Sitting of 25 April 1939

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES, 1939 (MILITARY MANOEUVRES ACTS, 1897 AND 1911) (ORDERS IN COUNCIL).
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUDSEHOLD (Mr. FRIMSTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:
I have received your Address praying that I will make two Orders in Council under the Military Manoeuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, drafts of which were presented to your House on the 8th day of February last.
I will comply with your advice.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).—
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number and acreage of allotments being used for the production of foodstuffs in Scotland in 1933 and 1938, respectively; and whether he is taking steps to increase the area of land
    934
    being so utilised, in view of the need for conserving and increasing our available food supplies in the national interest?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): According to returns furnished by local authorities, there were 21,417 allotments, totalling 1,400 acres, in cultivation in Scotland in 1933, and 19,378 allotments, totalling 1,372 acres, in cultivation in 1938. The responsibility of providing allotments is placed by Statute on local authorities, and financial assistance is given to them, and to local allotment associations, to help in providing equipment. Annual grants are also made to the Joint Committee of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders and the Society of Friends to encourage the demand for allotments. I am considering whether any further steps can be taken to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of these provisions.
    Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as England is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture has recently urged the importance of this matter upon local authorities? Will he do the same?
    Mr. Colville: I am considering what are the most useful steps to take. Recently I had a deputation to see me on the subject.

    NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDING, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the new offices on the Calton Hill, Edinburgh, will accommodate all the personnel of the Departments operating in Edinburgh under his jurisdiction; and, if not, what Departments are being excluded from the new building?
    Mr. Colville: With certain exceptions mentioned below, it is contemplated that the headquarters staffs of the proposed Home Department and of the Departments of Education, Health and Agriculture, the General Board of Control and a branch of the Stationery Office—to the number of about 1,300 in the aggregate—will be accommodated in the new building. The Insurance Division of the Department of Health, the Statistics Section of the Department of Agriculture, the Pensions Branch of the Education

    935
    Department, the Registrar-General's Department and the Scottish Juvenile Welfare and After-Care Office—to the number of about 530 in the aggregate—will remain out with the new building. The scheme of allocation is at present under review, and some alterations in the arrangements mentioned may be required.
    Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the Departments that are being excluded from the new building are to be provided for, and who is responsible for the under-estimate of the requirements of the staff to be housed in the new building?
    Mr. Colville: I cannot agree with that point of view. It was never intended that the building should house all the staff under the Secretary of State's control, but it will make possible a most useful concentration of the essential staffs of the administrative Departments. The Departments have, owing to emergency work, required considerable increases in staff since the building was designed. As regards the location of the staffs outside the new building, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it not possible to increase the size of the building?
    Mr. Colville: I do not think so.

    RURAL WATER SUPPLIES (SURVEY).
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the refusal of the Department of Health to meet the cost of or lend officers to assist in making the survey of water supplies in rural areas has seriously handicapped many authorities, with the result that counties which made returns months ago are unfairly delayed in their water and drainage supply schemes; why such surveys are required of Scottish local authorities when no similar demand was made in England, where the Minister of Health made his own estimate of needs; and whether he can announce the provision of grants for the execution of essential drainage and water supply developments?
    Mr. Colville: The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the negative. Following a meeting with my predecessor, the Association of County Councils in Scotland set up a committee
    936
    to examine the whole question of rural water supply and drainage in Scotland. The surveys which my hon. Friend doubtless has in mind are being made in connection with the work of this committee, and the Department of Health is not in a position to undertake them. The information obtained, in addition to giving a general picture of requirements, will be of great value to the county councils concerned in carrying out their statutory functions.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it not the case that these surveys are being very seriously delayed, and that, until the results of the Government's review are available, other counties which have submitted their surveys will be held up in regard to the carrying out of their necessary work?
    Mr. Colville: If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular case, I shall be glad if he will let me know. In point of fact, a number of the surveys are well forward.
    Mr. Levy: Is it not true to say that surveys have repeatedly been made with regard to water supplies, and that there is really no need for fresh surveys, which are merely side-stepping the issue? Will the Secretary of State do something to accelerate the provision of the water supplies which are so urgently needed?
    Mr. Colville: I cannot accept that as regards Scotland. There are certain districts where we have not an accurate picture of the position.

    SHERIFFS, GLASGOW (SALARIES).
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the salary of sheriffs in Glasgow and the salary of county court judges in England; and if he is satisfied with the present salaries and conditions of Glasgow sheriffs?
    Mr. Colville: Sheriffs Substitute in Glasgow receive salaries of £1,750 a year, and County Court Judges in England £2,000 a year. The Sheriff Principal of Lanark receives a salary of £2,400 a year. A revision of the salaries of sheriffs was settled in 1937, after consideration from all points of view, and no change is contemplated at present.

    STEEL HOUSES, SANDYHILLS.
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Second Scottish National Housing

    937
    Company, Limited, have repeatedly received letters from the Sandyhills Tenants Association requesting a reduction in rents of steel houses, and other complaints, and have refrained from answering or acknowledging these communications; whether he will instruct his officers on the board of this company to see that they act courteously to their tenants; on what date they intend to reconsider the rents of these houses at Sandyhills; and whether he will instruct them to receive a deputation of tenants on the subject of rent reduction?
    Mr. Colville: I have communicated with the company about the first part of the question, and will write to the hon. Member when my inquiries are completed. I understand that the company are to consider the rents of the Sandyhills houses and the question of receiving a deputation from the tenants on this subject at a meeting to be held to-morrow.
    Mr. McGovern: Has this association been notified that consideration is being given to the matter, and that a deputation has been agreed to?
    Mr. Colville: I understand that the meeting to-morrow is to consider receiving a deputation, as well as the question of rent.

    BURNING PIT-HEAPS.
    Sir Douglas Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many burning colliery refuse heaps there are in Scotland, and on how many of these is refuse still being tipped?
    Mr. Colville: I am informed that 68 colliery refuse heaps are on fire in Scotland, and that refuse is still being deposited on 50 of these.
    Sir D. Thomson: Will not my right hon. Friend take steps to see that inflammable refuse does not continue to be tipped on these heaps, which are already on fire?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir. Discussions are now proceeding between the inspectors of the Department of Health and of the Mines Department on the one hand, and the colliery companies on the other, and they have in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the question of stowing redd instead of piling it up?
    Mr. Colville: That is a matter for the Mines Department rather than for me.

    POOR RELIEF.
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland now in receipt of Poor Law relief; and how many old age pensioners are included in that number?
    Mr. Colville: There were 127,036 persons, with 104,940 dependants, in receipt of poor relief on15th March, 1939. The number of old age pensioners in receipt of poor relief during the week ended 11th March, 1939, was 42,387.

    BRICK SUPPLIES.
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that difficulty is being experienced by brickworks in some parts of Scotland in disposing of supplies, resulting in loss of time; and whether he will consult with the Service Departments with a view to placing orders for bricks required for works in Scotland with Scottish firms, with particular reference to the Scottish Special Area?
    Mr. Colville: I understand that some brick makers have accumulated reserves of bricks, but the stocks generally do not appear to be unduly high. Having regard to building operations in progress and in contemplation, and to the number of skilled operatives now available, there seems to be no reason to doubt that a demand for bricks at least equal to the present output will be maintained for some time. I am, however, in communication with the Departments in regard to the suggestion made in the second part of the question.

  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary for Mines particulars of the provisions which have been made to render bomb-proof the reservoirs at present used for the storage of oil so as to ensure the maintenance of supplies of oil in this country in time of war?
  The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): No, Sir. It has been explained on several occasions that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the steps which have been and are being taken to safeguard the supplies of oil to this country.
  Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether the sub-committee which has been looking into this matter has reached any decision?
  Mr. Lloyd: Not without notice.
  Miss Wilkinson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to go on in his new office as he began, by withholding information from this House?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WATERLOGGING, SOUTH-WEST DURHAM.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Secretary for Mines whether anything has been done by the interests concerned to promote a scheme for the draining of the waterlogged coal measures in South-West Durham, where over 13,000,000 tons of coal are submerged?
    Mr. Lloyd: The discussions referred to by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 2nd March, are still proceeding.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these waterlogged areas are a serious menace to the men working there; and is the Mines Department satisfied that these millions of tons of coal should be lost?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would remind the hon. Member that my powers in this matter are only powers to persuade a reluctant minority.
    Mr. Stewart: Is it not possible for the hon. Gentleman to speed up the interests concerned with a view to reclamation in this area?
    Mr. Lloyd: The deputy-chairman of the Coal Commission has recently made an investigation into this matter on the spot.

    SHALE DUST.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the increase in the use of shale dust for coal-dusting purposes; and whether, in view of the fact that shale dust contains substantial percentages of free silica, and may be a cause of silicosis, he will take steps to prohibit its use for this purpose?
    Mr. Lloyd: I believe there has been some increase in the use of shale dust, due to the necessity to use for stonedusting a
    940
    dust which shall remain freely dispersible under the conditions of use. I am advised that shale dust has been very extensively used for stonedusting for 20 years, and experience does not in any way suggest that its use is a cause of silicosis or that there is any need to prohibit its use.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the feeling generally in South Wales that the increase in silicosis in the steam coal mines may be due to shale dust, will the hon. Gentleman call for a report on the matter by the divisional inspectors for Cardiff and Swansea?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would, in the first instance, prefer to investigate any special case that the hon. Gentleman might bring to my notice.

    MINE INSPECTORS.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary for Mines the maximum age at which per sons can now be appointed as inspectors of mines and what period of practical experience of coal-mining is required; and whether he is satisfied that these conditions secure the appointment of persons with full practical experience of coal mining?
    Mr. Lloyd: The maximum age for the appointment of junior inspectors is 35, and for sub-inspectors 40. At least five years practical experience underground is required of candidates, including—in the case of junior inspectors—recent employment for two years as manager or under-manager or in some other responsible capacity requiring regular attendance underground. The present requirements as to practical experience were endorsed by the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines except for a reservation by one member, and I am advised that they are sufficient.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the earnings per person employed and the total wages paid in the mining industry in 1938?
    Mr. Lloyd: During the year 1938, the average cash earnings per wage-earner employed in the coal mines in Great Britain were £145 7s. 5d., and the estimated total amount of wages paid, £111,005,000. The average value of allowances in kind was £5 12s. per wage-earner, and the estimated total value, £4,280,000.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Will my hon. Friend circulate this information regularly through the Vote Office?
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the output of coal, quantity exported, and the average declared value per ton f.o.b. in Great Britain in 1938, together with similar particulars for South Wales and Monmouthshire?
    Mr. Lloyd: The quantity of saleable coal raised in Great Britain during 1938 was 227,015,308 tons. The quantity of coal exported was 35,860,908 tons, and its average declared value per ton f.o.b. 20s. 10d. The corresponding figures for South Wales and Monmouthshire were 35,292,748 tons, 14,583,638 tons, and 23s. 1d., respectively.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary for Mines the average output per person employed and the average wage paid per person employed in the mining industry in South Wales and Monmouthshire in 1938?
    Mr. Lloyd: During the year ended 31st January, 1939, the average output of saleable coal per wage-earner employed in coal mines in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 264 tons, and the average cash earnings per wage-earner during the same period were £144: the average value of allowances in kind was £3 7s. 1d.
    Mr. Denman: Do these figures of persons employed include juveniles?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Do they include under-managers and such people?
    Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put that question down.

    CLOSED PITS, COUNTY DURHAM.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines what number of coalmines were temporarily closed and not re-opened in County Durham last year?
    Mr. Lloyd: During 1938, seven pits in Durham, each employing 10 or more persons, and in the aggregate 1,879 persons, were temporarily closed and not reopened.

