELL: It is output per head, and in the war years people usually made a special effort.
LORD RUSHOLME: The young men were taken out of the pits. Surely no one would base a case on a period so abnormal as the war period. I hope the Government will not be lacking in any endeavour which may be necessary on their part to see that men and women in industry are relieved
from unnecessary labour and drudgery which can be performed by machines. I hope the Government will be able to give this House an assurance that there is a willingness on the part of industry to mechanize to the fullest extent possible. What can be accomplished by the introduction of modern machines was brought very vividly to my mind by a recent experience in Germany, where I visited a dairy which was producing butter. I saw there the old-fashioned churn, lazily turning over, and by its side I saw a modern machine producing butter in a fraction of the time taken by the old churn. Butter was being forced out of a tube as one forces toothpaste from a toothpaste tube.
That leads me to say this. May we have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that any inventions which are now being discovered in Germany should be made known at the earliest possible moment to the industries of this country? It sems to me quite possible that there were many inventions put into
608
operation in German factories during the war which were not known to us, and I earnestly appeal for such inventions to be made known to our industries. I am told that there are some of our factories which are stopped merely for the sake of one machine which is unobtainable. It does seem to me that in these difficult times the leaders of industry ought to be prepared to help the nation by making available such a machine if it can be found in any section of the industry.
Whilst on this subject of machines, may I refer to one point in the White Paper which rather intrigued me? It has reference to the mechanization of agriculture. The White Paper claims:
"During the war, mechanization made British agriculture amongst the most highly-mechanized in the world."
I wonder whether that is really so. I recall a party of American farmers who visited this country in the autumn of last year stating this:
"During the war, mechanization made us, with heavy cumbersome wagons, and tools which are equally heavy and awkward."
I am quite prepared to admit that American methods may not be conveniently applicable in this country, but I feel that there is some scope for investigation into this question. I am confirmed in that view by the statements of a British agricultural economist, Professor Ashley, who has called for closer cooperation between the farmer and the engineer. In view of the pressing need for labour in agriculture, I think this question should be looked at not only from the standpoint of increasing output but also from the standpoint of effecting economics in labour.
LORD RENNELL: Will the noble Lord use his influence in preventing agricultural machinery being exported when it can be used to advantage in this country?
LORD RUSHOLME: Certainly. It seems to me there may be room for improvements in agricultural implements which may be useful to the industry. Apparently there is an unwillingness on the part of the Government to interfere with the maximum freedom of choice of the individual. That is made quite clear in the White Paper, but may I say that in these terribly difficult times I hope the Government will not hesitate to take any steps which appear to be essential to meet the needs of the times? I think we should

609
concentrate on the production of essentials, using our raw material and manpower in the most valuable way. By giving freedom to the individual I believe this can be achieved, provided that we have the maximum co-operation between the Government, the employers, and the workers. It seems to me quite clear that we have not had that maximum cooperation up to the present time; otherwise we should not have been producing such things as electrical appliances which, in the present circumstances, cannot be used. The co-ordinated efforts of the three parties which I have mentioned could undoubtedly secure the maximum output of the most essential types of commodities, and I express the very sincere hope that there will be no hesitation on the part of either employers or employed to give zoo per cent. support to the proposals of the Government for securing the maximum output.
I have noticed with considerable satisfaction a statement in the White Paper to which reference has already been made. It is this:
"The nation cannot afford shorter hours unless these can be shown to increase output per man per year."
I wish that statement had been made rather earlier. I am afraid that there was growing up in many quarters a feeling that it would be possible progressively to be paid more and more for doing less and less. I do not altogether like the suggestions which are made, such as "the workers arc not pulling their weight." Most of them are, and it does not help very much for the workers to be told to work harder by people who work less hard than they. It is fortunate that the appeals which are now being made for greater production are made by a Minister of Labour who is knowledgeable in regard to the conditions which govern working men's lives. As a consequence, I feel that his appeals are likely to fall on more receptive ears. Nevertheless, I still feel that a very great responsibility devolves upon the leaders of working-class organizations, and I hope that in any words that are uttered care will be taken not to say anything which will conflict with the Government idea of securing an increased production, and that their demands upon employers will bear some relation to the circumstances of the times. I think we must all admit that, as much as we arc desirous of seeing conditions of labour
610
immeasurably improved, the present is not the time to give all that we would wish to give.
I hope the Government will apply—and I believe they will—the same energy to a solution of our present difficulties as was applied to the solutions of the problems of the war. It seems to me that if we could take—as we did—harbours and pipe-lines across the seas—miracles of organization—we ought to be able to apply equally effective and spectacular methods to the solution of our difficulties. I would like to see scientists, research workers,' engineers, and business organizers, all brought in to a consideration of the solution of our problems. I do not want industry to look upon mechanization as a mere passing craze which should be avoided. I do not want foreign labour to be regarded as a substitute for mechanization. I want inventions, which will result from the work of scientists and others, to be used for the benefit of the community as a whole, and not to be pigeon-holed if there appears to be a likelihood of them affecting the profit-earning capacity of an existing business. I want machines to be utilized for two and three shifts, if necessary, to get the maximum benefit from the capital outlay and their capacity. I think we must also be prepared to lose something of that rigid adherence to old methods and customs, and be more adaptable to changing conditions.
In conclusion, I would ask your Lordships, in considering this Motion, not to forget the difficulties of the period through which we have passed and are now passing. Remember that in the past two years we have faced and dealt with the tremendous task of bringing from the four quarters of the globe no fewer than 4,250,000 people for demobilization; we have changed over our industry from wartime to peace-time production, and we have achieved that remarkable task with a minimum of unemployment. Meanwhile, we have had working parties investigating a variety of industries with a view to assisting them to reorganize on a basis which will assure their maximum efficiency. Schemes of trading have been introduced for management and organizations, and it seems to me, when I consider this question, that the 'Government have displayed a wholly admirable anxiety to assist industry to face the future with the greatest possible confidence. I

