§ 5.53 p.m.
§ Debate continued.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, when I came into the Chamber yesterday I did not expect to have such a pleasant surprise as to find in the gracious Speech three different items of which I cordially and wholeheartedly approve. Your Lordships will probably know what they are—namely, the Bill on the white fish industry, the Bill proposing effective means of dealing with the poaching of salmon and trout in Scotland and the measure providing river boards with more effective power to deal with the pollution of rivers and streams. When we come to these Bills I hope that in anything I may do or say the Government will look on me as a co-operator and not as an opponent. It occurs to me at the moment to say that, while I am not sure of the legal position, I think the Government will have to be a little careful about trout. I think that trout and salmon hold quite a different social position. I am entirely in support of the Government with regard to both, but they may require different handling.
With regard to river boards, I do not know what the position is in Scotland. 79 The county councils were determined that they would be the principal power behind the river boards. That is a position which I am very reluctant to see confirmed. I believe that the river boards should be ad hoc bodies, and there are many reasons for this. In the first place, many of the county councils are among the bad polluters. In the second place, the proper area for a river board, as the Government have already recognised, is the watershed. While a county is a static unit, a watershed is not. Rivers are a little like nations; they are always "pinching" a little from each other, and unfortunately rivers are not capable of being formed into United Nations and taking steps to deal with aggression. Therefore, in the long run, the area of a river board is liable to vary, if it is governed by the watershed. There is one further remark I should like to make on this matter. My own humble opinion is that when legislation is being considered river boards ought to be functionaries rather than officials—that is to say, they ought to have a task to perform. I believe that the river boards themselves, after some experience of their difficulties, would probably be the best guide for the legislation that ought to be taken. In this matter I should not like to see legislation come entirely from the top, but for the situation to dictate what must be done.
I now turn to another part of the gracious Speech, upon which I shall spend a few minutes, because it is quite possible that my views on this matter are singular, although I shall be sorry if that is so. We are told that the world is once more troubled with the menace of war. While I entirely agree with the objects of the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, and with most of their methods for meeting the danger of war, I am not always in agreement with the way in which they carry out their policy. In particular, I should very much like the Government to tell me what is their attitude —I do not want to be caught by being told that this is a United Nations matter —as to the defence of Western Germany: whether it is to be defended or not, and, if so, whether it is to be defended with the aid of the Germans themselves. I know only what I have seen in the Press, where, amongst other things, I have seen that thhe French say they do not mind 80 German soldiers but they do not want German officers. I confess to your Lordships that I find it difficult to envisage a German army led by French officers, or by the officers of any other nation. Even Napoleon did not try that.
When we come down to facts, I believe it is true to say that between the wars the Germans devoted a close study to the proper relations between officers and men, and in this war their officers were extremely good and most economically used. When I say "economically used," I do not mean for a moment that the German officers did not show every bit as much courage as those of any other nation, but they were not squandered or wasted. I would remind your Lordships of a fact that is probably known to many of you—namely, that the school to which I belong, and another great school, Wellington, have a larger list of war dead from this war than from the previous war, in spite of the fact that casualties were so much lower. I am not an expert on military matters, but that seems to me to indicate that our use of officers was sometimes somewhat wasteful. Unless we our-selves are prepared to put a very large force into the field we cannot afford to dispense with the inhabitants of any country which we have to defend. It is perfectly clear that we must do one of two things: either we must defend Western Germany, or we must—I will use the German word preisgeben—give it in prize to the enemy. We can be fairly sure that the enemy will know how to gain and use the loyalty of any good soldiers they may happen to wish to use.
If we defend Western Germany, and use German troops, we must give them something which makes it seem worth their while to fight and be loyal to us. In that respect, I should like to appeal to history. We must not let our natural feelings blind us. The Germans, whatever their faults, make very good allies. I will give your Lordships one example. When the whole of Germany was starving for want of sugar and other food—I think it was in the year 1916-they received news that the Turks were absolutely out of sugar. That very week they sent 400,000 kilogrammes of sugar to Turkey, and the whole German people knew it, starving for sugar though they were. That is something which few modern nations 81 would do in the stress of war and, to my mind, it shows a certain quality.