  RESERVE STOCKS (COAL AND OIL).
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a state-
  942
  ment on the Government's plans for storing reserve stocks of coal and oil in preparation for an emergency?
  Mr. Lloyd: As regards oil, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to-day to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day). The same answer is applicable to coal, but I can assure the hon. Member that appropriate action is being taken.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the discussion he has had with the Governor of Newfoundland concerning the conditions that exist in the island, substantiate and confirm the report of the Commission of Government for the calendar year 1938; and can he give particulars of what steps the Government now propose to take to relieve the present conditions?
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The report for 1938 will, I hope, be presented to Parliament at an early date. As regards the second part, the programme of the Commission of Government for the coming season has not yet been finally settled, but it is expected to provide for a substantial extension of their reconstruction plans, as well as for certain special short-term measures designed to assist the fishing industry and to add to the volume of employment.
  Mr. Day: Are we to understand that the Press reports published are substantially correct?
  Sir T. Inskip: The Press reports to which I understand the hon. Gentleman refers do not deal with the whole position. As far as I know, the information which they contain is substantially correct, but it does not include the whole of the facts.
  Mr. Lyons: In point of fact, have the conditions in Newfoundland become worse this year, or have they improved at all?
  Sir T. Inskip: The condition of things in the winter of 1938–39 was worse than in the preceding winter.
  Mr. Gallacher: In the reconstruction programme, will the Minister not give serious consideration to the reconstruction of democratic rule in Newfoundland?

  ALBERTA (OIL SUPPLIES).
  Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the possibilities of using oil supplies from Alberta in Canada in time of war; and whether any co-operation in this matter with the Alberta Government has been considered by his Department?
  Sir T. Inskip: The possibility of using oil supplies from Alberta depends primarily on the suitability of the products for Admiralty and Air Force requirements. A delegation representing Alberta oil interests is visiting this country, and is in touch with the Admiralty and Air Ministry and other Departments concerned.

  EMPIRE RAW MATERIALS.
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that increasing quantities of essential metals are being supplied to potentially hostile countries by British Dominions; and whether he will inform these Dominions that such trading is affecting the defensive measures taken by His Majesty's Government in this country and jeopardising the safety of the British Empire?
  Sir T. Inskip: In the absence of detailed indication of the particular metals and particular countries, both of export and of import, to which the hon. Member refers, I am unable to reply to the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Germany purchased in the first two months of this year five times as much nickel as in the first two months last year, and will he not advise the Dominions that the aggressor nations would not be of the slightest danger unless the Dominions supplied raw material to them?
  Sir T. Inskip: I understand that the hon. Member has a question on the Paper to-day about nickel. His question to me was about all metals.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: Are any restrictions being put on the exportation of metals from this country?
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government are quite indifferent to the supply of raw materials to potential enemy countries from British sources?
  Sir T. Inskip: The question to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was dealt with by the Prime Minister a short time ago in a Parliamentary answer. The question to-day is in reference to representations to the Dominions. I am not prepared to make representations to the Dominions inconsistent with the action we take in this country.
  Mr. Morrison: Are we to understand that it is the intention of this Government to maintain the policy of this country, and to encourage the Dominions to supply raw materials for war purposes to countries as to whose intentions we are gravely apprehensive?
  Sir T. Inskip: There is no question of encouraging the Dominions.
  Mr. Dalton: The Australian Government have prohibited the export of iron ore, and why cannot we follow the good example of that country?
  Mr. Graham White: Would not a refusal to supply essential materials to certain countries give some justification to the theory of encirclement?
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Might not the Dominions be asked to give full priority to our own requirements?
  Sir T. Inskip: There is, as far as I am aware, no evidence of any disinclination on the part of the Dominions to give us all the materials they can send to us.
  Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is justifiable to ask the youth of this country to agree to conscription if he is not going to curb capitalists?
  Captain Cazaletasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures for the total exports and re-exports from the United Kingdom of the following materials: pig-iron, scrap-iron, steel, tin, and lead for the first quarter of 1939; and what proportion of these exports and re-exports went to Germany, Italy and Japan, respectively?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

  Table showing the total declared value of exports from the United Kingdom of the under-mentioned commodities during the three months ended March, 1939, distinguishing the amounts consigned to Germany, Italy and Japan, respectively.

  Description.

  Exports to all destinations.

  Total exports consigned to

  United Kingdom goods.

  Imported merchandise.

  Germany.

  Italy.

  Japan.

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  £'000

  Iron and steel —

  Scrap and waste, fit only for the recovery of metal.

  150

  —

  65

  8

  1

  Pig iron

  120

  —

  32

  2

  —

  Ingots, blooms, billets and slabs of steel.

  27

  (a)

  —

  —

  —

  Tin blocks, ingots, bars and slabs

  1,111

  35

  5

  31

  —

  Lead, unwrought, in pigs, ingots, blocks, bars, slabs and cakes.

  22

  48

  2

  —

  —

  (a) £7 only.

  Mr. Vyvyan Adamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that certain essential raw materials exist within the British Empire of which there is only a limited supply, he can give an assurance that steps are being taken to secure the exclusive supply to this country in the event of the outbreak of hostilities?
  Mr. Cross: I can assure my hon. Friend that very close attention is being given to the steps which could be taken to secure to this country in an emergency adequate supplies of the essential raw materials produced within the Empire. Due consideration, of course, must also be given both to the requirements of other parts of the Empire and of the producing countries.
  Mr. H. G. Williams: I assume that the same consideration will be given to those countries who may be allied to us?
  Mr. Cross: That, obviously, will not be lost sight of.
  Mr. Mander: Is it not reasonable to take steps before the outbreak of hostilities rather than after?
  Mr. Cross: The hon. Member is suggesting a form of sanctions in peace time, which is not the policy of the Government.
  Captain Cazalet: May I ask whether the figures show any appreciable increase over any previous quarter?
  Mr. Cross: No, Sir, they do not.
  Following is the answer:
  Mr. Mander: I understand that the Government prefer purely military methods rather than peaceful economic sanctions.
  Mr. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade how much nickel was imported by Germany in January and February this year, giving comparative figures for last year; and how much of it was sold to them by Canada?
  Mr. Cross: During January and February, 1939, imports of crude and scrap nickel into Germany amounted to 691 metric tons, compared with 900 metric tons in the corresponding period of1938; of these totals, 109 metric tons and 191 metric tons, respectively, were recorded as of Canadian origin.
  Miss Wilkinson: How does the hon. Member square that answer with the one he gave to a supplementary on Question 33, that the figures show no appreciable increase?
  Mr. Cross: The one figure referred to the United Kingdom and the other to Canada.
  Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Member aware that the figures he has given are not accurate, and will he look into them again?
  Mr. Cross: The information I have given is in regard to nickel. Perhaps the hon. Member has nickel ore in mind?
  Mr. Edwards: Has the hon. Member the figures with regard to nickel ore?
  Mr. Cross: Yes, I have the figures. From January to February, 1938, they were 2,077 tons, and for the similar period during the current year 9,577 tons, of which 1,523 tons came from Canada in the first period and 2,091 in the second period.
  Mr. Edwards: Is it not a fact that practically the whole of this came from Canada originally and went to other countries on its way to Germany?
  Mr. H. Morrison: Are we to take it from the reply that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the Dominions actively to assist in German rearmament?
  Mr. Cross: That is a question for the Dominion Governments, and not for His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Surely His Majesty's Government are making efforts comparable to those of Germany to build up war reserves?
  Mr. Cross: I cannot say whether they are comparable with those of Germany. We are guided entirely by our own policy. Reserves of that kind are being acquired.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CALCIUM CARBIDE.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that, approximately, 60,000 tons of calcium carbide is imported annually into this country; that the need is on the increase in view of the growing need of carbide, certain chemicals, plastics and material for manufacturing high-speed cutting tools; and will be take action in order that the manufacture of carbide and ferroalloys can be carried on in this country, and treat this matter as one of urgency;
    (2) in view of the growing world demand for carbide, what steps are being taken by the Government to stimulate production in this country; what proposals have been made to the Government on
    948
    the production of carbide; what is holding up the development of production plants; in what areas does the Government consider carbide might be produced; and what steps are to be taken to expedite the erection of production plants?
    Mr. Cross: I am well aware of the uses to which calcium carbide and the plant for making calcium carbide can be put. But the House has on more than one occasion rejected the Caledonian Power Bill, which was designed to develop hydro-electric works to provide cheap current for carbide production; and while my right hon. Friend would welcome any well-considered plan for setting up a factory in this country, he has no powers to intervene with private enterprise. The provision of Government factories is not in contemplation.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it not time that, in the light of the circumstances, the Government took the initiative and, if necessary, introduced legislation themselves?
    Mr. Cross: My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Dominions has already made a statement on this subject to the effect that, while the provision of carbide in this country would be desirable, he did not regard it as vital.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this House rejected the Caledonian Power Bill a pledge was given from that Box that we were going to produce carbide in this country?
    Mr. Cross: My right hop. Friend has already dealt with that question in a recent answer.
    Mr. Petherick: Can my hon. Friend say what was the result of the negotiations which took place between industrial groups as a result of the failure of the Caledonian Power Bill to pass this House, with a view to starting the production of calcium carbide in South Wales, and will he give every encouragement to any group anxious to start such a scheme?
    Mr. E. Smith: Is it the fact that a certain English company has taken up a sufficient number of shares in a foreign company to enable them to manufacture carbide so that it may be imported into Britain?
    Mr. Cross: I should require notice of that question, but there is at the moment a project on foot for starting a company in this country, and we very much hope that it may come to fruition.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If private enterprise is failing to produce essential war materials, will the Government consider national manufacture such as was undertaken in the last War?
    Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the fact that the reason why the Caledonian Power Bill was rejected was that the Government would not support it?

    BARTER (GERMANY AND SOUTH AMERICA).
    Mr. Hepworthasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the growing system of barter between Germany and the South American Republics, whereby great damage is being done to British trade; whether he will consider the recommending to traders the possibility of some form of exchange clearing with some South American countries; and whether his advisers have studied the necessity for concluding bulk export arrangements where possible and, if so, with what result?
    Mr. Cross: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, circumstances vary in each individual country, and I am doubtful whether clearing and other similar arrangements provide an appropriate remedy in many cases; but my right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider the views of the trading community on this matter. As regards the third part of the question, I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the possibilities of extended co-operation between exporters, for example, through the formation of large-scale selling organisations. As my right hon. Friend has said before, he thinks that exporting interests in this country might with advantage give their close attention to these possibilities.
    Mr. T. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of commending import boards and export boards to His Majesty's Government, and does not he think that that would be the only possible means of meeting competition from abroad?
    Mr. Cross: There are certain cases in which the balance of trade would certainly not make that possible.

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement as to whether he is prepared to consider limiting the subsidy for shipbuilding to coal-burning ships?
    Mr. Cross: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend proposes to frame the scheme in such a way as to give some preference to coal-burning vessels. He hopes to be in a position to make a further announcement on this point within a few days.

    IMPORTS (ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES).
    Mr. Shinwellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the decline in imports will have an adverse effect on the stocks of essential commodities which the Government are storing in preparation for an emergency?
    Mr. Cross: Constant watch is being maintained on the stocks of essential commodities in this country, and the hon. Member may rest assured that where in any case it appears that they might not be adequate in the event of an emergency, the necessary steps are being taken to meet the situation.
    Mr. Shinwell: If there is a fall in the imports of raw materials does not that mean that our own stocks are being reduced? What are the Government doing about it?
    Mr. Cross: My answer covers that point.
    Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. Member realise that there are many blast furnaces idle?

    RUMANIAN CURRENCY.
    Mr. Priceasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Germany is demanding an artificially high rate for the German mark in relation to Rumanian currency, thereby giving Germany greater hold over Rumanian economy; and whether he is considering any action which may be taken to counter act this move?
    Mr. Cross: I am aware that the question of the reichsmark-lei rate was discussed during the negotiations which led up to the Rumanian-German Agreement of

    951
    December last. The rate fixed by that Agreement was in fact very little higher than that which obtained previously. As the hon. Member is aware, a Trade Mission is at present in Rumania with the object of promoting Anglo-Rumanian Trade.
    Mr. Price: Has the hon. Member any. information whether recent pressure has been applied to Rumania to raise rates higher than was contemplated in former negotiations?
    Mr. Cross: I have no information on that point.