611
cannot therefore take the view that the present situation is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. I regard it as the inevitable result of two world wars in our own life time and I hope that a Division in this House will not lead the world outside to forget that fact. I press the belief that we shall be doing a disservice to this country if we create the impression that we ourselves are responsible for our difficulties, instead of attributing them—I think correctly—to the fact that for years we spent our energy and our money in the defence of the freedom of the world. Our present weakness, in my view, is due to the great sacrifices we made in that cause.
5.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I propose to detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes. But I would like to say, with great respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken so eloquently, that his speech is very symptomatic of the whole attitude of the Labour movement in this crisis. So far as I can make out, he views the situation with complete complacency. Be ascribed our evils to every other cause than the ineptitude of the Government, and he finished up by saying that such things were only to be expected after the occurrence of a war. Nobody denies the difficulties of the Government. What has caused consternation is the ineptitude with which they are being handled. It is all very well for Ministers opposite to appeal now to us to sit as a Council of State and leave aside Party polemics. They are responsible for the mistakes that they have made in the last eighteen months, and it is our duty to hold them responsible, and we shall hold them responsible.
I do not wish to cover ground that has been so admirably covered by my noble friend Lord Cherwell and other noble Lords this afternoon and yesterday, and I would like to address your Lordships on only one point, which I do not think has been so fully dealt with as some of the other important subjects that have been mentioned this afternoon; that is agriculture. What are the Government going to do about agriculture? The White Paper itself says that agriculture in this crisis is second only in importance to coal. I want to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are going to take to assist
612
farmers and farm workers to increase our output? I would remind the noble Lords that the Minister of Agriculture's arable target for 1948 is smaller than the target for 1947. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government how they hope to get a greater output of food with such a target. The White Paper points out that the food position depends on more workers being brought into agriculture. That is stated in Paragraph 130. How can we get more men on to the land if we have not got cottages?
I wish particularly to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government and your Lordships to the fact that by far the greater number of cottages now being built in rural districts are not being let to agricultural workers. I want to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to enact that until this crisis passes agricultural workers should have an absolute priority for all council houses in rural areas. The Government are doing something on those lines for the miners. They are giving the miners extra housing. They are making a special allotment of prefabricated houses for them, they are filling the shops in the mining districts. Is nothing of that sort going to be done for the agriculturalists? We could step up agricultural production in this country very considerably if only we had the men and the machines. I would like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply: Will the Government give agricultural labourers priority for council houses? Are they prepared to allot extra and new supplies of prefabricated houses for agricultural districts? If not, on what grounds do they differentiate agriculturalists in this respect from miners? I also hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us what steps are being taken to bring displaced persons into this country to take the place of German prisoners of war who are being sent away. Will he also tell us whether steps are going to be taken to stop the export of agricultural machinery which: s so badly needed in this country? This is a matter which has been alluded to several times already in this debate, and I hope we may have an assurance from the Government on that point.
At the moment, we have to wait two years or more to obtain some tractors, yet I am informed that these very tractors are being sent to foreign countries. It is because the Government are allowing all these problems to drift that we are so

613
anxious. The points I have mentioned in regard to agriculture are typical of what has occurred in the mining and in many other industries. There are Obvious things to be done, but they require resolution, initiative and courage. I would like to assure His Majesty's Government that there is no hope of any appreciable increase in agricultural output unless they can make housing accommodation available to agricultural workers, unless they can replace German prisoners of war who are to be taken away, unless they can bring in more feeding stuffs, unless they can let us have our own manufactured agricultural machinery instead of sending it abroad.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I feel that perhaps I should apologize to the House for intervening in this debate when there are still a number of noble Lords who have not yet spoken, but I understand that there is a feeling in some quarters that the time has come when I should properly give some guidance to noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. At any rate 1 can assure your Lordships that it is not my intention to address you at any undue length this evening. Indeed, I think it will be generally agreed that in the present case a full winding-up speech is in any case unnecessary. After all, we have had two days of debate, and that debate has been both long and comprehensive. It has covered most of the aspects of the present economic position of this country, and each aspect, in turn, has been dealt with by acknowledged experts on the subjects of which they have spoken. I thought, if I may say so in passing, with reference to the speeches made on the Government side of the House, that I detected, during the whole of our discussions, a certain reluctance on the part of speakers to devote their attention to Government plans for the future, which is, after all, the subject of debate. They seemed to me, if I may say so without offence, rather to have changed their slogan from: "Let us face the future" to "Let us hark back to the past."
The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, when he spoke yesterday afternoon, seemed at his happiest when he was recounting the past achievements of the Government, though even then I felt—and I hope that I am not being unjust
614
in saying this—that he made very much of it. He spoke with admiration of the smooth working of demobilization; but he was obliged to confess that the admirable plans which had worked out so well had not emanated from the present Government at all but from the National Government which preceded it. He then boasted, rather surprisingly, that the Government had rationed bread, which had never been rationed before, even in the worst days of the war, but he omitted to mention that, in the opinion of Lord Woolton, who is, after all, I think, the greatest expert on the subject, that the country ought never to have reached a position where bread rationing should be necessary. He also—again rather surprisingly—took great credit for the fact that the Government had prevented the British public from obtaining consumer goods which were available in almost every other country in the world. He put up a rather rickety ninepin about the debate on the American. Loan, and immediately, and with great satisfaction, knocked it down himself. But on the subject of the future plans of the Government he was almost entirely silent, and I noticed that Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, who made such an admirable maiden speech, was equally discreet.
However, it is not my aim this afternoon merely to concentrate on the sins of omission of Government speakers. My purpose is to deal with some of the main issues that appear to have been raised in this debate. It will, I am certain, be generally agreed in all parts of the House, whatever views we may take about what has been said or what has not been said, that the debate has been well worth while. Both sides of the House have been extremely well represented, and an opportunity, a really good opportunity, has been given to your Lordships to reach a balanced view on the subject under discussion. The picture which has been exposed has not, indeed, been a cheerful one. For this it would be absurd to suggest—and I do not propose to suggest it—that the Government are entirely to blame. We all know that they took over the reins of power at a moment of the greatest difficulty. They found a national economy entirely dislocated by six years of war; they found that resources which we had accumulated in foreign countries over a great many years, and on which we depended to supplement our visible