In 1946 I came to your Lordships and made some ineffective complaints about the way in which we were handling our task in Western Germany. Amongst other things. I complained of the harsh measures we meted out to the small tobacconists in our area. As many of your Lordships know, the small tobacconists in Germany are chiefly recruited from war maimed, and, in particular, from war blinded. Anything that affected the small tobacconists affected the power of those people to support themselves. Then, again, there were people suffering from an acute shortage of clothing, who had only their uniforms and who had to go without clothes for days while their uniforms, of which they had been very proud, were dyed to disguise them. It seems to me that we are in an awkward position if we are going to ask for those uniforms to be dyed back again. I reminded your Lordships some days ago that Hitler had been unable to take British battle honours off the colours of German regiments. I do not know whether a new Hitler to-day would find the task so difficult.
I believe that our dilemma is largely one of our own creation, and there is only one way out. In my view, the Government must make up their mind as to the whole situation and as to the real state of feeling in Germany—not merely what they gather; they must make up their mind as to how much in future they will be forced to trust Germans by the logic of events; they must take the bull by the horns, make a virtue of necessity, and take the necessary steps now. I do not think there is any other way of getting an effective answer out of the population that inhabits Western Germany. It has always seemed to me to be one of the tragedies of my life that I have outlived those British Governments which seemed to be actuated by the principle laid down a long time ago by Sophocles: Treat your enemies on the assumption that they may one day be your friends, and your friends on the assumption that they may one day possibly become your enemies. I think that principle died in 1914.
I have said that I am at odds with the means by which His Majesty's Government pursue their foreign policy, although I agree with that policy. A case came 82 to light only this morning, when we were told that His Majesty's Government had abstained from voting on the question whether or not the resolution about Spain should be rescinded. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that we are one of the principal sponsors of the United Nations and that this is a question of some importance. I must say that I regret that we should have abstained and not given a lead one way or the other. If what I feel to be prejudice is to prevail, I think we should have voted against the proposal; but if our own situation and if what seems to me to be sheer common sense is to prevail, we should, I consider, have given ourselves the grace of supporting the United States. I am perfectly certain that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack disagrees with me in this as on many other matters, but I should like your Lordships to note that he does not persist in making faces at me and I do not see why in the United Nations we should behave on a different principle.
I regret that in the most gracious Speech there is no mention of the problems of old age, because the situation appears to me to be getting more acute every day, and however short may be the life of His Majesty's Government I am perfectly certain that the situation in that regard will be even more acute before they go out of office.
§ 6.12 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I must confess that I cannot pretend to appreciate the Government's major intentions which have been outlined in the gracious Speech. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said that it does not make a strong appeal to those of us on these Benches, and there I certainly agree with him. In fact I have looked for something which would give real benefit to the country in this difficult period, and which might stir one's heart perhaps to champion its cause. But there is absolutely nothing which would really benefit the country as a whole on a wide basis. It is not so much a question of what is in the gracious Speech, as of what has been left out of it. There is practically no mention of housing, and certainly no indication as to how building is to be increased. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who replied on behalf of His 83 Majesty's Government, makes no apology for this lack of information. In fact, on the contrary he has plumed himself on the inadequate results that His Majesty's Government have produced.
I do not propose this evening to go into the question of how many houses can be built, but I have no doubt that the number put forward by the Conservative Party is certainly a figure which can be achieved. But whatever is said, this is certainly a matter which is of the utmost importance to the people in the country, for this lack of housing is causing more strain on family life than any other single factor. What do we find instead of plans for housing? We find the dead hand of more nationalisation, which is again to be fastened on us in a quite unnecessary Bill, in spite of the fact that His Majesty's Government have not yet learned how to make any of their previous efforts in this direction a success. What is more, I would say that in some cases they appear to be losing control of these nationalised industries and, as your Lordships know, the taxpayer is unable in Parliament to find out through his representative what is going on.