    MINISTER'S VISITS, FOREIGN CAPITALS.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can now make a statement on the progress made in the trade negotiations between his Department and representatives of foreign countries?
    Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. Member to the very full answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), and the hon. Member for West Newcastle (Sir J. Leach), and to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member himself.
    Mr. Shinwell: Cannot we have information on the success or non-success of these negotiations, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a fuller statement in the form of a White Paper so that we can judge whether these negotiations are worth while?
    Mr. Hudson: I said yesterday that I thought the time had not come for a White Paper. Negotiations have yet to take place.

  GAUMONT BRITISH CORPORATION.
  Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the delay in carrying out the investigation into the affairs of the Gaumont British Corporation, and whether he can give an assurance that this will be instituted as soon as possible?
  Mr. Cross: An inspector was appointed on 31st January, 1939, to investigate the affairs of this company. The investigation was begun immediately thereafter and is still proceeding.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can my hon. Friend say when the report is likely to be issued?
  Mr. Cross: This investigation is one of great difficulty and complexity, and it may very well take a very considerable time before any report is made.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not the fact that it is now more than a year since his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade first intimated that there would be an inquiry into the affairs of the American-owned company, and that nothing has happened so far?
  Mr. Cross: There are many good reasons for that delay, among which I might mention one occasion on which the applicants themselves asked for postponement pending discussion with the Ostrers, and a further occasion on which there was litigation on matters covered by the application between the Associated British Picture Corporation and the Ostrers. And there are other reasons.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large number of defects reported by port medical officers of health under the headings of insufficient heating, defective stoves, stove-pipes, radiators, and steam-heaters; and whether any special attention is being given by his Department to the problem of providing adequate heating arrangements in crews' quarters and maintaining them in a proper state of efficiency?
    Mr. Cross: The whole question of the heating of crew accommodation was fully considered by all concerned when the crew space instructions of September, 1937, were drawn up. Under existing arrangements, cases of insufficient and defective heating found by officers of the port health authorities are notified to the local Board of Trade Surveyors, who take appropriate action in each case in the light of the current crew space instructions.
    Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman say what "appropriate action" means?
    Mr. Cross: Where structural defects are found, action must be taken to remedy them.
    Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman be advised by me, when I say that in fact ships, after reporting, do leave these ports without any notification of their port of destination?
    Mr. Cross: If the hon. Member has particular information on that point, I shall be glad if he will let me have it.
    Mr. Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of vessels registered in this country in which mess-rooms are provided for the crews?
    Mr. Cross: I regret that this information is not in the possession of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to supply this information at some future date?
    Mr. Cross: That would involve an amount of labour which would be quite unnecessary, in view of the information which would be obtained.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not the fact that no amount of work would be wasted which provided information about the shipping of this country?

    SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade the number and tonnage of British ships which have been sold to foreign companies since 1st January, 1938?
    Mr. Cross: The number of ships of 100 tons gross and over registered at ports in the United Kingdom which have been reported to the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen as having been sold to foreign owners during the period 1st January, 1938, to 20th April, 1939, is 210, the gross tonnage of these ships being 539,000 tons.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information in relation to the foreign ships trading between the Argentine, this country, and the Continent, their owner ship, and the length of time in the possession of their present owners; and how many of them have been sold by British owners?
    Mr. Cross: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether approval was given by his Department before the
    954
    sale of three steamers to Germany was finally concluded by the Alpha and Apex shipping companies?
    Mr. Cross: No, Sir. The Board of Trade have no power to approve or prohibit the sale of British ships to foreigners. As was stated in answer to questions on 18th April, representatives of the Alpha and Apex Steamship Companies were informed that the Board of Trade would prefer that ships of this kind should, in present circumstances, remain under the British flag.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement which was issued by the late owners of these vessels that, before the contracts were exchanged for the sale of the vessels, official approval was given by his Department, and, in view of that statement, would it not appear that the Board of Trade have themselves been a contributory factor in selling these ships to a foreign nation?
    Mr. Cross: No, Sir; no approval was given. On the contrary, it was stated by my right hon. Friend that he much, preferred that these ships should not be sold so that they left the United Kingdom Register and passed into foreign hands, and indeed these people were informed that, if they wished, they could submit these three vessels for inclusion on the Register of owners who wished to take advantage of the scheme for redundant tonnage already announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Attlee: In view of the reply to this question, and to question number 26, are the Government going to take any power to prevent our Mercantile Marine being sold in such great quantity at this time to other nations?
    Mr. Cross: My right hon. Friend has already announced, as the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, that, as a condition of subsidy to the shipping industry, owners will be required to give options upon vessels intended to be sold off the United Kingdom Register, and we hope that we shall soon have these powers—and the sooner the better—in order to prevent these ships being sold abroad.
    Mr. Shinwell: That does not amount to a prohibition, but merely affects the granting of financial assistance. The owners who do not want financial assistance are free to sell their ships.
    Mr. Cross: That covers the whole of the Merchant Navy.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman state categorically to this House that the statement made by the previous owners of these vessels as reported to the Press is untrue?
    Mr. Cross: I should want to have notice of the precise notice in the Press to which the hon. Member is referring. I really cannot give a categorical denial of that kind without knowing what I am denying.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Does my hon. Friend know of any negotiations pending for the sale of ships to foreign Powers?
    Mr. Cross: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that when the question was put down, the statement made by the directors of the company was well known to the Board of Trade as well as to the Press. Is there any reason why we cannot have a straight answer as to whether the statement is correct or not?
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

    ORIENT (IMPERIAL SHIPPING COMMITTEE'S REPORT).
    Mr. Benjamin Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has completed his consideration of the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee on British Shipping in the Orient, dated 8th December, 1938; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. Cross: I fear I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be prepared to make a statement, as the report has been with him for a year?
    Mr. Cross: The details of the scheme which are at present being considered are affected in many respects by the report of this Committee, and until these details have been formulated, I am afraid that it will not be possible to make a statement.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not the fact that the Japanese are making very definite inroads into British trade in those waters, and will the hon. Gentleman expedite the consideration of this report?
    Mr. Cross: We are fully conscious of that fact.
    Miss Wilkinson: But you never do anything.

  GAS UNDERTAKING, MORLEY (PROPOSED TRANSFER).
  Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet approved the Special Order under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, of the Drighlington Gildersome Gaslight Company, in connection with the pro posed transfer of the Morley Gas Under taking; and whether there are any compensation clauses in the proposed order to workmen for the loss of employment?
  Mr. Cross: No, Sir. It will be some time before this Order is ready for submission for the approval of Parliament. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6th April.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    COOKS.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement on the arrangements that are to be made to increase the number of cooks provided for each unit and on the scheme to be adopted to improve the cooking of food?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As I indicated in introducing Army Estimates, it has been decided to reorganise the system of training, appointment, remuneration and promotion of Army cooks, and further information on this subject has been recently published. The numbers and the rates of pay of Army cooks are being materially increased, and increased establishments for individual units will shortly be promulgated. Army cooks will henceforth be graded as tradesmen and their opportunities for training and advancement will be extended. The new equipment supplied to cookhouses in the future will be comparable with that of the best kitchens in

    957
    civilian life, and it is anticipated that the measures now taken to provide the soldiers with good food, well cooked and properly served, will prove a very real and permanent attraction in Army life.
    Mr. Benjamin Smith: May I ask the hon. Member to ask the hon. Member for the Harrow Division(Sir I. Salmon) to give a practical demonstration to these potential cooks of the Army?

    TERRITORIAL STRENGTH.
    Mr. Hepworthasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish weekly, by counties, the total Territorial establishment required under the extended scheme, the number of men actually on the establishment, and the accessions to strength in the seven days immediately preceding the day of publication?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, I am arranging for the publication weekly of the latest figures for the Territorial Field Army by Divisional Areas.

    BREN GUN (MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War particulars of the extent the Bren light machine-gun is to be manufactured in the Dominions; and whether the Government now have the right to manufacture these guns and the component parts for the same?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: The extent to which various Dominions may decide to manufacture the Bren machine-gun is for their own decision. The answer to the second part of the question is "Yes, Sir"
    Mr. Day: Will these guns be manufactured in sufficient quantities to supply Territorial units?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War when the sole manufacturing rights for the Bren machine-gun were acquired by Great Britain and the Dominions?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Manufacturing rights—not sole rights—for the Bren machine-gun were acquired under an agreement entered into on 24th May, 1935, which also enables us to grant licences to manufacture to the Dominions.
    Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand that payments for these rights are still being made to the appropriate parties who granted the rights?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I should require notice of that question, but I imagine that any contract entered into by us would be fulfilled.

    GIBRALTAR (DEFENCES).
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether the coastal, landward, and anti-aircraft defences of Gibraltar are now in a complete state of preparedness to resist possible enemy attack?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Every practicable precaution has been taken.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the statement made by a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman to a similar question recently, are we to understand that the anti-aircraft defences, which were not all that could be desired in the last crisis, are now in a state of complete preparedness?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know to which right hon. Friend the hon. Member is referring, but additional anti-aircraft guns have been sent and the position is satisfactory.
    Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when the guns which were placed against Gibraltar were mentioned to him and his colleagues, it was described by them as a mare's nest?
    Mr. Ammon: Is it a fact that these additional guns have been found to be uncapable of being used owing to some part being missing?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir, that is completely untrue.

    DISABILITY PENSION (TERRITORIAL SIGNALMAN).
    Mr. George Hallasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. T. R. Sexton, formerly No. 2559577, signalman, Royal Signals, Territorial Army, who, in the course of manoeuvres, met with an accident which resulted in the loss of a leg; whether he is aware that this man has been awarded a disability pension of 50 per cent. only, amounting to 16s. 3d. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that the disablement pension of a member of the Territorial Forces who may be injured in peace-time is considerably less than the amount granted for the same injury sustained by a soldier on war service, and in view

    959
    also of the necessity for stimulating recruiting, he will take steps to remove this anomaly?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Mr. T. R. Sexton, who was invalided from the Territorial Army in 1936, is in receipt of a 50 per cent, disability pension assessed under the current pension code.
    Mr. Ha1l: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the amount of the pension referred to in the question, which is inadequate for this disability, together with the general question of pensions to the Territorial ranks?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I shall be only too glad to ask my advisers to reconsider this case.
    Mr. Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his personal attention, seeing that the pensions paid to the Territorial ranks are below those paid to Regular soldiers disabled in the Service, and seeing that there is a "drive" for recruits for the Territorial Army, will he see that adequate pensions are paid to those who may be disabled?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that I shall be only too glad to reconsider the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any suggestion to make with regard to the code generally, perhaps he will inform me.

    BARRACKS, SCOTLAND (BRICKS).
    Captain Ramsayasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that bricks for the depots at Helensburgh and Perth, and for the barracks at Lanark, have been supplied from Manchester and Middlesbrough; what is the cost of carriage per thousand bricks from these places respectively, to Helensburgh, Perth and Lanark; and why these bricks were not purchased in Scotland?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: Contracts for the barracks at Helensburgh and Perth have not yet been placed. The contract for Lanark Barracks is held by a Scottish firm. I have no information as to the sources from which the bricks are being obtained by the contractor or the cost of carriage.

    MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardships caused to young
    960
    married Reservists who are called back to the Colours but who are not in receipt of marriage allowance; and whether he will consider giving marriage allowance in these cases?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will have this matter considered.