615
exports, were almost entirely dissipated. They found the British people, as the most reverend Primate said yesterday in his very inspiring speech, physically and spiritually weary. No one would wish to pretend that the Government have had an easy task.
At the same time, after listening to the debate, many noble Lords must feel that the policy of centralized control upon which the Government decided, which they have followed with fanatical zeal during the last two years and seem determined to continue, is not that best calculated to assist the national recovery. They had, as I understand—and here I am, I hope, almost at one with my noble friend, Lord Pethick-Lawrence—two particular alternatives before them: they could have made up their minds gradually to relax all controls, so as to allow for freer play for private initiative to reassert itself, or they could have planned the national economy in ever-increasing detail so as to ensure that our national life was rigidly integrated and co-ordinated. The first of those alternatives, as I understand it, broadly speaking, is the way of a Free State; the second, broadly speaking, is the way of a Slave State. Either of those two alternatives, carried to its logical conclusion, might succeed economically, whatever their social implications may be. But—and here I was at issue with Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and I think other noble Lords in the House will be also—I am extremely doubtful whether both those aims can be achieved at the same time.
He said, as your Lordships will remember, that he was a Liberal-Socialist. That is what I mean by saying that he was following the two aims simultaneously, and that, I am afraid, is what the Government have in fact tried to do. They have plumped for what is described in the White Paper as "democratic planning." What does that mean? I read the White Paper very carefully, like other noble Lords, and, as I understand it, it amounts in practice to increasing control over all the elements of production except labour. That is what it means in plain words. I am not suggesting or urging direction of labour—I am opposed to anything that savours of the Slave State—but I do say that to attempt to plan the whole of our industrial economy and to exclude labour
616
is merely to nullify your own efforts. That is what has happened, and is happening at the present time. The Government have taken over very extensive control of the industrial machine. They can tell industrialists, whether they are nationalized or non-nationalized, pretty well what they may produce, how much they may produce and what they may sell at any time. But their schemes for higher production may be thrown out of gear at any time by a new series of demands from organized labour over which they have, in fact, no control.
If an industrialist flouts the instructions of the Government there are all sorts of pains and penalities to which he can be subjected; but if, at a critical moment when increased production is essential, the miners come forward and demand a five day week (about which Lord Beveridge made such very pungent remarks) or the builders, say, insist upon a restriction in brick-laying (a situation to which Lord Quibell referred) or the workers in some other industry demand shorter hours, then the Government have no redress whatever. That is a situation the elaborate plans of which they talk do not deal with at all. The Government have, in fact, by what they have done in the last two years, pushed the employer out of the picture in their zeal for centralized control, and they are quite unable to take his place, because they are hamstrung by political considerations. They cannot afford to quarrel with the miners or the Trades Union Congress, no doubt, they do not want to; but in any case they cannot afford to. Noble Lords opposite will not dispute that. It was practically confessed by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, last night. As a result in the struggle between industrial efficiency and political convenience, industrial efficiency inevitably goes by the board.
Some noble Lords may remember that I said this some months ago in the debate on the Address, and it was hotly denied both by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. But I repeat it, and I believe it is becoming more evident every day. As a result, in, this White Paper we are discussing today, after the most powerful and convincing exposition of our needs, we are left with no effective recommendations—nothing more than exhortations, little more than a mere wringing of hands.

617
What is the remedy for this sad situation, because it is an extremely sad and deplorable situation. There seem to me to be two alternatives. One is that the Government should go further and should take powers to control and direct labour as well as capital; and the other alternative (which noble Lords on this side of the House would prefer) is that the Government should slip rather more out of the picture, that they should cease this constant policy of centralization and stop interfering too much with the ordinary affairs of the people of this country, whether they be employers or employed, who are quite able to manage their own affairs for themselves. The Government should cease nationalizing and controlling this, that, and the other, and revert to a position of final arbitrators—the watch dogs of the nation—a position which Governments in this country are well qualified to fill.
Moreover, this gradual relaxation of the vast nexus of centralization of control should enable them to discard some of that vast army of civil servants, big and small, which they have brought into being to operate these controls, and who are ever increasing, week by week and month by month, to the detriment of a steadily decreasing body of producers. An elaborate system of State control may seem very attractive on paper. It is neat, it is tidy, it is scientific, and it clearly is extremely attractive to the present President of the Board of Trade, whose remedy for any difficulty in any situation is to appoint another Committee to devise yet more controls and to get more statistics. This ran all through his speech in another place. I would, most sincerely, ask the House whether an administrative machine, on the scale that is now growing up, is not too great a luxury for any Government or any nation; whether it does not absorb too much of the population, and whether it is not so complicated and cumbersome that it overweights the whole life of the country and brings it to a standstill.
I am most anxious not to be controversial, but I would plead with noble Lords opposite to recognize the very real dangers which flow from this over-elaborate and over-centralized machinery. After all, we must not forget that the ultimate responsibility for that machine of government which we call the State
618
rests upon the shoulders of a small band of men at the top—the members of the Cabinet and the great civil servants. It is a responsibility of which they cannot divest themselves and which they have to carry. The more elaborate we make this machine, the more duties we pile upon this small band of men beyond a certain point, the more impossible we make it for them to carry out these duties. Even before the war, the work of a Cabinet Minister was almost staggeringly heavy. Now the present Government have added the control of the mines, the control of civil aviation, the control of practically all building operations, and they are proposing to add to that the control of the railways, the control of road transport and electricity supplies, and the iron and steel industry, judging by what the Prime: Minister said in his broadcast.
It is no insult to the intelligence of the present Government to say we have in this country no Ministers and no civil servants of adequate calibre to shoulder this colossal burden. It would be equally true of any other Government, I do not care to what Party it belonged. It roust be almost impossible for Ministers at the present time even to read adequately their Cabinet papers. It must be quite impossible for them to "vet" all the Orders in Council, the Regulations and the Instructions that come out in shoals every day. When, the other day, Mr. Shinwell failed to make provision to meet the coal crisis, I could not help feeling that it was partly due to the fact that he was engaged upon other matters. He had to prepare and pilot through Parliament two vast measures, the Coal Bill and the Electricity Bill—apart from all his other Cabinet duties. He simply had not time to devote to the ordinary day-to-day administrative work of his Department. And the same is true of other Ministers and all the great civil servants. As a result, inevitably the executive power at the present time devolves more and more on men of smaller stature and lesser ability, who, we know to our cost, conceive it to be their duty to produce more and more Regulations and forms for the direction of the British people until the ordinary citizen really finds it impossible to move hand or foot. As Viscount Portal said, more and more time nowadays that ought to be devoted to production is being used in filling up forms and applying for licences, licences which are generally refused; and the experience