We have been told many times by the Lord President of the Council that he welcomed the competition of private enterprise with the nationalised industries. The question is: Do His Majesty's Government intend this competition to be a fair one? From what we have seen recently in the road haulage industry I suggest that this does not appear to be their intention at all. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that about 5,000 of the private road hauliers operating under "A" and "B" licences are now to have their permits revoked; and many others have been advised that their permits will be subject to modification. What is the reason for this revocation of licences? I suggest that it is nothing less than an effort to eliminate efficient competition from the independent hauliers. It seems that the Transport Commission cannot face up to this efficient competition which is reflected in the large losses shown by the nationalised road transport. It is true, of course, that during the passage of the Transport Act His Majesty's Government indicated that these permits were to be authorised until the Transport Commission were properly organised, and 84 would then be reconsidered. But are the Commission properly organised? Are they in an efficient state, able to provide a really first-class efficient and comparable service for the public? I would say, on the contrary, that the State organisation is far from it, and I would suggest that they are never likely to succeed under their present organisation.
What will the revocation of these permits mean? I suggest that it will mean that the public will have to put up with a less efficient and a more expensive service, and trade and industry will suffer. I wonder how many people in the country realise that the past efforts of the Transport Commission have already raised the cost of living by one-and-a-half points. No doubt the same will happen with the beet sugar industry. Inevitably the public will have to pay more for their sugar if the intentions of His Majesty's Government are carried out. We have witnessed only recently yet another attack on private enterprise by British European Airways, who appear to be taking steps to ensure that a number of air charter companies will be unable to renew their licences. Do His Majesty's Government really believe that this monopolistic attitude will benefit the country and give the people an efficient air service? I suggest that on the contrary it will do a great disservice—and, to mention one case in particular, we have already seen from the Press that the Channel Islanders are most dissatisfied with the proposed change in their air services.
The fact is that His Majesty's Government appear to have blind faith in nationalisation as a panacea for any industrial difficulty—and even when there is no difficulty at all, as in the case of the iron and steel industry. The obvious failures and waste in this system, which produces heavy losses, high prices, bad labour conditions and so on, seem to have no effect at all on His Majesty's Government, and appear only to whet their appetite for more. How do they intend to improve these State organisations? The only thing they appear to be able to suggest at present is a periodic independent inquiry into these State monopolies; and that only once every seven years. There is little doubt that all these nationalised industries are draining the life-blood of the country, and will end by impoverishing the people and causing 85 a marked deterioration in the industrial production of the country. I think it is true to say that many experiments in nationalisation have been carried out in many parts of the world, but seldom, if ever, with beneficial results.
His Majesty's Government appear to be endeavouring to hold a balance in nationalisation, between the advantages of assured financial resources and a mono-poly, on the one hand, as against the disadvantages of inflexibility and loss of competition, on the other. The fact is that they are now failing to hold this balance, because these State monopolies are not willing to compete on fair terms with private enterprise. I suggest that in the transport industry this unfair com-petition is more apparent than in any other State organisation. I regret to see that there is nothing in the gracious Speech which will in any way amend or improve the operations of the nationalised industries, and I hope that before long His Majesty's Government will take such measures as may be necessary, before it is too late and the country has become impoverished by a State stranglehold on industry.
§ 6.20 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in his earnest dissertation upon what is not included in the gracious Speech. I think I shall serve your Lordships better if I follow the example of his own leader and speak on what is in the gracious Speech and deal with noble Lords' comments about it. I can only think that the noble Lord who has just spoken wished to pay me a subtle and charming compliment by making his speech all about the transport industry. I thank him for it. I am not going to follow him. When I listened to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and his onslaught upon His Majesty's Government, in what my noble friend the First Lord characterised quite correctly as a brilliant electioneering speech, I thought we were going to have a debate of life and fire, but that expectation has not been fulfilled.