    WALKING-OUT UNIFORM.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamaraasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether a new walking-out uniform for the Army has yet been designed by the War Office; whether the War Office is in agreement with the feeling through the Regular and Territorial Armies that such a uniform should be issued without delay; and what is holding up the War Office from issuing this un form;
    (2) how much it would cost the Treasury to grant that a new walking-out uniform be issued to the Regular and Territorial Armies; and whether the Treasury will consider making the necessary grant without delay?
    Mr. Hore-Belisha: A new walking-out uniform for the Army has been designed. The cost of its provision for the existing establishment of the Regular Army at home and overseas, excluding India, and for the new establishment of the Territorial Army, would be of the order of £1,500,000, with an additional annual cost of £280,000. In present circumstances, expenditure of this magnitude on a new walking-out uniform was felt to be inopportune.
    Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: Would I be right in suggesting that the War Office are most anxious, and feel it is most necessary, to introduce this new uniform, but that the Treasury are not making the necessary grant, and will my right hon. Friend fight the Treasury in order to give the Regular and Territorial Armies proper uniforms?
    M. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. I accept full responsibility for this.
    Miss Horsbrugh: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend will take advice regarding the walking-out uniform from people of both sexes?

  GOVERNMENT BORROWING.
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps His

  961
  Majesty's Government have taken to obtain the co-operation of the banking system in securing that the Government borrowing places the least possible obstacle in the way of private enterprise and exerts its maximum effort in stimulating employment?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): There has been no lack of co-operation on the part of the banks and there is, therefore, no call for my right hon. Friend to take special steps of the nature indicated.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: In view of the inadequacy of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  DOUBLE TAXATION.
  Mr. Peatasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the total income taxation borne by British companies on profits arising from business subject to income taxation in foreign countries may now reach a total of 65 per cent.; and whether he will give some relief from this burden?
  Captain Crookshank: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) on 20th April last.

  AMERICAN DOLLAR SECURITIES (EMERGENCY MEASURES).
  Mr. Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is considering the taking over by the Government of American dollar securities held by British subjects on the outbreak of war in exchange for sterling securities or cash, thereby facilitating purchases of American goods?
  Captain Crookshank: Proper consideration will, of course, be given to all measures calculated to add to our financial strength, particularly in cases where experience was gained in the Great War.
  Mr. Price: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take note of the fact that two years elapsed on the last occasion before such steps were taken?

  GOLD (EXPORT).
  Mr. Dobbieasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold which has been exported from London since 15th March, 1939; what proportion of this is British gold and what proportion is foreign in passage through London or English ports; what is the general destination of this gold and the names of the London houses engaged in these transactions; and whether he is satisfied that it is in the public interest that such large outflows of gold should be permitted in the existing condition of international affairs?
  Captain Crookshank: Exports and imports of gold and the names of the countries from which gold is consigned or to which gold is imported and exported appear in the regular Customs Returns. I am not in a position to give any information in regard to the other points refered to in the first three parts of the question. In reply to the fourth part of the question, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it is in the public interest to retain the greatest possible degree of freedom in the London gold market.
  Mr. Thorne: Can the Financial Secretary give any reason why a good number of people are sending gold to America?
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the Government consider taking steps to reduce the value of the £ sterling in the foreign exchange markets so as to put a stop to the export of capital?

  SECRET SERVICE.
  Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount spent on the Secret Service in 1913, 1923, 1933, and 1938; and how many Debates have been held on this Vote in the last 20 years?
  Captain Crookshank: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the Official Report the figures asked for in the first part of his question. In reply to the second part, two Debates have been held on the Secret Service Vote in the last 20 years, namely on 9th December, 1919, and 2nd August, 1920.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the frequent appalling ignorance of the British Government on the subject of what is going on abroad, does the Financial Secretary really—?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows quite well that he may not put that sort of question on the Paper. The same rule applies to supplementary questions as to questions that are put on the Paper.
  Mr. Mander: May I put the question in this way? Will the Financial Secretary, in the circumstances, be good enough to arrange for a Debate on the Secret Service?
  Mr. Sandys: Is it not generally accepted that the British Secret Service is as fine and efficient an organisation as any in the world?
  Following are the figures:

  Expenditure out of the Secret Service Vote in the years mentioned:

  £

  1913

  …

  …

  46,840

  1923

  …

  …

  162,703

  1933

  …

  …

  178,609

  1938

  …

  …

  416,500

  approximately.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that limbless ex-service men suffer grave economic loss from war disablement and the consequent industrial handicap, and in many cases are made solely dependent upon public assistance, he will introduce special legislation making provision for these men?
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would remind the hon. Member that such economic loss as is suffered by ex-service men of the class referred to is not only already compensated in the war pension—which for a man and wife is on average about 35s. a week—but is also met in the great majority of cases through the Unemployment Benefit and Assistance schemes on specially favourable terms and through National Health Insurance. The proportion of cases seeking public assistance according to all the information in my possession is very small. In the circumstances, while I have every sympathy with these cases, I should not be justified in recommending special legislation for the benefit of this particular class of disability.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that this is a very serious handicap and
  964
  not only represents a difficulty in itself, but means an extra liability in the maintenance of the sufferers, and will he not take into consideration the position of the dependants?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: All the men in this category are in receipt of a high rate of pension, and I should be sorry to think that any pensioner was in financial difficulties; but it is very difficult to devise a pensions scheme which would guarantee the financial independence of every pensioner in all circumstances, and in any conditions.

  BRIDGE SCHEME, WOLVERHAMPTON.
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Transport what is the position with regard to the Deans Road Bridge, Wolverhampton; and when he expects to be able to give sanction for its reconstruction?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The building of a new bridge over the canal is part of a larger scheme for a new road between Old Heath Road and Church Street. This scheme also includes a new bridge under the London Midland and Scottish Railway. My right hon. Friend cannot approve the scheme for grant from the Road Fund until he receives the detailed plans and estimates. The preparation of these is dependent upon the completion of an agreement between the Wolverhampton Corporation and the railway company, the terms of which are now under discussion.
  Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the Wolverhampton Corporation, it is his Department which is holding up this matter, and will he be good enough to look into the matter again?
  Captain Hudson: It is a matter between the corporation and the railway, but I am informed that a draft agreement was sent to the town clerk last week.

  FIRE BRIGADES ACT, 1938.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given any consideration to the serious burden imposed on the ratepayers, particularly in rural areas of poverty-stricken districts, as the result of the Fire

  965
  Brigades Act, 1938; and whether the Government intend to alleviate this burden by grants in aid?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake):The point to which the hon. Member calls attention was not over-looked when the Fire Brigades Bill was before Parliament. It was then decided that the cost of providing any additional fire services required for normal peace-time purposes should fall to be met from the local rates, and my right hon. Friend regrets he can hold out no prospect of any departure from this decision.
  Mr. Thorne: Are we to recognise by that answer that, although we have new Ministers, they are working on the same old rails?

  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRAINING TRACTOR-DRIVERS).
  Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he will afford facilities for the training of unemployed men and women as tractor-drivers?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd):This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by him to a similar question yesterday.

  CIVIL AVIATION (FUEL AND LUBRICANTS, DUTIES).
  Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the British Government intend to accept the recommendations of the International Convention in favour of fuel and lubricants in any aircraft on landing being exempted from Customs or other duties, and that on departure, any material used in re-fuel or lubrication shall also be exempted?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): His Majesty's Government propose to arrange for the ratification of the Convention on behalf of the United Kingdom and to accept the obligations which that entails.

  EUROPEAN SITUATION.
  Mr. Manderasked the Prime Minister the nature of the communication which has been received by the League
  966
  of Nations from the Swiss Government, with regard to the evacuation of Swiss territory in time of war, by the League, and what steps are being taken in consequence thereof.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I understand that no communication of the kind suggested by the hon. Member has been received by the League of Nations from the Swiss Government.
  Mr. Mander: In view of the difficulties that the Government sometimes have in getting information, may I put the question this way—has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries of the League on the subject?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, I have made inquiries and I have given the hon. Member the answer.
  Sir Smedley Crookeasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of President Roosevelt's letter and the real desire for peace amongst all the peoples of Europe, he will consider the advisability of extending an invitation to Here Hitler and Signor Mussolini to visit London to discuss their various grievances, and so try to remove suspicion from the minds of these European rulers?
  Mr. Butler: While His Majesty's Government are in general sympathy with the objects stated in my hon. Friend's question, I do not think that at the present moment they would be achieved by the course which he suggests.
  Sir Smedley Crooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's continued efforts in the cause of peace have the solid backing of the people of the country?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, that is so.

  CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.
  Mr. Tinkerasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the executive committee of the Miners Federation of Great Britain had information on 4th March that it was the intention of Germany to occupy Prague on 15th March; whether His Majesty's Government had knowledge of what was taking place; and, if not, will he have our secret service inquired into?
  Mr. Butler: I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on 20th March. As I informed the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on the same day, His Majesty's Government are satisfied with their present sources of information in Central Europe.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS SERVICES.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the revelations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Anti-Tuberculosis Service in South Wales, he will cause inquiries to be set on foot in all the other scheduled Special Areas and in such areas as Lancashire and London where poverty is widespread, although they are not classified as Special?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): The Committee of Inquiry was set up to review the Anti-Tuberculosis Service in Wales which is of a special nature owing to the functions exercised by the Welsh National Memorial Association. The Association acts as agents for the local authorities and obtains its revenue by precept on them. This system does not exist in the other areas referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take steps to find ways and means of instituting such inquiries in other areas so that we can get to know what is necessary to be done in those areas?
    Mr. Bernays: The whole point of the answer was that such an inquiry was not necessary, because in each area we can place the responsibility on the local authority. The local authorities give to us each year an annual report. There is, therefore, no need for a special inquiry.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister see that a report is issued to his Department from each district similar to that issued in connection with Wales?
    Mr. Bernays: We already have reports.