619
of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with regard to agricultural building will be echoed by every noble Lord in this House.
A great many years ago now, when I was a child, I was given an illustrated edition of Gulliver's Travels, and there was one picture I remember which especially intrigued me. In this picture, Gulliver, who had fallen asleep, woke up to find himself bound hand and foot by the Lilliputians. There he was, a vast, mountainous, sprawling, figure, surrounded by a great army of tiny, industrious mannikins, who were knocking in minute tent pegs and stretching minute ropes, binding him down and rendering him absolutely helpless. As I see it, that is rapidly becoming the situation in our own country. Unless we can free ourselves, we shall certainly ultimately perish. Indeed, it is only too painfully obvious 'we are already sinking into a hopeless and helpless coma. I know I may be told by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or by other noble Lords, that I am again advocating a return to the economics of the jungle; but I do beg noble Lords opposite to believe I am not as unreasonable as that. I quite realize, as do other noble Lords in this House, that some broad measures of long-term planning are both necessary and desirable. But do not let us forget, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, said, that these plans must be expansionist. They must aim at more expansion and must be elastic. Let us remember this too, if I may return for one moment to the jungle. There is one thing about the jungle which noble Lords opposite seem to forget. Something does grow there. Indeed, the growth is too luxuriant. That is what is wrong about jungles. If that growth can be pruned and cleared, underneath there will be found fruitful land.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount, but would he not agree that the only animal who really has a joyous time in the jungle is the lion? If you happen to be one of the poor unfortunate creatures who have to provide the fodder for the lion, it is not quite so happy.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am not asking for the maintenance of the jungle. I am only saying that in a jungle there is a capacity for growth, and if you prune and clear the jungle you do find fruitful
620
soil underneath. That is all I was asking. The policy of the Government, on the other hand, if I may say so, seems to me to approximate far more to the economics of the desert, where nothing grows at all. They have no effective plan, nor a plan they can implement, and they will not allow anybody else to make plans for themselves. That is surely a far more dangerous situation, and that is the position I believe we are now reaching. Of this peril I believe the Government themselves are becoming dimly aware. They buoy themselves up with high-sounding phrases about the benefits of Socialism, but those phrases are not convincing, and I do not believe that they convince even themselves. There is Mr. Strachey who is constantly telling us that the British people are better fed than ever before in our history, though the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in a speech not so many weeks ago demonstrated quite clearly to the House that that is not statistically accurate.
Then we are told in the White Paper itself that there is more purchasing power in the pockets of the people than there ever was before. What that means I am not quite clear. I always understood that purchasing power means power to purchase. In fact, at the present moment it is made almost impossible to purchase anything at all, and indeed the White Paper itself was obliged to add in a guarding phrase:
"If an attempt were made to use this purchasing power the goods would vanish even more rapidly from the shops."
I would ask your Lordships to note that word "even." In such circumstances I cannot help feeling that the growth of purchasing power must seem to the ordinary citizen a somewhat illusory benefit.
We are told by the President of the Board of Trade—and I think it was repeated last night by the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe—that everything will be all right in fifteen years— "You just wait; everything will be all right then." That may well be their belief; but it is clear from the general attitude of speakers on the Government side that in their heart of hearts they know that all is not well. They know perfectly well that we are approaching an economic crisis, which will very likely be more severe than any this country has ever known. They know that, largely owing

621
to their own teaching—I do not say it was not sincere—the working classes of this country are ill-prepared to meet that crisis. Yet the Government are inhibited from telling the country the whole truth even now, because it means unsaying so much of what they have said over so many years. There is nothing new about this crisis. It was anticipated as far back as 1944. I should like to quote to the House some words from the White Paper on Employment which was issued by the National Government in that year. I think they are very remarkable:
"… the level of employment and the standard of living which we can maintain in this country do not depend only upon conditions at home. We must continue to import from abroad a large proportion of our foodstuffs and raw materials, and to a greater extent than ever before we shall have to pay for them by the export of our goods and services. For as the result of two world wars we have had to sacrifice by far the greater part of the foreign investments which we built up over many years when we were the leading creditor country of the world. It will not, therefore, be enough to maintain the volume of our pre-war exports; we shall have to expand them greatly."
That was said as far back as 1944. I think noble Lords will agree these were wise words and prophetic words—words for which many of the leaders of the Labour Party, as well as the leaders of the Party to which I belong, were responsible. But what was being said at that very same time by some of the most prominent members of the present Government? The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has quoted one or two of these rather unguarded words. I should like to quote just one more. I think he quoted Mr. Strachey and the Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan. I should like to quote some words which were spoken on June 22 in another place by Mr. Shinwell after the production of thee White Paper. This is what Mr. Shinwell said.
LORD STRABOLGI: Order!
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In another place. It is not universal in this House.
LORD STRABOLGI: To quote speeches of—
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This is what the Minister of Fuel—if it will make the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, feel more comfortable—said:
"Increased exports are demanded. There never was a greater fallacy uttered in this or any other Assembly. You might imagine
622
from what hon. Members say, and the White Paper says, that, if you fail to increase exports, this country's standard of living will diminish, that, if we fail to export not only at the pre-war level but at least 50 per cent. more than the pre-war level, we cannot provide sufficient work for the workers of this country."
That is the sort of stuff—if I may use what is perhaps a slightly offensive word—that was being dealt out at that time by these now eminent Ministers, and I think perhaps that is partly the reason why the Government for two long years have left the country in ignorance of the perils that are facing it. It was too difficult a thing to explain. They put their name to the White Paper in 1944. Why have they been silent for the last two years? It is difficult to know the reason, and I am trying to find an explanation for it. It was too embarrassing for them to swallow so many of the words they uttered at that time.
That is why they chose the alternative of letting events take their course, with no effective steps but only vague appeals to the British people (appeals which are still going on) to get together as in the days of Dunkirk. But, my Lords, at the time of Dunkirk the situation was very different from what it is to-day. At that time we not only faced a common peril, as we do to-day, but we were animated by a common policy. The country only needed inspiring to a higher level of courage and endurance, and that inspiration was given by Mr. Churchill and
others, and the country rallied to it. To-day we may he faced with a common peril, but, unfortunately, we are by no means at one as to the methods to deal with it. If the Government want, as I understand they do want, a united effort, they must produce a policy which makes united effort possible. They must cease from pursuing a course which to our mind threatens all we hold dear and which we believe is going to bring this country to disaster. They must raise their eyes above purely sectional interests and try to take a really national point of view. Then we shall be very ready to go with them.
After all, this is one of the great crises in our history, a more dangerous crisis because it is not apparent to the ordinary citizen of the country. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and many others in this debate, the clouds are gathering thick ahead of us. We have already suffered severely from lack of