I intend to reply to what I think is the burden of the Opposition's arguments and criticisms of the gracious Speech. It is directed against one paragraph—namely, that
In order to defend full employment, to ensure that the resources of the community 86 are used to best advantage and to avoid inflation, legislation will be introduced to make available to my Ministers, on a permanent basis but subject to appropriate Parliamentary safeguards, powers to regulate production, distribution and consumption and to control prices.That paragraph appears in the gracious Speech, about which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, in his opening remarks, that it contained nothing of benefit to the country. I expected him to say that. Full employment is, of course, of no benefit to the country! Has it been of any benefit to the country? I do not think that there is really anything between noble Lords on that side and noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House as to the necessity for controls, but I think we differ when we cone to consider who is to operate those controls. Are the economic controls that are necessary to be planned by Parliament, for the good of every section of the community, or are they to be planned by monopolists and cartels for the benefit of the few?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIf I may inter-rupt, would the noble Lord elaborate that a little, and explain to me in what way it is the policy of cur Party to allow cartels to control? I am unaware of it. The only cartels I know that control and direct at present are the nationalised industries.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI will deal with that point in a moment. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his interruption. He and I have spent quite a sizable part of our life in industry, and industry has been controlled by rings, trade associations and federations until it was controlled practically out of any enterprise at all: the noble Viscount knows that as well as I do. The noble Viscount knows very well that the man in business to-day could not buy a thing unless he belonged to some trade association. The price of everything he bought was fixed by a ring —a dictated price at the level the ring thought fit—and if he did not comply he had sanctions against him. That was the control that exercised a greater economic power over the lives of the people of this country than even Gov-ernments exercised. That is the control that is to end, because the economic control in future will be exercised by Parliament for the benefit of the people.
87 What has happened since 1945? This country, through His Majesty's Government, who have been in power since 1945, has, with the generous aid of America, made a greater economic recovery than any country in the history of the world. That has been done by conscious control —because of it, not in spite of it. I listened the other day, with great respect, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. When the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, talks on industrial subjects, he talks with very great knowledge, and I do not intend to follow him in his discourses about crockery, or even about braces, although braces are a very useful commodity—of far more use to politicians, perhaps, than to any other section of the community, because they prevent their nether garments putting them into a vulnerable position, a position which I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was in when he made the statement at Blackpool that he was pre-pared to accept a liability of 300,000 houses. I will deal with that in a moment.
The noble Lord. Lord Woolton, said— I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of October 25, column 1357:
Let me be quite clear on this issue, in order that I may not be misjudged. I am not asking, and I have never asked, for the abandonment of all controls. What I ask now is that His Majesty's Ministers should go over these 10,000 legislative enactments.…"—I need not go on. The noble Lord meant "weed them out." That is what we propose to do. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in what I thought was a very informative speech, on the same occasion as the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made the remarks to which I have referred, pointed out that all these statutory instruments have, of necessity, to be kept in force while any one section of them has any validity at all. Therefore, if you have a handful of nuts that you want to crack, you have to keep a garage full of steamrollers to crack them. The object of the legislation which His Majesty's Government intend to bring in is to enable us to do away with many of these instruments that at present we have to keep in force.But then the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, went on (I gave him notice that I was going to mention this. He apologised that he could not stay owing to a 88 previous engagement), speaking of the effect of controls upon profit:
I acknowledge quite frankly that we are not suffering as a trade in the gross profit which we are making. What we are suffering from "—is the fact that the cost of operating and scrutinising these controls is whittling into the gross profit figure. What the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, should realise is that when His Majesty's Government came out with a policy of fair shares, and kept on the fair shares which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, himself initiated during the war, there was a necessity to have fair shares not only for consumers but also for sellers. The noble Lord will agree this is most necessary. It is because His Majesty's Government insisted that there should be fair shares that the sellers and all the small shopkeepers had to fill in these forms. What would have been the result if we had not controlled the scarce goods that go into retail shops? Would noble Lords opposite have been content to let large concerns corner the market, and freeze these small people out? If you were to ask any small shopkeeper to-day whether he would rather have the job of filling in forms which would ensure him a fair supply or be left without the forms to the mercy of monopolies and the big people in the distribution industry, I know what he would say.My noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has told your Lordships what has been the result of this planned economy since 1945. I will not go over all the figures, but he did tell your Lord-ships this: the volume of exports, based on a figure of 100 in 1947, increased to a monthly average of 169 in August of this year. The monthly average of exports, including re-exports, at £154,000,000 in had risen to £197,000,000 in August of this year. Productivity, taking 1946 as 100, was, in June. 143. Is there any noble Lord who will say that that could have been done without conscious economic planning and control? In what position do we find ourselves to-day with a three-year rearmament programme that is going to strain our resources as they have never been strained before? We must at any cost keep up our export trade as well. We cannot mortgage our future. We know that we can live only by exporting our increasing production. We have got 89 to go on and try to meet this rearmament programme, and at the same time we must not let our exports fall. That will mean that home consumers will have to go short. It will mean that we may lose some of our markets in the world, especially for engineering products. That loss will have to be made up by the export of other consumer goods which, of course, will have to be taken from the home market.
It is unreal to say that with an armament boom in progress all over the world increasing the shortages, prices will not go up. Prices will increase. This is where I come to the speech of the noble Marquess. He will forgive my saying this, but I have heard him make no speech with which I disagreed more. I think he was unfair—and I hope he will forgive me for saying so—because he put only one side of the question. He started off, in my view, with a very unfair statement. He said that the paragraph in the gracious Speech that I read out would attract Socialist votes because the attraction to Socialists was more power for the State. I do not really believe the noble Marquess meant that. It will attract votes; it will attract a lot of votes. But it will attract them because it is the only hope that the average man in this country has of enjoying what he enjoyed for the first time in his life during the years from 1941-full employment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDoes the noble Lord mean that the only hope for this country is to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the Legislature?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThat was the point I made, and it was in that context, as the noble Lord will find if he reads my speech again, that I made the remark he quoted.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThe noble Marquess knows that I would not be unfair. If I have misrepresented him. I apologise immediately, but what I read into his remark was that the Socialist votes for a Socialist Government so that that Government can have all-pervading power over the people. No such thing. Nobody who has any knowledge of modern Socialism would ever say that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI can quote to the noble Lord what I said 90 —I was referring to the Supplies and Services Act, or the proposed new Bill:
It is not so vulnerable as nationalisation, yet it is thoroughly Socialist in character, and it is calculated to appeal to the Socialist voter in that it aims at increasing the power of the Executive at the expense of the Legislature.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThere is nothing between us at all, nothing whatsoever. That is what I said the noble Marquess said.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYYes, and then you misquoted my remark.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNo, I did not misquote the noble Marquess's remark. What I did was to put a different interpretation upon it from that which the noble Marquess now wants to put on it. The point at issue between the noble Marquess and myself, and between the noble Lords opposite and myself, is this: Is the economy of this country going to-be planned for the benefit of the people, or are we going to use that choice expression that we sometimes hear from noble Lords opposite, "Set the people free,"— free for some to exploit the many?