    VACCINATION.
    Squadron-Leader Hulbertasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that vaccination has had fatal results in cases in which adolescents have been vaccinated for the first time to qualify for
    968
    employment with an undertaking which, in the interests of public health, requires its employ's to have been vaccinated; and whether, having regard to the terms of the last paragraph of the circular issued by the Ministry on 19th August, 1929, he will introduce fresh legislation upon the matter?
    Mr. Bernays: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Department have drawn attention to the undesirability of primary vaccination during school age or adolescence both in annual reports and in the circular referred to. My right hon. Friend is considering giving further guidance in the matter, but it is difficult to see how legislation would help. I should be glad to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend if he has any suggestions to make.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    AIR MINISTRY (HESTON AND KENLEY AERODROMES EXTENSION) BILL,
    "to provide for the acquisition by the Secretary of State for Air of certain land in Middlesex, and for the stopping up of certain highways in Middlesex and Surrey; to confirm an agreement between the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and the Secretary of State for Air relating to the extension of the site of Kenley Aerodrome; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Mr. William Morrison, the Solicitor-General, and Captain Balfour; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)"—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer and Governors of the Infant Orphan Asylum; to change the name of the said Corporation; and for other purposes." [Royal Wanstead School Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the discontinuance and abandonment of the light railways authorised by the Merthyr Tydfil Light Railway Orders, 1899 and 1914, and for the running of omnibuses by the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Merthyr Tydfil on the routes of such light railways; and for other purposes." [Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [Lords.]
ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL [LORDS],
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL [LORDS],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1939–40).
Copy ordered,
"of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget"— [Captain Crookshank.]
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A.: Mr. Petherick and Mr. Graham White; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Mander and Mr. Wragg.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  3.46 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): In the year 1853 Mr. Gladstone presented the first of the 13 Budgets for which he was responsible during his long service at the Treasury. The expenditure of that year for which he had to provide reached the grand total of £52,183,000, and Mr. Gladstone expounded his proposals to the Committee in a magnificent speech which lasted for 4¾ hours. His biographer tells us that it was followed with the closest attention throughout and that there were frequent indications of enthusiasm. The reason, perhaps, why our ancestors felt enthusiasm was that on that occasion Mr. Gladstone proposed to abolish the Income Tax (which then stood at the figure of 7d.) not immediately but step by step until it finally disappeared in 1860. Unfortunately, about six months later, the Crimean war broke out, expenditure rose, and the prospect of abolishing the Income Tax vanished beyond recall. My task is to present Budget proposals at a time when the standard rate of Income Tax is 5s. 6d. in the £, and to invite the Committee to address itself to a total expenditure which is nearly 20 times greater than that with which the Budget of 1853 had to deal. The only consolation that I can offer to the Committee is that the time I will occupy will not be proportionately extended to the length that that august and spacious precedent might suggest.
  I will first draw the Committee's attention to the actual results of last year, and in order to draw as clear a picture as I can without going into too many confusing details, I will use round figures and will take the totals before commenting on any separate items. The revenue, as hon. Members will see from page 3 of the Blue Paper, I estimated might produce £944,750,000, and it has, in fact, shown a total of £927,250,000. That is £17,500,000 less than the Estimate, but, I may add, nearly £55,000,000 more than the revenue of the previous year. In view of the uncertainty which arose out
  976
  of the international position, it is not surprising that there should be this falling off from the total estimated revenue. Indeed when some of the component figures are studied, they indicate clearly a power of resilience after sustaining a setback which quickly registers a restoration of confidence. For example, in the end the short-fall in Customs and Excise amounted only to £3,500,000.
  Expenditure from revenue last year, including the payment of over £13,000,000 made in respect of sinking funds, totalled £939,999,000—call it £940,000,000—which was £4,400,000 short of the estimate. The net result, therefore, for last year was a deficit of £12,714,000, a sum slightly smaller than the amount provided for reduction of debt.
  There is another set of figures to be extracted from last year's accounts which I would wish to put before the Committee, not only because of their special importance but as material for comparison with the present year. The whole of our contemporary public finance is governed and conditioned by our Defence expenditure. It is this cruel necessity which transforms our Budgets and increases our borrowings, and makes it necessary to shoulder grievous burdens and face unprecedented totals without the pressure of which taxpayers and Chancellors of the Exchequer alike might look for a lightening of the load and the extension of social benefits. I wish, therefore, to take out of last year's figures the amount provided for and spent upon Defence, whether by way of revenue or by way of loan. As hon. Members will see from the figures on page 2 of the Blue Paper, the expenditure from revenue on Defence last year was £254,500,000, and the Committee will remember, I dare say, that borrowed money was to provide a further £90,000,000 in the first instance, and that I announced in my Budget Speech last year that the Supplementary Estimates necessitated by the acceleration and extensions of the Defence programme then contemplated would also be found out of borrowed money. In the event issues under the Defence Loans Act last year amounted altogether to £128,000,000. That, when added to the £254,500,000, charged to the Defence Votes, gives a total of £382,500,000 for the three Defence Departments. But there is another addition

  977
  which should be made. If we add, as we should, last year's figures for Food Storage and Air-Raid Precautions, which are really Defence matters, the gross total is almost exactly £400,000,000. In the previous year the corresponding figure was £265,500,000. I invite the Committee specially to note this figure of £400,000,000 spent on Defence last year. This is the figure which it is most relevant to bear in mind when we come to the far bigger expenditure on Defence which we have to provide for in the present year.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

    REVENUE, 1938–39.
    I must now refer to some of the components in last year's revenue totals. As the Committee will see on page 3 of the Blue Print, Customs and Excise receipts produced £340,500,000. There were surpluses on spirits, £600,000; tea, £800,000; and sugar, £1,300,000. This last increase was mainly due to the failure of the homegrown beet sugar crop, which resulted in unexpectedly large imports of foreign sugar, on which I get more duty than on the British product. Tobacco was up by £1,100,000, and oil by about £500,000. In the cases of tea, sugar, and tobacco, all of which show substantial increases above the estimate, something is due to forestalling just before the end of the year. Indeed, this forestalling might have reached very substantial proportions had steps not been taken a few weeks ago under statutory powers to limit clearances. On the other hand, beer failed to achieve its forecasted total by £1,400,000, and silk by £700,000, and there were small losses on wine, beef and veal, and key industry goods. The Import Duties Act duties, including what are called in the Treasury, "the old McKenna's," were down by over £5,000,000 and it is here, in these duties, that the difficulties of last year's overseas trade are mainly reflected. The Committee will remember, also, that the reduction in duties provided for by the Trade Agreement with America came into operation from 1st January last.
    The Inland Revenue duties last year yielded a total of £520,250,000, which is £16,250,000 short of the estimate. Of this shortage £10,500,000 comes under the head of Death Duties, always an uncertain figure, and one which suffers immediately from a heavy fall in security values. Stamp Duties were also severely affected by prevailing conditions, and it is no surprise that they yielded £3,000,000 less
    978
    than the estimate. Income Tax last year, at £336,000,000, was £5,250,000 short. I should say, in defence of the estimate, that in the field of trading profits the yield was in very close accord with expectations. Surtax at £62,500,000 exceeded my estimate by £500,000, and was over £5,000,000 more than the previous year's receipts. I feel no doubt that the increased yield of Surtax is materially due to the effectiveness of recent legislation against various devices for avoiding tax. From the National Defence Contribution I estimated last year that we should receive £20,000,000, and the amount that came in was nearly £22,000,000. The smooth working of this tax, National Defence Contribution No. (2), which I proposed two years ago, is a matter of great satisfaction. Business concerns have willingly co-operated with the revenue authorities in agreeing figures for assessment, and it is right that we should acknowledge the readiness of industry in hard times to provide this special contribution towards the cost of National Defence.
    Excluding Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, the other receipts were £66,500,000, or £2,300,000 better than the estimate. Motor vehicle duties yielded £35,600,000 odd against an estimate of £36,000,000. The Post Office brought in on balance £170,000 less than the estimate. I shall have something to say about the Post Office figures in a moment. The revenue from Crown Lands at £1,330,000 equals the estimate, and the receipts from Sundry Loans at £5,700,000 were £500,000 above the estimate. Miscellaneous revenue, estimated at £10,500,000, yielded £12,900,000, a rather surprising increase. The increase is due to the unexpectedly high profit made at the Mint from the minting of silver coin.

    EXPENDITURE, 1938–39.
    Now I can pass to the expenditure side of the account, where there are one or two comments which must be made. First as to the Fixed Debt Charge. For five years prior to 1938 the Fixed Debt Charge was £224,000,000, but in the last of those years this figure was not sufficient to cover both interest and statutory sinking funds, and I therefore thought it prudent 12 months ago to raise the figure to £230,000,000. That figure of £230,000,000 has enabled us to meet all interest and management charges, including the accumulated interest on the

    979
    National Savings Certificates which were cashed during the year, all the statutory sinking funds amounting to £10,900,000, and in addition to provide £2,300,000 for the further reduction of debt.
    Payments to Northern Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund were £9,400,000, against £8,900,000 provided in last year's Budget. Other Consolidated Fund services exceeded the estimate by £1,600,000. This increase was due to the transfer to the Consolidated Fund, after the financial settlement with Eire which was made in April of last year, of charges in connection with land purchase in Eire, which previously, since 1932, had been borne on Votes.
    We can now pass to the Civil Supply services. They were estimated in last year's Budget at £449,000,000, including the margin of £10,000,000 which I provided for Supplementary Estimates. That margin was intended primarily for the initial expenditure on food storage and for additional expenditure on Air-Raid Precautions. Actually the need for Supplementary Votes was greater than was anticipated, because in addition to providing £8,500,000 for food storage and an extra £800,000 for Air-raid Precautions, Supplementaries amounting to nearly £6,000,000 were required on other Civil Votes. I will mention one or two of them. An additional £3,000,000 was necessitated by the disturbed conditions in Palestine, and £300,000 was called for in connection with Imperial grants towards the defence of India. Hon. Members will see that, though these matters are largely of a military character, the funds required are borne on the Votes of the Civil Departments. At the same time there were appreciable savings on other Civil Supply services. Unemployment Assistance required £5,700,000 less than the estimate, and beet sugar and other agricultural subsidies required £900,000 less. In the result the expenditure on the Civil Supply services amounted to £441,300,000, or £7,750,000 below the Budget estimate.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    There is one other matter on which I must make a short statement, because it is important to have it on record. I must refer briefly to the changes in the National Debt total. During the year, in addition to borrowing to meet the Budget deficit of £12,750,000, we raised £128,000,000 for issues under the Defence
    980
    Loans Act, including the amount of the Budget surplus of 1937 which had been applied temporarily in that year to reduce the floating debt. We also raised £10,250,000 to meet advances to Turkey and Czecho-Slovakia authorised by legislation during the year, and £2,500,000 for issues under the North Atlantic Shipping Act. Those are the main items going to increase the National Debt during the year.
    On the other hand, we applied to the redemption of debt altogether just over £20,000,000; £13,250,000 out of revenue, £6,250,000 out of sums received under the Agreement with Eire; and £750,000 from miscellaneous sources. In all, the cash raised by borrowing exceeded that applied to redemption of debt during the year by £133,250,000. That does not exactly correspond with the increase in the nominal total of the debt, because the latter increase included an issue at a discount. The increase in the nominal total of the National Debt was £137,000,000. Thus the net total of the National Debt increased during last year from £8,026,000,000 to £8,163,000,000. Of this increase, £81,200,000 is represented by 3 per cent. National Defence Loan issued at a price of 98 in June last. The Committee will remember that recent legislation in the form of the Currency and Bank Notes Act effected changes in the machinery of the Exchange Equalisation Account, but in accordance with custom I am able to give an assurance that that Account continues to show a profit.

    EXPENDITURE, 1939–40.
    Now at last we can pass from the results of last year to the prospects and estimates of the present year. On page 11 of the Blue Paper there are certain gaps to be filled up. I propose to leave the Fixed Debt Charge at £230,000,000, and to repeat the precaution taking in recent years of getting authority to borrow for the purpose of meeting the statutory sinking funds if the provision within the Fixed Debt Charge should not prove sufficient.
    In close relation to the Fixed Debt Charge is another matter that I ought to mention. The Finance Act of 1930 contained a provision that, if a deficit occurred in any year, an equivalent amount should be set