623
coal, and, by all accounts, before the summer is out we may be faced with an even more dangerous situation with regard to food. And away beyond that, out on the horizon, is the black possibility of national bankruptcy, when the American Loan runs out and we are left to our own resources. It is no good ignoring these things. If ever there was a time when the national spirit was needed, the spirit of which the most reverend Primate spoke yesterday, a spirit of service, a spirit not of getting, but of giving, it is now. If that spirit were to actuate the future policy of the Government they can, I assure them. depend upon our co-operation. But until it does, we are bound to condemn a course of action which seems to us calculated only to increase the ills from which this country is suffering and which is likely to bring about its ultimate ruin.
It is not my purpose or intention to make any personal attack upon the Prime Minister or his colleagues. I have no reason to suppose that they are not actuated by a desire to promote the public weal, as we hope we are on this side of the House; and personally, if I may say so, I rather regret some of the remarks which were made by my noble friend, the Earl of Mansfield, during yesterday's debate. But I do believe the Government have pitifully misread our situation. The proposals of the White Paper, after all, boil down to introducing ioo,000 foreign workmen; to setting up another high-powered committee; to obtaining more statistics; to postponing the Grand National from Friday to Saturday, and a few other oddments of that kind which have been added since. Proposals of this kind—and I use an old but very graphic phrase which originally emanated from a namesake of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Joseph Addison—seem to us to be no more than "pills to cure an earthquake," a mere tinkering with our problems. That is-our convinced view on this side of the House: and if the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, decides to press his Motion to a Division, we on these Benches shall go with him into the lobby
6.31 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I must apologize for intervening at this point because my noble friend, Lord Kershaw, was to have made his maiden speech and
624
I am afraid that my intervening will have led to its postponement. But I felt it was appropriate to follow the noble Viscount who has just addressed us. The noble Viscount is a formidable person to follow anywhere, and perhaps particularly in this House. He enjoys an unfortunate reputation—unfortunate I mean for me. It is a reputation based on past services to the country and on present performances. Nevertheless, we have been beaten about the head a certain amount in the last two days, and where so many blows have been struck for Tusculum I might perhaps be permitted to strike one back for Rome. I hasten to say that I do not speak in a theological sense. I must attempt to refute with a certain amount of heat one or two things that fell from the noble Viscount. First of all he accused us of not appearing to tell the public the truth—of not giving the public the facts. I suppose that no Government in the history of the world has ever gone so far as we have gone in publishing this White Paper.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I said that you had not done it for two years, and that is true.
LORD PAKENHAM: I accept the correction, of course, but I understood the noble Viscount to mean that we were still hesitating to tell the public the full truth. I felt that that was a little odd, coming on the morrow of the publication of a White Paper without precedent in our annals. In the second place he levelled what, in my opinion, is a more serious charge against us. He accused us of stirring up ill will in the past, not apparently deliberately but just because we are the sort of people who do that sort of thing without knowing what we are doing. He must entertain a very poor opinion of our mental capacity. That is what we have been doing for years apparently without meaning to do—persuading people to be slack, generating ill will and, to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who very courteously told me he would have to be abroad to-day on urgent business, disseminating the class war.
Once and for all I would like to repudiate the idea from this Bench that we in the Labour Party stand for the class war. We are entirely opposed to any doctrine of that sort which would involve increasing hatred or bitterness in this country.

625
But I am bound to say that Karl Marx, who published the Communist Manifesto a hundred years ago to-day (I suppose we ought to be celebrating the anniversary, although I am not quite sure that it was one hundred years ago to-day but it was in 1847, and it seems to be a centenary that the House has very strangely overlooked) called attention to facts that had not escaped the eye of a great Conservative leader, Mr. Disraeli as he then was, three years earlier. It was Mr. Disraeli, as the noble Viscount will well remember, who in a book that everyone should read, Sybil, discovered that the British people were divided into two nations. That was Mr. Disraeli's analysis. three years in advance of Karl Marx. It it our object to try and bring those two nations together and finally merge them into one. It is only in that sense that we can be accused of standing for the war of the class system. I would like to repudiate once and for all that we stand for anything like class war or class bitterness. Facts in the past have too often produced class bitterness anti it has been our object to try and eliminate those feelings.
I would further reply—since in a friendly way a number of things have been said by noble Lords opposite about our Ministers—that I cannot remember any occasion in history when the official Opposition were so unwilling to disclose their hand. I will say a word about our Liberal friends later because they fall into a separate category. I noticed a very sharp distinction between the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lily-ton, whose speech I will long remember as I believe will the whole House. If I may confine myself for the moment to the official Opposition, I challenge anybody in this House who has not had access to the innermost secrets of the noble Viscount and those who work with him to tell us where the Conservative Party stand on the main economic issues of the day. Are they in favour of bread rationing? I have no idea. They were against it last. year but I have no idea whether they are or are not in favour of it to-day. Are they in favour of any kind of fuel rationing, of restricting or regulating the consumption of fuel, either for industry or domestic users? Again I have no idea, and I have been sitting here and listening for a very interesting day and a half and
626
I have read almost every word of what was said in another place.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but our position in regard to both bread rationing and fuel rationing is that if we came into power we should. have to take over the muddle which the Government had left. But if we had been in power, our experts tell us that it would riot have been necessary to ration coal or bread in the way in which this Government has done.
LORD PAKENHAM: We have heard quite a number of experts, but I should like to hear those particular experts and to be able to cross-examine them on the floor of this House. They have not made themselves heard in the last day and a half or at any time during the debates last week. Then we come to the question of planning. Here I am sure the noble Viscount will feel that I am being rather unfair, yet I would tell him, with absolute conviction, that I have no idea, standing here now, whether the noble Lords opposite, including the noble Viscount, are in favour of planning or against it. The noble Viscount disliked the idea of democratic planning—the word clearly did not appeal to hint—and as I know he is quite as good a democrat as I am, I take it that in some sense he is against planning.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not object to the word "democratic." I objected to it in this context. It does not seem to me to be any more democratic or any less democratic than any other. It seemed to me to be a phrase coined to conceal the real facts and to mean that there was to be planning of everything except labour. That is what I explained.
LORD PAKENHAM: We shall all read Hansard and form our own conclusions but I am afraid the Division, if there is to be one, will already have taken place. I must repeat that it is because the noble Viscount is so delightfully candid with us that I feel that we ought to be equally candid in return, and perhaps we do not sometimes make ourselves quite sufficiently plain. We have no idea whether noble Lords opposite are in favour of planning—we know they think that we plan too much—or whether they are in favour of more planning than existed before, and as I know they are extremely intelligent, very patriotic and very lucid in