The noble Marquess went on, and again gave a very unfair account of increased prices. He started by saying that before the war one could buy an Axminster carpet for £24.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNot before the war, but in January of this year.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhat could you buy an Axminster carpet for before the war, or in January of this year? How many people before the war could ever have thought of affording an Axminster carpet? Then the noble Marquess went on to speak about shoes. He spoke about the increase in the price of ladies' glace kid shoes. The noble Marquess remembers that before the war, when our economy was unplanned, the boot and shoe factories of Northampton and Leicester were closed, and all the operatives were out of work because the people of this country could not afford boots and shoes to wear. Yet there are more people wearing boots and shoes in this country to-day, at whatever price they pay for them—and I am not saying they are not now higher in price—than ever wore them in the history of this country.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYes, there are more people in the country, and every one of them is properly shod; there are not people to-day walking about bootless and shoeless.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Lord surely will not say that there were masses of people in this country before the war who were not wearing boots and shoes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYes, I do say so.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThen he is going back a very long time.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNo, I am not going back too long. That is where the noble Marquess, if I may say so, with the greatest possible respect, is really unconscious of some of the facts of life. I ask my noble friend how many women in the Rhondda Valley had boots and shoes in 1926. That is not a matter for laughter. Those women never heard of Axminster carpets. Why did not the noble Marquess, when he was talking about the increase in prices, also talk about the increase in wages? Although I agree with him that the woman has to pay more in the shops for the goods she buys, to-day she has more in her purse with which to buy than she ever had in her life.
LORD SALTOUNI am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I ought to tell him that for part of my childhood I myself went without boots and shoes.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord for substantiating my statement. That is the point. The noble Marquess as well as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, kept on talking about the decreased value of the pound as though it were the only currency in this world that had decreased in value. I have some figures here, taken from the United Nations monthly bulletin of statistics. The figures for the United Kingdom show the increase in the cost of living indices at roughly 50 per cent. and the increase in wage rates at roughly 140 per cent. The United States retail prices, again shown by the cost of living indices, have increased by about 70 per 92 cent., and the wage rates by 130 per cent. I am not going to put those figures for-ward as strictly correct, but they are at least some indication that the prices in this country have not risen so much as they have in America, but the wage rates have increased more. So I think it is a fair deduction that the value of the dollar is slightly less than the value of the pound, if you can get that comparable figure.
Then, when my noble friend Lord Hall gave the noble Marquess figures of productivity, and when he was quoting to the noble Marquess the drawing back of some of the more responsible Conservative leaders from the impasse into which they had landed themselves at Blackpool, the noble Marquess asked, "What did Mr. Coppock say?" Well, Mr. Coppock said it was within the capacity of the building industry to build 300,000 houses. My interpretation of that is that Mr. Cop-pock meant that the building industry had sufficient operatives to build the houses. Of course, Mr. Coppock could not talk about materials such as steel, cement, softwoods, and things like that. He did not know. If the noble Marquess could bring himself to answer this question on the level that I should like him to, I would ask him which he would rather have if he were a young artisan— a job or a house?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI would infinitely rather have both.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWill the noble Marquess answer? If he were a young artisan, which would he rather have—a job or a house?
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONUnder Social-ism you can have only one.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI repeat, I should infinitely rather have both. But I do not think that is an alternative. The noble Lord thinks that if they have a job they cannot have a house. I do not agree, and I hope that we on these Benches will be able to show that that is not true.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI did not expect the noble Marquess to give me a straight answer because he knows very well that he cannot answer. He knows very well that if he had to choose he would take the job because, if he did not have a job, he could not 93 afford to live in a house, even at a very small rent; you cannot either have your own house or rent one and be standing in an unemployment queue. I will tell the noble Marquess why. During the Recess I travelled the whole of Scotland and saw the development areas. I saw the factories that have been built in Hamilton and around that vast area where to-day there is no unemployment at all. I saw wonderful hydro-electric schemes, using tons and tons of steel and concrete and thousands and thousands of bricks. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said in reply to a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, a little while ago, either you can have factories and full employment of people working in the factories, or you can have houses, or you can have a balance of one or the other. But the noble Marquess knows as well as I that no Government could build 300,000 houses without robbing the industrial productivity of this country to do so. After all, the noble Marquess really does know these things. I saw some of these things. I have been all over this country, and I have seen these factories in South Wales, on the North-East coast, the North-West coast, and in Scotland; and the industrial development of this country has been one of the wonders of the age. That is where the capital investment has gone. My Lords, I had an experience unlike that of the noble Marquess. When I was first married I lived in one room; I could not afford to buy a house. But then I knew one thing, and that is that I would rather live in one room with a good job than in a house and be unemployed; and so would everybody else. That, in my view, is the answer to the noble Marquess's assertion regarding increases in prices, the building of houses, and the need for economic control. I do not think that when we come to debate this matter in the future the noble Marquess and we on this side of the House will disagree very much, unless of course we have to bring politics into it; then we shall.