    981
    aside in the following year for the redemption of debt. That is a counsel of perfection which neither Lord Snowden, the author of the proposition, nor my predecessor ever felt able to apply. I will not say that the 1930 rule has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance because it has never been observed at all. Since 1930 there have been three occasions, I think, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time has felt justified in asking Parliament to waive that rule, and I propose to adopt the same course now; the justification for waiving it now, when we have such heavy borrowing to undertake, is at least as great as on any of the three previous occasions.
    As regards the other Consolidated Fund Services, payments to Northern Ireland are estimated at £10,000,000, and all the other Consolidated Fund services at £7,200,000. The increase in this last figure is accounted for by the fact that, under the Act confirming last year's Agreement with the Government of Eire, payments of approximately £4,000,000 a year in respect of land purchase in Eire now fall on the Consolidated Fund instead of on Votes. The total estimate, therefore, for the Consolidated Fund services for 1939 will be £247,200,000, an increase of £5,100,000 over the Budget figure for 1938.
    The Committee should note that in 1939, as in 1938, no payment will be due to the Post Office Fund. I shall explain shortly what the position is. For each of the seven years ending with 1939–40 a statutory obligation was placed on the Post Office to contribute a fixed net sum annually to the Exchequer. The Post Office was to contribute annually £10,750,000. If the net surplus of the Post Office revenue, as calculated under the Acts in any of these years, exceeded that figure, the excess was to go into a fund called the Post Office Fund. If the net surplus in any year was insufficient to provide the fixed contribution of £10,750,000, then the fund was to make good the deficiency to the Exchequer. What has actually happened is that in the first three years of the seven the net surpluses allowed payments to be made to the fund, that is, the surplus was more than the statutory figure. But for 1936, 1937 and 1938 the net surplus fell short of the fixed contribution, and the Post Office Fund was
    982
    accordingly draw upon to make up the difference. In 1939 the Post Office has to face substantial expenditure resulting from the recent Wages Awards, and a shortage in the net surplus is again expected, but the balance which remains in the Post Office Fund itself will be insufficient this year to make good the estimated deficiency. The arrangements, therefore, for regulating the financial relations between the Post Office and the Exchequer must be re-examined, and I propose to review the position with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General during the course of the coming year.
    There remain the Supply Services, the figures for which, with the exception of the provision of Supplementaries, are already known to the Committee. I will defer the topic of Supplementary expenditure for Defence, a most serious and important question, to a little later, but it is a cardinal issue of the present Budget.
    As regards supplementary provision for Civil needs, the Committee is already aware of proposals for assisting the shipping industry and for aiding agriculture. Other Civil demands are likely to present themselves, and I am therefore bound to anticipate during the year considerable Civil expenditure not covered by the present Votes. On the other hand most strenuous efforts must be made to effect savings on the sums already voted, and for this reason I hope it may be enough to provide a margin for Civil Supplementary Estimates of £5,000,000. Excluding the self-balancing items for the Post Office and Broadcasting and reserving the question of Defence Supplementaries, the total for. Supply Services will, therefore, be £675,244,000.
    I ask the Committee to observe how this vast sum raised out of revenue is divided between Civil Supply Services and Defence. The Committee is aware that expenditure on Air-Raid Precautions and on Food Storage has hitherto been classed as civil expenditure and included in the Civil Votes, but it is clearly a portion of our bill for Defence and if hon. Members look at the form of the Blue Paper they will see that I have had it changed and rearranged so that the figures for Defence expenditure include expenditure from revenue on Air-Raid Precautions and Food Storage. The Civil total is, of course, reduced by the same amount.
    These are the figures. The total expenditure on Air-Raid Precautions in the present year is estimated to be £42,191,000 of which £37,000,000 is to come from borrowed money and £5,191,000 from revenue. The estimated expenditure on food reserves is £5,000,000 of which £3,500,000 is to be found from revenue and £1,500,000 from borrowed money. If we treat these revenue charges as taken from the Civil Votes and as added to Defence, where they really belong, the result is that the total provision to be made for Civil Supply Services, including the margin of £5,000,000 for supplementaries, is £447,500,000, while the real charge against revenue attributable to Defence is £227,738,000. Hon. Members may remember that two months ago I spoke of raising £230,000,000 out of revenue for Defence this year. That was the figure I gave in February and this figure of £227,738,000 is a more accurate estimate of the total.
    I must again remind the Committee that while I have already mentioned and made provision for a margin of Civil Supplementary Estimates of £5,000,000 I have not yet called attention to supplementary provision for Defence with which I shall have to deal before I close. But omitting Defence Supplementaries whatever these may be, the total expenditure from revenue for which I have to provide in this year's Budget adds up to £922,444,000.
    Before going further, the Committee may wish to know how the estimated cost of the Civil Supply Services this year compares with that provided for in the Budget of 1938. I exclude in each case expenditure on Air-Raid Precautions and Food Reserves and the margins for Civil Supplementaries in both years. On that basis, last year's Budget provided for Civil Supply Services a sum of £430,500,000, and the corresponding figure for 1939 is £442,500,000. We are, therefore, providing £12,000,000 more on Civil Votes this year than last year. How does that come about? It is due to the increased provision for social services such as pensions (nearly £4,000,000), education (nearly £1,500,000) and housing (£811,000). It is due also to increases for agricultural subsidies (£1,726,000), Indian defence (over £4,000,000), roads (£2,000,000) and Newfoundland (£830,000).
    There are other items, of course, like war pensions which show a decrease.
    However well justified each of these increases may be I would point out to the Committee that the result, combined with the necessity for further supplementary provision, presents a formidable problem. There is an automatic and necessary increase in the cost of Contributory and Old Age Pensions and the fact that such abnormally large sums have to be provided out of revenue for Defence has not meant and does not mean that our social services should be reduced. But the cost of social services and of civil expenditure, apart from war pensions and debt, as a whole is increasing. The total growth since 1925 from taxes alone may be put at £186,000,000, and in the same period as regards local rates, notwithstanding the derating of productive industry and notwithstanding increased Exchequer assistance, the sum collected from local rates has increased from £168,000,000 in 1925 to an amount estimated at about £210,000,000. With these figures before them and in view of the enormous sums which have to be found in present circumstances for Defence hon. Members will see how inevitable is the conclusion that new internal projects calling for major additions to expenditure are not, in present circumstances, possible. We now reach a result which brings us close to the central issue of the Budget The result is that apart from any question of Defence Supplementaries, the expenditure for which I must provide in my Budget reaches a total of £922,444,000. That is some £5,000,000 less than the amount which the revenue last year actually produced.

    REVENUE 1939–40.
    Now comes the question whether on the existing basis of taxation I can count on equal revenue this year. I must take the figures under each of the heads of revenue and form the best estimate that I can. I take first Customs and Excise. There are several things that must be allowed for. First, we must allow for the fact that forestalling has taken place in anticipation of the present Budget with the result that 1938 has profited at the expense of 1939. Secondly, we must take into account the fact that in the current year we have to make allowance for a full year's reduction in Customs duties

    985
    arising out of the Trade Agreement with the United States, which will probably cost me about £2,500,000, compared with a loss last year of about £750,000. Moreover, If there is a recovery from last year's low output in the home-grown beet sugar crop, this will mean that a substantial amount of foreign sugar carrying the full rate of duty, will be replaced by home-grown sugar carrying a much lower rate of duty. These, however, are not the really big influences which one has to try to anticipate.
    The main consideration, of course, is that of trade prospects as a whole, as they may be affected by changes in the international situation. It is impossible, therefore, to forecast the figures with precision. My advisers, of course, go through the list of commodities affected one by one and make allowances for each varying influence, but I will not delay the Committee with details. They will all be found in the White Paper. But, weighing all considerations as well as I can, I think it prudent to put the Customs and Excise revenue for this year at £338,000,000, or about £2,500,000 below last year's receipts. Then, as to Inland Revenue, I am putting the yield of Income Tax at £327,000,000 which is nearly £9,000,000 less than the actual receipts in 1938. That drop will not come as a surprise to the Committee, because the Income Tax payable in this current year is largely based on the actual income of 1938, and there are many indications that the trading results last year compared unfavourably with the very good year which preceeded it. The Surtax to be collected in the present year, on the other hand, refers back to the better conditions of 1937 and I estimate the Surtax yield at £66,000,000, or £3,500,000 more than the yield last year. For Death Duties and Stamps I have adopted figures approximating to last year's results and I estimate the yield at £77,000,000 for Estate Duties and £21,000,000 for Stamps.
    As to National Defence Contribution, this year I can look forward for the first time to a full year's yield and I expect to receive £25,000,000, a figure which the Committee will remember was the estimate I gave when National Defence Contribution No. 2 was originally brought in. The other Inland Revenue Duties, such as Land Tax, Mineral Rights Duty, Excess Profits Duty, Corporation Profits
    986
    Tax—the last two echoes from a distant past—are expected to realise £1,250,000. The total Inland Revenue estimate is thus £517,250,000. As regards the remaining items of revenue, Motor Vehicle Duties are expected to produce £37,200,000. The Post Office net receipt is £7,200,000. The Post Office Fund will have available only £1,600,000, and I have already drawn the Committee's attention to the fact that this total of £8,800,000 falls short of the Post Office's statutory contribution. I put the receipts from Crown Lands at £1,330,000; Sundry Loans at £5,000,000, and Miscellaneous Revenue at £10,750,000. The total estimated revenue on the existing basis therefore adds up to £918,330,000.

    DEFENCE EXPENDITURE 1939/40.
    I have got so far, therefore, an expenditure of £922,500,000 and an estimated revenue of £918,300,000. If it were not for the necessity of providing for the large increases in Defence which have been decided on since the Defence Estimates were presented, the Budget problem would be a simple one for the estimated revenue is within some £4,000,000 of the rest of the estimated expenditure.
    As it is, we have now reached the pith and kernel of the matter. Let us take the main heads of expenditure for the present year and see how far a revenue of £918,000,000 will enable us to meet that expenditure. We shall, of course, take out of that revenue the Fixed Debt charge and associated charges of £247,000,000, and we shall take out the Civil Votes of £447,500,000. We shall find ourselves left, out of the total produce of taxes at their present level, with £223,500,000 available towards meeting this year's defence expenditure.
    I must now recall the Committee's memory to two statements which were made to Parliament earlier in the year on the subject of the cost of defence expenditure and how it should be met. The White Paper, which was issued in February, stated that defence expenditure this year was then estimated at a total of no less than £580,000,000. That was in fact at that time the approximate total of the expenditure, whether out of loan or Votes, to be shown in the Estimates then about to be presented for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, together with air-raid precautions, food storage, and certain supplementary needs already in sight.
    A few days later, on 20th February, when moving the Money Resolution on which the Defence Loans Act was founded, I thought it was in the public interest there and then to take this figure of £580,000,000 and to state how I intended to divide it between borrowing and tax revenue. I took this course, unusual as it might appear, in the month of February because I felt that, without anticipating my Budget, I might remove uncertainties and contribute to the building-up of a measure of confidence which might encourage trade and business. Undoubtedly the action that was then taken was widely welcomed, and we may fairly attribute to it an influence of encouragement during the last two months which was all the more valuable because of the anxieties in the political situation.
    The division of the total of £580,000,000 which I then announced, as the Committee will remember, was this—£350,000,000 to be provided by loan money and £230,000,000 to be provided from revenue. As I have already pointed out, the actual figures show very nearly £230,000,000 to be provided from this year's revenue. Those totals were, of course, very round figures, and I have explained that, instead of the figure of £230,000,000, the actual figure to be found in Estimates is £227,750,000. Now that it is realised to-day that this year's revenue, on the basis of existing taxation, after meeting other calls, leaves only £223,500,000 to help to meet the bill for defence, it will be appreciated that there was point in the warning that I gave two months ago that my announcement should not be regarded as pre-judging the Budget statement.
    But there is another and far more important fact which now emerges in this connection, far more serious than this difference between £223,500,000 and £227,750,000. The fact that emerges is this: The figure of £580,000,000 from which we started and upon which my calculation was based is no longer the correct and valid figure. It has been greatly enlarged in consequence of the recent decision to double the Territorial Army and of other measures of acceleration and expansion necessitated by recent events. Therefore, we must now proceed upon the assumption that in the coming year, not £580,000,000, but a total in the
    988
    region of at least £630,000,000 will be required for defence in all its aspects. It may well be more. It is this stupendous figure of £630,000,000 that I wish to compare with the figure of £400,000,000 for defence last year and £265,500,000 the year before. It measures the size of the effort that has to be made, and I think it measures the determination of the whole country to make the effort. The result is that, instead of having to split £580,000,000 into two parts, as I did in February last, I now have to propose to the Committee a distribution of £630,000,000 between loan and taxes, remembering that taxation on its present basis will provide £223,500.000.
    I do not wish, in a matter of this deep gravity, to keep the Committee on tenterhooks or to waste any time about it. How are we to deal with this extra sum of at least £50,000,000 for which we have to provide, one way or another, in the present financial year? It would be a very simple method and one which might give some temporary relief and even a brief popularity to add the whole £50,000,000 straight off, without more ado, to the loan figure, and make the total approximately £400,000,000 of loan money wanted in a single year, thus exhausting in a single year the whole of the additional borrowing power for which I got authority in the Defence Loans Act two months ago. I do not consider that this simple solution would be justified. If there is a limit to what can be conveniently or tolerably raised by taxation, there is also a definite limit to what can be wisely and successfully raised by borrowing. In any event the fraction of Defence expenditure to be met by borrowing this year is already very large, and, heavy as the burden of taxation is on all of us, the country is thoroughly roused to the necessity of further sacrifice. In the long run it will not be in the country's interest light heartedly to attempt to throw this additional sum wholly into the borrowing scale. We shall make it less difficult to borrow hereafter and we shall more justly mark the determination of those whom we represent to face the realities if we recognise, in the circumstances now facing us, that there must be additional taxation over and above the amount required to cover the £227,750,000 shown in the published Estimates as required for Defence.
    I propose then to state at once how I would revise my announcement of last February. I would revise it in the following manner: Of the additional expenditure of £50,000,000 which we now have to contemplate, I propose that £20,000,000 shall come out of revenue, which will be provided by means of a margin of that amount for Defence Supplementary Estimates. Including that margin, the amount to be provided out of revenue will therefore become £247,750,000. Consequently I must propose to the Committee additional taxation sufficient to fill the gap between the last figure and the £223,500,000 available—that is, approximately, an additional £24,000,000. I do not think however, that we represent the extent of this additional effort by dwelling on the £24,000,000. Adding this £24,000,000 to the estimated revenue on the present basis, what is really involved is this, that the British taxpayer, within these 12 months, will have to find in all £942,000,000, while Defence loans will furnish approximately another £380,000,000.