627
statement, I feel there must be some explanation which has not occurred to me and which would put the whole thing right if only I could think of it. That is the present state of the matter regarding planning, and I will come back to it rather more carefully later.
While I hope to conclude my remarks in a reasonably short time, I must reply to one or two individual points that were raised. I am quite aware that many noble Lords are bound to go away feeling most embittered, quite apart from any political antagonism they may feel, because I have not answered them fully; but I am sure that on reflection they will realize, as they are all very fair-minded men, that to answer something like thirty speeches in about half an hour, while trying to make one's own case at all vigorously, is more or less impossible. I would, if I may—perhaps, one might say, more out of courtesy than for any other reason—try to answer some of the particular points that were raised. I say "out of courtesy," because the points raised were often of such importance—as for example, the whole future of the agricultural industry, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—that it might appear to be rather trifling with the subject to handle them in this way. I would like to give the noble Earl some information now and to promise him that the rest of it will be available when he wishes.
May I refer to the question of prefabricated houses? A special type of permanent, non-traditional house—the Airey rural house—has been designed by the Government for use in rural areas and its manufacture is being developed as a supplement to the housing programme of rural authorities. An order has been placed for some 20,000 such houses, and it is hoped that all rural housing authorities will enter into contracts for their erection. The allocation of these prefabricated houses to tenants by local authorities is on the same basis as the allocation of traditional houses. Sir A. P. Herbert once secured election as Member of Parliament for Oxford University (which he still represents and, putting politics aside, which he still represents very honorably, I think one may say) by informing the Oxford electorate that he knew nothing about agriculture. I perhaps know a little more than he claims to know and perhaps a little less than he
628
actually knows about agriculture. I can however assure the noble Earl that his point will be very seriously considered by my noble friend, and that a full reply will follow in due course. I need hardly say that the Government attach enormous importance to agriculture and place it second to none among the industries of the country.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Could the noble Lord tell us if these houses will be confined to use by agricultural workers?
LORD PAKENHAM: I should imagine so. They are designed for use in rural areas. On the question of priority, I have a rather fuller reply which I will convey to the noble Earl later. If he wishes to have it now, I will give it to him, but perhaps he would rather have it later. The noble Viscount, Lord Portal, made a speech which, if he will allow me to say so without his thinking that I am trying to seduce him from the right or wrong Division lobby, was one of the most attractive and helpful to which I have ever listened. Among other things, he asked whether the new factories would be guaranteed a full supply of fuel and power. At the moment, I am afraid that I, as would any spokesman for any Government that could be in power in this country, have to be rather chary about guaranteeing supplies of fuel to any factories, but it is arranged that these new factories will be treated on an equality with existing factories. They will share and share alike according to the priority.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: My point was this. What is the good of opening new factories when the present factories are only allowed to work to 60 per cent. of capacity? I wanted to ask whether it was not unfair to let new factories open until the old factories were guaranteed the amount of coal they had before the war.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am not sure that it would meet with the approval of noble Lords opposite if I said new factories were going to be prevented from opening. I think that would be counted against us. I can assure the noble Viscount that while the general principles of allocation were stated in another place at some length by the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, their application—which of course has to be very carefully considered—is now being worked out and an announcement may be expected

629
before very long. If the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, will forgive me, I will not attempt to deal with some of the entertaining but comparatively small examples of what he called bureaucratic incompetence. I have the answers to all of them, except to the point about jam, and I am expecting that at any moment. All the other answers are at hand, and most satisfactory they are. There was one general point raised by the noble Lord which I think was not covered by the very clear and comprehensive reply of my noble friend. Lord Pethick-Lawrence. My noble friend, it will be recalled, explained the Government's cheap money policy and indicated our attitude to the danger of inflation. If he did not do so, I know he would wish me to point out and to remind the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly deal with the whole subject in his Budget.
There was one implication of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, which, while the noble Lord himself is very well informed, may, I think, judging from comments which reached me afterwards, have misled some noble Lords. I believe a number of your Lordships suppose that when we reach July 15 it will be possible for foreigners holding accumulated balances in this country to transfer them at once to the United States. The noble Lord, who has great experience in these matters, is not going to fall into an error of that kind. I would explain that no accumulated balances may be transferred on that date. While we view the date as one which has to be watched very closely, the immediate problem of July 15, upon which the noble Lord touched, is not our worst headache. May I put it that way?
LORD RENNELL: May I say how very glad I am that the noble Lord has made that point clear? It is one that should be emphasized.
LORD PAKENHAM: It refers to current transactions. I must not detain the House too long, although there is a great deal that any of us could say on this subject. I suppose all of us, while we are interested to know whether the Government will come well or badly out of this debate, are thinking; above all, of the fate of the country. We are all alike in that. Therefore it seems to me to be right to detain the House for a few moments with as dispassionate a review as possible of where
630
to an end and where we find ourselves to-day. It is perhaps unnecessary to do that in as great length as one might otherwise do, because the White Paper has set out the whole story. I would remind the House (I am surprised that my old friend—if I may call him that—the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to omit this altogether from his analysis) of what the noble Viscount certainly touched upon—namely, the grave difficulties in which we found ourselves after the war. I cannot help saying, in passing, that I was very much surprised at the most talented but, in my opinion, most unfair speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. He selected a number of figures. As to one or two of them I am prepared to argue with him in a cooler atmosphere, but at any rate he selected a number of figures and sought to prove a case from figures selected for a particular purpose. Anybody listening to that speech alone would undoubtedly have got the idea that in some way the standard of life in this country had fallen between the middle of f945 and the outbreak of the crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I am sure the noble Lord, who is very well informed, is perfectly well aware.
LORD CHERWELL: The amount of food has certainly fallen.
LORD PAKENHAM: It would be very doubtful whether it had fallen from the middle of 1945. It is slightly lower to-day than it was in 1944, but, if the noble Lord wishes to press the Party point, may I say that the decline had already set in while the administration in which his Party were dominant was still in power? It is not the kind of argument I wish to pursue, but if that is going to be thrown up against me I must point out that the small decline in food consumption did not begin with the Labour Government.
LORD CHERWELL: It got worse after peace began.
LORD PAKENHAM: I do not wish to pursue this subject of food consumption. I have come here particularly well armed with a very complete budget to show exactly what the average person in Ibis country actually eats. I think the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred to King Charles' head. There is no harm in that so long as you can cut it off with one blow, but the noble Lord keeps chipping and