I do not think it is necessary to make much comment on the other speeches. If 1 may, I will briefly reply to just one or two of them. When the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, spoke I had the advantage of having my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty sitting by me, and he told 94 me that he had listened with great interest to everything the noble Lord had said, had marked it well and would heed it. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi I am going to leave to the tender care of my noble friend Lord Morrison, who knows more about poachers and salmon than I do—and I suspect that my noble friend knows more than either of us. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, paid a great tribute to the farmers of the country, and I should like to endorse what he said. The farmers of this country have done a great job, and this Government has done a greater job for the farmers than any other Government in this country has ever done. I know that the noble Lord will not dissent from that. No Government has ever done so much for the agricultural community as has His Majesty's present Government, and I would ask the noble Lord not to look too deeply in the mouth the gift horse of what I may call the hill-farming subsidy mentioned in the gracious Speech, because what it is particularly intended to do is to increase the facilities already available under the Hill Farming Act of 1946. I might say that it brings those provisions a little further down the hillside. The noble Lord knows the provisions of the 1946 Act.
§ LORD CRANWORTHI was really asking why they were lot brought a little further down the hill—nearly down to sea level.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am coming to that. I was just explaining to the noble Lord what it does. Of course, it is not enough—no subsidy and no grant can ever be enough. But the noble Lord must really be grateful for what he considers to be a small mercy. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has said that this would have to be the limit: the limit not only as regards amount, but also as regards area spending. When it is borne in mind that there is a queue of people waiting to get something out of an investment programme that will not stretch to the needs of all, I do not think the noble Lord will complain about the treatment by His Majesty's Government of the agricultural industry.
With regard to the question which the noble Lord raised regarding the encroachment of roads, factories and town planning, there, again, there must be 95 balance. If all were farmers and none were consumers, if everyone were a successful farmer and we had no industry, there would be no one to eat the produce of the farming industry. That would not be a very good thing for the farmers. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in one of those charming interludes with which he delights your Lordships' House, said many things to which I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend. I am not going to engage either with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, or with the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in a discussion upon sugar: I think that would come better when legislation is before your Lordships' House. I hope I shall be able to listen to the remarks of both noble Lords. I am certain that their words will be as sweet as the subject with which they will be dealing. They always are.
§ LORD CRANWORTHThank you. That is just what I suggested.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHNow I would suggest to your Lordships that these economic plans have got to be. We must have this short-term policy in connection with our rearmament programme. The implications of this rearmament programme no noble Lord in 96 this House can foretell. As at present planned, it is for three years. That is what we think to-day. We have to ensure that our economic structure does not get out of balance. We have to look to the future far ahead of that. We have to build up our economic strength. And let me say this very sincerely—no Government who ever allowed the economy of this country to go back into the terrible state it was in before the last war, no Government who ever allowed a policy of full employment not to be their first and main objective, would ever be worthy of being representative of the British people. If that is the issue between us, if that is the issue upon which we shall have to fight an Election at some time, let it come. I am very certain what will be the verdict of the British people.
§ 6.56 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONMy Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
§ Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Swinton.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
§ House adjourned accordingly at three minutes before seven o'clock.