    MINOR PROPOSALS.
    Before I disclose how I propose to raise this taxation, there are some minor proposals to be embodied in the Finance Bill which I ought to mention at this stage, and I will do so as quickly as I can. Legislation will be necessary in connection with certain points arising out of the Trade Agreements recently concluded with the United States and with India. In particular, I shall have to table Resolutions to implement certain provisions in the American Agreement and, in the case of the Indian Agreement, to bring the new Agreement within the framework of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and to amend the existing drawback arrangements for linseed and ground-nut oil. I propose also to ask for authority, similar to that granted on previous occasions, to transfer to the Exchequer the sum of £1,500,000 from the account of unclaimed dividends. The transfer would, however, not necessarily be made this year, and I have not included anything from this source in the estimate of Miscellaneous Revenue for 1939.
    I shall have to propose a Resolution providing a new licence duty to be paid by brewers who take advantage of certain facilities which some brewers require and
    990
    which will be provided for in the Finance Bill. I believe it is technically described as "priming of beer at depots." I should explain that this does not involve an increase in the taxation on beer, the only object being that those brewers who enjoy the facility shall recoup the Exchequer for the administrative expense involved.

    MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.
    There is a troublesome question of long standing to which I propose to give a final quietus. It is that of the Medicine Stamp Duties. These duties have a long history, and the present law, which mainly dates back to 1812, has been described by a learned Judge as "a mass of confused and obsolete verbiage," in which it is often difficult to decide which medicines are liable to duty and which are exempt. I may illustrate the archaic character of the legislation by quoting one of the exemptions, which still applies to-day. The exemption from duty extends to all drugs
    "named and contained in the Book of rates subscribed with the name of Sir Harbottle Grimston, Baronet, and mentioned and referred to in the Act of Tunnage and Poundage made in the twelfth year of the reign of King Charles II"
    I think that that establishes that these are rather archaic duties. A Select Committee of the House, to whose labours I am greatly indebted, exhaustively examined the subject and produced a new scheme, in which the main test of liability of medicine for taxation would be whether it was advertised or recommended in some form or other, but this test, as it seemed to us, did not serve to relieve from tax all medicines of real healing value. Even with the exemptions which the Select Committee proposed, a large number of genuine medicines would be brought under taxation. I have received many representations as to the objections to which a tax on these lines would be open, and I think it must be admitted that there would be real difficulties in administering it. I have therefore reached the conclusion that the only satisfactory solution is to repeal the tax entirely, and I propose to repeal the duty, and the concomitant licence duty of 5s. payable by medicine vendors, as from 2nd September next. I suggest that date because, firstly, the licence normally runs till 1st September and it is desirable that the duty and the licence should terminate on the same date, and secondly,

    991
    because it will give ample opportunity to the majority of the interests concerned to dispose of their stamped stocks and adjust their prices to the new conditions. The cost will be £590,000 this year and £770,000 in a full year.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Then there is another suggestion which I wish to make, connected with the Entertainments Duty. The Committee will remember that in the course of last year's Finance Bill Debates I gave an undertaking that before the next Budget I would review the working of the Entertainments Duty, especially in its application to the living theatre. Theatres, music halls, concerts and certain other "living" entertainments were given a measure of relief in 1935 by means of a special scale, under which the duty is generally one penny per admission less than that for other entertainments. The chief difficulty under which the living theatre labours is the rival attraction of the cinema. At the same time I realise that the Duty does aggravate the disability from which the living theatre suffers, and Parliament, I think, would wish, if it could, to help. In the circumstances, I am prepared to concede some additional relief. I propose therefore to give the entertainments in question a further reduction of duty of one penny per admission throughout the greater part of the duty scale. This will take effect on the 3rd September. It will cost £190,000 this year and £290,000 in a full year. Details of the new scale will be found in the White Paper.

    FILMS.
    These two matters cut into the revenue to the tune of about £1,000,000 in a full year and I wish to provide for these losses of revenue approximately by a modification of the duty on films—blank films and picture films. I propose to put an Excise Duty on photographic films and plates manufactured in this country, and the rate of duty I propose is 4½d.per square foot, which will be the equivalent of about 2d. on the most popular size of roll film commonly used by amateur photographers. X-ray films and dental films used for medical and scientific purposes will be exempt from Duty. I understand that a great deal of cinematograph film which is used in a film studio is
    992
    rejected as unsuitable, either as waste or clippings, for inclusion in the final picture. As I have no wish to hamper the production of British pictures I propose to allow a rebate equal to the Excise Duty on whatever wastage arises in this way.
    Concurrently with the imposition of the Excise Duty the Customs Duty on blank film and plates will have to be increased. The new rate will be 9d. per square foot of blank film coming from abroad.
    This is also a convenient opportunity for rectifying certain anomalies in connection with imported picture films. The present Duties are 5d. per linear foot on negatives and one penny per linear foot on positives. When these Duties were imposed in 1915 the intention was that the higher rate of 5d. a foot on negatives would be paid on all foreign productions imported for purposes of reproduction here. But under modern conditions it is possible, and it has become the practice, to avoid the higher Duty by never importing any negative copy at all, but by importing a single positive copy at 1d. a foot and reproducing from it all the additional copies needed. I propose, therefore, in future to charge the higher rate on the first copy of each film imported, whether it happens to be positive or negative, and to allow subsequent copies or prints of the film to come in at the lower rate. To compensate for the Excise Duty, the Customs rate will be increased to 6d. for the first copy and 2d. for each subsequent copy, per linear foot respectively. Films which only contain a sound track and films less than the standard width will be admissible at the lower rate, whether they are first copies or not. This will increase the yield from the Film Duties by £800,000 in the present year and by over £1,000,000 in a full year, which may be substantially set off against the two concessions I have explained.

    TAX AVOIDANCE.
    Let me say a few words now about tax avoidance. Finance Acts of recent years have contained many provisions relating to the avoidance of taxation, and I have made it my business to examine as closely as I could the working of those provisions. I am glad to be in a position to tell the Committee that in general they

    993
    have worked with effect and have checked to a considerable extent the abuses against which they were directed. While that is the case, experts in tax avoidance still continue to devise schemes to get round the law and to render nugatory the clear intentions of the provisions which Parliament has passed. The extent to which such schemes are being employed is diminishing but the evil still persists, and I find it necessary to propose further provisions on the subject this year. I do not propose now to enter into any explanation of the nature of these proposals, as I think their discussion can only be undertaken when the details of the Finance Bill are available. They necessitate two Resolutions, one dealing with Sur-tax and the other with Estate Duty. The avoidance against which they are directed is that which occurs through the ingenious use of one-man companies. These schemes of tax avoidance are so flagrant and are so deliberately devised to get round the legislation of 1936 and 1937 that I shall have no hesitation in recommending that retrospective effect shall be given to them, as far as necessary, in accordance with the very clear warning I gave last year. There is one further Resolution relating to Inland Revenue required to correct a technical flaw discovered in the provisions for National Defence Contribution, but I do not anticipate that it will involve any controversy.

    NEW TAXATION.
    Now we can return to the main question. How is the gap of £24,000,000 to be filled? In framing my proposals for raising this additional sum I have had two considerations mainly in mind. On the one hand, this is a further effort for the defence of the country to be shared by the citizens as a whole, and while the individual's money contribution must differ widely in amount it would be wrong, I think, to exempt any section entirely from contributing their share. On the other hand, while I must call both upon the direct taxpayer and the indirect taxpayer, there is one main impost which I should be very unwilling to alter this year. That is the Income Tax. The rate of Income Tax has been raised step by step in every one of the last three years. The standard rate is now at the figure of 5s. 6d., which is within 6d. of the highest point ever reached in the War. We have just
    994
    been doing all we could to encourage a measure of confidence in business, and there are good grounds for expecting further business recovery if no serious setbacks occur. We ought, I am sure, to avoid any measures which would have a generally depressing effect upon industry. Even if the effect on industry of increasing the Income Tax is, as some theorists say, a matter of psychology, I think it would be unwise to take that risk at this time, and I shall not, therefore, propose an increase in the standard rate of Income Tax this year.

    MOTOR VEHICLE DUTIES.
    I must get a proper contribution from the direct taxpayer by other means. The first resource to which I apply is the horse-power Duty on motor cars. For a long period prior to 1935 the licence duty on private motor cars was £1 per annum per horse-power. The Budget of 1934 afforded opportunity for large remissions of taxation and side by side with the reductions of Income Tax my predecessor reduced the private car Duty to 15s. per horse-power. I am well aware of, and I have by no means overlooked the consideration which can be urged against this Duty, but when increases in taxation have to be devised the question is always between alternative evils, and the circumstances at the present time appear to me to justify the decision to which I have come. The users of private cars, who very largely correspond to the Income Tax paying classes, have for five years enjoyed the benefit of this reduced scale of taxation. Therefore, I feel bound to ask them, in these stern times, to submit to a substantially increased scale. Just as the reduction of Income Tax from 5s. to 4s. 6d. in 1934 has already been reversed by the increase to 5s. 6d., I propose that for the year commencing 1st January next the Duty on private cars should be fixed at 25s. per horse-power. The Duties on motor cycles will be correspondingly increased, and details will be found in the White Paper. These changes will provide £6,250,000 in the first year and £11,500,000 in a full year.

    SURTAX AND ESTATE DUTY.
    Next, I must propose a modification both in Surtax and in Estate Duty by way of a percentage addition to the present rates. The Surtax payer suffered

    995
    a 10 per cent, addition to the charge in the crisis Budget of 1931 at the same time when a whole series of additions were made to other taxes, most of which were subsequently reversed or modified in favour of the taxpayer, and any fair-minded man must recognise that the Surtax rates are already exceedingly high. Nevertheless, in applying the principle of increased contributions from all quarters, I cannot leave the Surtax rates unaltered this year, and I propose to modify them by adding a surcharge of a further 5 per cent. increase on the rates applying to all slices of income up to £8,000 and a further 10 per cent. increase of rates in respect of all income in excess of a total income of £8,000. The White Paper that will be distributed will contain the usual tables illustrating the effect of these increases, showing the increased amount payable by specimen incomes. I estimate that in the present year this change will give me a further £4,000,000 and in a full year £5,000,000.
    In the case of Estate Duty I propose to add a surcharge of 10 per cent. of the existing duty on estates exceeding £50,000 in value. This will not increase the charge in respect of agricultural value for I am not proposing to disturb the existing provision of the law under which the agricultural value of agricultural land included in an estate is assessed at the rates laid down by the Finance Act, 1919. It is calculated that in the present year an additional sum of £3,000,000 will be collected from Estate Duty from this change and in a full year the amount is expected to be £5,000,000.