631
chopping at the figures. We shall have to have a show-down about the average ration now eaten in this country and devote an afternoon to it, when I am sure the noble Lord will eat his words, if he eats nothing else.
Let me just refer to the situation in which we found ourselves at the end of the war. We were faced, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, reminded us, with some years—I think one could fairly call it that—of reconversion. He compared it with the four years period necessary to gear up the war production. You cannot make a precise comparison, but it was undoubtedly going to be a long time before any country, even a country which had suffered no damage, could turn over from war to peace. Our overseas trade balance, which had been far from satisfactory in the years before the war, was all awry. Noble Lords need not be reminded of this point, but in order to bring the thing into perspective one must mention it. We lost 4,000,000,000 of our overseas investments and our export trade was considerably less than half what it had been before the war. In many other ways our trade position was very disturbing. Then again, the food prospects were not good. I am quite ready to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, that there has been great difficulty about obtaining the right kind of food, primarily because of the destruction which occurred in Europe, the Far East and other food-producing countries, which caused a demand for food to come on the market when the supplies from the great exporting countries were inadequate.
Finally—and I am quite ready to concede this also, although 1 do not think it is a point of political concession—a great mass of purchasing power hung over our head and we were threatened with inflation unless it was very carefully kept in check. Partly through the National Savings movement it has been possible to do that. Those are some of the factors, of which most of us were aware, which made it quite out of the question that we should get back very rapidly to our pre-war level.
Finally, there was the coal situation. I am not going to deal with that exhaustively to-day, because it was dealt with, it seems to me, with such peculiar effect by the noble Lord whom perhaps I may call the second Lord Simon—second in
632
point of time, though it seems to me that if he goes on speaking like this the noble and learned Viscount will have to look to his laurels! Be that as it may, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, told us the coal story with incomparable effect. Although we may not all have noticed it at the time, by the middle of 1945 the coal industry had fallen a long way below its pre-war situation. The manpower had been reduced, partly through miners being called up, and we were confronted, within what you might call the general difficulties of our post-war situation, by a special crisis in coal. What we had to do was somehow to build up our coal industry again before it was toio late. It was a kind of race which confronted us before the growing demand for fuel overtook lagging production. In effect, in the result we lost the first lap of that race; we were not successful in building up the coal industry quite fast enough. There was a coal crisis confronting us all this winter, and it finally burst upon us when the severe weather took everybody by surprise.
That was the general situation which confronted us after the war, and that was the particular relationship of coal in regard to it. If we leave coal out for the moment, and take the rest of the picture, I am bound to say that anybody looking at the situation with a fair mind—and all noble Lords possess fair minds—must admit that it is a fine achievement of recovery on behalf of the British people. I am not going to take a great deal of the credit—certainly not for myself, or even for the Government—but let us give the credit to the people who have done the work, the industrialists, the workers, and everybody else. If we are going to be knocked about the head; as is right and proper in politics, let us be knocked about the head for the right things. Do not let us he accused of failure by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who said that we were reduced to a lower standard of life by 1946. We built up a remarkable standard of life, considering how we were placed in 1945. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, dealt very fully with the reconversion—
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask whether he would not agree that the building UD of that standard of life was because we were not living within our income? We had the American Loan. Is that not so?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord, my old teacher, has once again put his finger on the obvious. I have no hesitancy in accepting that. We did make a remarkable recovery by the end of 1946. To single out two things, you could take the full employment which prevailed, or you could point in particular to the fact that our exports exceeded all expectations. 11 was estimated at the time of the Loan that our adverse balance would be £750,000,000 in 1946, whereas in fact it was £450,000,000. I have not heard any mention of that fact from the Benches opposite, but it reflects great credit—not on the Government, if you want to leave them out—but on the industrialists and workers. It was a fine British achieve-men at this time.
LORD CHERWELL: Should the credit perhaps go to the people who made the estimate?
LORD PAKENHAM: We cannot give the statisticians all the credit, although I know the noble Lord is of that fraternity. There was a great improvement, and let us at any rate look that pleasant fact in the face, along with the uncomfortable facts we are confronting to-day.
I must not exhaust your Lordships' House, and I will come rapidly to the future. As the White Paper explains quite clearly, in a sense everything depends on coal, although that is true only in a limited sense. As your Lord- ships are well aware, the situation regarding the production of coal is improving. There again, above all things, do not let me attempt to disseminate any kind of sunshine story. We are dealing with a very grave situation, but the curves are moving upwards—which is the usual language of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, except that his curves usually move downwards when he is referring to us. In. January of this year for the first time for a long while the curves moved upwards, and the number of miners rose. As you know, there had been a more or less steady fall for a number of years from 1938 right up to the end of last. year. But in January the figure rose from 692,000 to 694,000 and it has worked its way steadily past the 700,000 mark. That is very encouraging and shows that we are approaching the problem on the right lines. I do not say that we should be reluctant to quarrel with the miners. I think everything possible should be done
634
to reach the friendliest agreement with the miners, and I believe the present Government are more likely to get the best out of the miners than any other Government I can conceive. I hardly think that that particular statement will be challenged.
There has been an improvement in the manpower position but various noble Lords pertinently asked: What about the five-day week, and what about productivity? There seems a certain misapprehension on this subject. I think it was the noble Lord, Lori Beveridge, who is very seldom misinformed, who said that this had been imposed on the Coal Board by the Government—perhaps it was another noble Lord, but at any rate it was heard in this House—and he wanted to know what the Coal Board thought of it. The fact is that the five-day week represents an agreement between the Coal Board and the miners, and when it was reached it was reported to the Government. Some time ago the Government indicated their approval of the idea in principle. Do not let us be carried away with the idea that the Government have gone to the Coal Board and forced them against their will to accept the five-day week.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Is it not the case that the announcement of the Government's acceptance in principle was issued before there had been any agreement at all between the Coal Board and the miners?
LORD PAKENHAM: Very possibly; but the Coal Board are perfectly free agents in this matter. That is the constitutional position. If it were not so there would have been no need to report to the Government. If the Board were acting as agents of the Government, there would have been no question of reporting to the Government.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Supposing there were a difference between the Coal Board and the miners on a particular point, with whom would the ultimate decision lie? Would it not be with the Ministry of Fuel and Power?
LORD PAKENHAM: That is the constitutional position, but I am dealing with the point that the Government did not force this decision on the Coal Board.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The point is that the Government were committed before the Coal Board proceeded to deal with the problem at all, and ultimately responsibility lies with the Government—as I understand it does in a nationalized industry—and it cannot be said that the Coal Board are free agents.
LORD PAKENHAM: Well that will be a matter of opinion. I will leave it to the judgment of your Lordships' House to say whether they are free agents or not, but constitutionally they were perfectly free to accept or reject the five-day week and, as they have chosen, they have in fact exercised their option in favour of it. I think great credit reflects on them that they decided so to do, but it is not for the Government to say what they think about the agreement.
In any case there has been no doubt that we are making a plan. The Government laid great emphasis on the need for increasing productivity per man-shift in the mines. That is our policy. if one goes back to the story of the last two years one sees a fairly steady increase in productivity. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, called attention to the decline in productivity. It has been said that it declined for historical reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, set out yesterday. We have had to put it bluntly. At the end of the war we had the kind of mining industry we deserved; we failed to provide the coal miners with the kind of life fitting for men with that kind of work. But I would emphasize the fact, if we are discussing the matter in relation to the record of the present Government, that since the Government have been in power there has been a fairly steady improvement and we have no reason to suppose that that improvement will not continue.
On the subject of planning I will say that the machinery of planning was set out fairly fully last week in another place. The noble Viscount has asked, in what sense is the planning democratic? I will attempt to explain. I should say it was democratic in three senses, compared with the planning which we witnessed during the war. In the first place it is intended to leave far more discretion at what one might call the circumference than there was during the war. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, drew rather too close
636
an analogy between what we intended to do now and what he did so much to initiate during the war. Certain adjustments have to be made, but if one wishes to compare post-war planning with wartime planning the first difference is that there is more discretion at the circumference, which is inevitable considering the wide range of foreign markets. The second is that much more consultation will take place with industries at all levels while the planning is being prepared. The third is that the plan will not be thrust down the throats of industry to the extent that the plans in war were thrust down the throats of the people. The co-operation of industry and the people generally from inside will be engaged much more actively in carrying it out. It is therefore different in three senses. First there will be more discretion, second there will be more consultation, and third there will be more co-operation. In that kind of way, planning will be democratic, compared with planning found necessary during the war.
I have spoken rather longer than I intended, and I am grateful to the House for their indulgence. I take it that before very long we shall be going into the Division lobby. It is no doubt the duty—it is impertinent for me to mention it—of every member of the House to vote in accordance with his conscience. It is the duty of the Government, whatever the result of the Division, to continue to shoulder their constitutional responsibilities and to try and lead this country—which we all love equally—through these difficult times. No doubt every member of the House will discharge his duty faithfully. We in the Government will not be found wanting in ours.
7.9 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the Motion I moved yesterday was answered by two spokesmen of the Government on the Front Benches opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, yesterday, and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to-day in a delightful speech which I am sure your Lordships enjoyed as much as I did. I must, however, say that in neither of the two speeches was I able to find an answer to the charges made, when I opened this debate, on the inadequacy of measures hitherto taken and proposed by the Government to deal with the econo-

637
mic situation of the country. We regret particularly that the noble Lord who has just sat down has had very little to say about planning to be done and how it is to be done. Indeed I have heard nothing from him, delightful as his speech was,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.
which leads me to modify the opinions I held when I opened the debate.
On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENT

Wellington, D.

Margesson, V.

Gifford, L.

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Camden, M.

Portal, V.

Hampton, L.

Reading, M.

Samuel, V.

Hankey, L.

Salisbury, M.

Simon, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Willingdon, M.

Stonehaven, V.

Hatherton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hawke, L.

Abingdon, E.

Wimborne, V. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Airlie, E.

Hindlip, L.

Amherst, E.

Addington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Cromer, E.

Ashburton, L.

Hylton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Jessel, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Layton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lloyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Grey, E.

Beveridge, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Haig, E.

Bracket, L.

Merthyr, L.

Howe, E

Broughshane, L.

Milford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Lucan, E.

Carrington, L.

Moson, L.

Munster, E.

Cawley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Perth, E.

Cecil, L. (V. Cranborne.)

Newall, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Cherwell, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Radnor, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rankeillour, L.

Rothes, E.

Rennell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rotherham, L.

Selborne, E.

Croft, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cromwell, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Schuster, L.

Spencer, E.

Denham, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Winton, E. (E. Eglintoun.)

Deramore, L.

Soulburv, L.

Ypres, E.

Derwent, L.

Stanmore, L.

Dorchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Allendale, V.

Dudley, L.

Chaplin, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Teviot, L.

Elibank, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Teynham, L.

Falmouth, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hallsham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wardington, L.

Harcourt, V.

Farrer, L.

Windlesharn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wolverton, L.

Leverhulme, V.

NOT-CONTENT

Jowitt, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Nathan, L.

Pakenham. L.

Normanby, M.

Calverley, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Chorley, L.

Piercy, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Quibell, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson, L.

Rochester, L.

Holden, L.

Rusholme, L.

Addison, V.

Kershaw, L.

Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

Hall, V.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Strabolgi, L.

St. Davids, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Winster

Ammon, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

CERTIFICATE FROM THE EXAMINERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
LUTON CORPORATION.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.