    TOBACCO AND SUGAR.
    My remaining proposals—they are two—are in the region of indirect taxation. In this connection let me remind the Committee that in the three preceding years, 1936, 1937 and 1938, increases of direct taxation—Income Tax and National Defence Contribution—have been imposed to produce some £75,000,000 per annum as against increases of indirect taxation of only some £12,000,000 per annum. My first proposal deals with tobacco. The basic duty is at present 9s. 6d. per lb. I propose to raise this as from to-morrow by 2s. per lb.—1½d. an ounce—making the basic duty 11s. 6d. per lb. with corre-
    996
    sponding changes, of course, in the other tobacco duties on cigars etc. I estimate that the extra duty will yield £7,000,000 this year and £8,000,000 in a full year.
    In order to make up the total of £24,000,000 another £4,000,600 will have to be found. This sum will be provided from the sugar duty by an increase of ¼d. per lb. The present duty on foreign raw sugar is equivalent to 9s. 4d. a cwt. on the refined product. The new rate will involve an addition of 2s. 4d. a cwt. the Empire preferences being, of course, preserved. The Excise Duty on homegrown beet sugar will be adjusted so as to maintain the existing margin of advantage. All the details will be found in the White Paper. The increase of duty, which will operate as from Five p.m. today, is estimated to produce £4,000,000 in the present year, and £4,500,000 in a full year. The changes in taxation which I propose bring the total revenue for 1939 to £942,600,000 and so provide a surplus, a very modest surplus, of £156,000 over the expenditure which that revenue is intended to cover.
    I have only one word more. In the survey of our financial position which it has been my duty to make, and in my proposals for dealing with it, the Committee will not have failed to note how easy it is to authorise great increases of expenditure, and to allot a comfortable share of them to be met out of borrowings, and how difficult and painful it is to find even a small portion of the extra money by the instrument of taxation. Yet the use of borrowed money does not do more than postpone the burden, and nothing but the sternest national necessity would justify so immense an outlay. As it is, the provisions contained in this Budget represent an essential part, but only a part, of the total national effort that is needed. The shape and content of our finances to-day are determined inevitably by our Defence needs, and the expenditure to meet those needs, vast as that expenditure is, is approved by the general sense of the country and of Parliament. These objects vitally touch every home alike, from cottage to mansion and palace, and the burden is one which we must all share. Heavy as that burden is, it is part of the price which this country will willingly pay in the cause of world peace and national safety.

  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

    TOBACCO (CUSTOMS DUTY).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That in lieu of the full duties of customs now chargeable on tobacco imported into the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be charged the following duties, that is to say:

    s.

    d.

    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.,

    containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof—

    unstripped the lb.

    11

    6

    stripped the lb.

    11

    6½

    containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof— the lb.

    unstripped the lb.

    12

    6

    stripped the lb.

    12

    6½

    Upon tobacco manufactured, v.,

    Cigars the lb.

    20

    1

    Cigarettes the lb.

    16

    7

    Cavendish or Negrohead the lb.

    15

    9

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.

    14

    0

    Other manufactured tobacco the lb.

    14

    0

    Upon snuff—

    containing more than 13 lbs.

    of moisture in every 100 lbs.

    weight thereof the lb.

    13

    4

    containing not more than 13 lbs.

    of moisture in every 100 lbs.

    weight thereof the lb.

    15

    9

    and so in proportion for any less quantity.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    5.8 p.m.
    Mr. Attlee: The Chancellor of the Exchequer began his speech by referring to one of his predecessors who was introducing a Budget just prior to a war. Let us hope that that remark is not an ill-omen. He went on to point out that that little Budget let loose a flood of eloquence. I am sure that we are all very glad that the present holder of the office did not indulge in the lengthy explanations and oratory of his great predecessor. The explanations of the right hon. Gentleman have been, of course, lucid, as always from him, and have been commendably brief, but I am bound to say that Mr. Gladstone, if he had got over the shock of contemplating these figures, would
    998
    have indulged in a good deal of philosophic reflection and would have given us rather more background to his financial statement. Probably he would have indulged in rather more looking ahead than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.
    We are contemplating a colossal expenditure, the highest this country has ever had to face in time of peace, as well as the enormous expenditure upon armaments. The question we should all like to ask is, Have we reached the peak yet? The Chancellor of the Exchequer hinted last year that we had not reached the peak, and it was quite clear that we had not reached it then, but the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing at all as to whether these figures go in any order of progression, whether we have reached a peak and have to come down again, or whether this is only one step in a steeper climb. We have to recognise that this enormous expenditure brings with it very great commitments for the future. I remember the Prime Minister's speech last year with regard to those commitments. All this expenditure on the armed Forces means a tremendous added annual expenditure for upkeep, and all this borrowing means a tremendous sum in the future, a constantly increasing sum, for interest and for sinking fund.
    In fact, from the point of view of a broad outlook, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not facing the problem at all. He is passing it on. Much of the interest in the Budget has passed away since we left aside all question of trying to balance revenue and expenditure. I can imagine that the House listened in the time of Mr. Gladstone with intense excitement to items that are now passed over, and little sums of a few hundred thousand pounds or even less were considered of most momentous importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought us up today to the comparatively small sum of £24,000,000 that he had to raise by extra taxation. The sum is small compared to his huge total, and there was nothing like the interest shown that I have known in former Budgets because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really selected an arbitrary token amount to be provided by taxation. If he had not wanted to make some particular sum he might easily have put this all on to borrowing, but it

    999
    seemed to me that he tried to wrap himself in a rather scanty rag of financial virtue.
    Before discussing these particular matters we have to consider the general effect of the process which is going on of enormous borrowing. One effect will undoubtedly be inflation, and that is where the mass of the people will pay the price. It is unnecessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think that we must increase the tax on sugar in order to bring it home to the mass of the people; this process of borrowing and inflation will sooner or later bring it home to the poorest of the poor. The second point is that this enormous borrowing is going to lead to dislocation of industry which will be felt very severely, if we can avoid the major horror of another war. At the back of the Chancellor's Budget there is no real national planning. It struck me throughout his speech that, despite all the talk about everyone making sacrifices, the Chancellor in fact is trying to carry on in an abnormal situation the normality of the class structure of society. He said that nothing could be done with regard to pensions, that nothing could be done with regard to social services, because he accepted as absolutely necessary the maintenance of the standard of life of the different classes in this society.
    That is really the dangerous thing at the back of the Chancellor's whole statement. There is no conception that what we really need to do in these days is to think of the actualities behind the figures. The Chancellor gets a balance for the moment, but he is not really dealing with the problem of utilising the resources of this country. He has introduced certain taxes. I was glad to see that to a certain extent he was concentrating on luxuries, but I think it is necessary to go a great deal further than that—not just from the point of view of what is called "soaking the rich," but from the point of view of bringing pressure to bear in order that we may concentrate in this country on the provision of necessities and not of luxuries. I would have liked to have seen a heavy tax on the very expensive motor car; I would have liked to have seen the tax on horse-power graded so as to fall more steeply, and with ever increasing steepness, on the highest-powered cars than on the ordinary working car which is used for business or for the purposes of the simple pleasures of
    1000
    very humble people. It would have had a far better economic effect.
    I was glad to hear the Chancellor's proposals with regard to Surtax and Estate Duties. There, again, it is right to put the taxation on the higher incomes, because, after all, it is not what is taken from them, but what is left behind, that matters. I was glad to hear him speak of evasion. It is a kind of task in which, it seems to me, the greyhound never really catches the hare, but I hope he will get near enough to have another bite. New methods of evasion occur, and, just as you are nearing the hare, it escapes again. I am given to understand by those who know that there are very large sums—I am told in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000 in Surtax alone—which escape even now. The effect does not rest so much in those actual sums as in the minds of other people who know that these people are evading taxation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter, not only as regards the people who have tricky arrangements devised for them by lawyers, but as regards people who arrange their residence so as to evade taxation. To my mind we have to look ahead and consider how far we can continue to bear this ever-mounting burden of debt. Sooner or later, and I think the sooner the better, we shall have to come down to the taxation of wealth—I mean accumulated wealth. You are creating, by this method of borrowing, just as you did in the War, an enormous mass of indebtedness, on which interest has to be paid, and you are creating an enormous rentier class. This will render it necessary to adopt different methods.
    It is not my intention to deal in any detail with the Budget; my friends will have an opportunity of doing so; but, before I close, I would like to say one thing, and that is that we are meeting to-day having just lost a Member of the House who took a very prominent part in these Debates for many years. He was a Member who was very dear to us on this side, who was respected by all, who showed a devotion to duty which I think wore him out prematurely, and who served the House for many years on a most important Committee, the Public Accounts Committee. I felt that I could not let this occasion pass wihout paying a brief tribute to his memory.
    5.20 p.m.
    Sir Archibald Sinclair: I am sure that it is not only Members of his own party who will be grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the graceful tribute which he paid to the memory of the late hon. Member for Caerphilly, who was not only beloved by all his fellow Members and played a prominent, important and distinguished part in our Debates, but gave devoted service to the House as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us this afternoon the kind of speech that we expected from him—a clear, terse and revealing statement of the national finances. The Committee will be grateful to him for his searching analysis of the financial situation, and for a lucid and graceful presentation of what struck me as being a pedestrian and unimaginative Budget. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the crushing burdens which would be borne with the good will and patriotism of the taxpayer. As I said last year, I am convinced that the Chancellor, the Government and Parliament will not look in vain to the taxpayer to show cheerfulness and resolution under the heavy burdens which the national necessities are throwing upon him at the present time, but I believe that that cheerfulness and resolution would be greatly fortified if the taxpayers were assured that the Government were seriously tackling the problem of expenditure, and doing their utmost to ensure that, while we know that expenditure on an immense scale is necessary, we are getting full value for every pound that is spent, and that all unnecessary expenditure is being cut down.
    It is true, and I do not in the least want to pass over the fact, that the Chancellor said that most strenuous efforts must be made to effect savings of money now voted, but he did not give us any indication of what those efforts were going to be. If I am asked as I was in the Debate on the subject last year, where these economies are to be made, I would say, first of all, let us look where most expenditure is being incurred, and let us be absolutely certain that our great expenditure on armaments is being economically administered. There is published to-day the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, which shows that, as
    1002
    regards certain Departments, there is undoubtedly very great need for more effective control of expenditure, and that is one reason, though not by any means the only reason, why my hon. Friends and I have urged the establishment of a Ministry of Supply. It is true that we have been offered a truncated Ministry; it is true that we have been offered a Ministry with powers limited to the supplies of one Department; but we shall certainly scrutinise very anxiously the Bill for the establishment of that Ministry when it comes before the House, and we shall urge that ample powers should be given to ensure that the expenditure on defence is fully productive and that waste is as far as possible eliminated.
    I have ventured to describe the Budget as unimaginative, mainly because it does not indicate, as far as I can make out, any solution for the two main problems of the Budget at the present time. The first is a financial problem. The Chancellor said in solemn language that the use of borrowed money only postpones the burden. It is abundantly true. That was the reason why we moved Amendments to the first Defence Loans Bill which came before the House of Commons. We felt then, and I cannot help thinking that the Committee must now agree with us, that it would have been better if, in the earlier stages of this great effort in rearmament, Parliament had decided that the greater portion of the burden should have been shouldered by taxation rather than by loans. The Chancellor told us that the use of borrowed money only postpones the burden, but he did not give us any indication of how that burden is eventually going to be shouldered; he did not give us any indication ofthe long-term financial policy of the Government; and I am sure that the minds of the public will be greatly preoccupied with the thought of how these great burdens are to be carried in the future, and with the immense problem that will face the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes to compile his Budget next year.
    The second problem with which, it seemed to me, the Chancellor failed to deal, was the question of the concentration of the economic and financial strength of the country upon the problem of rearmament. He did, indeed, warn us of what is sufficiently obvious from a

    1003
    study of the figures, namely, that the Supplementary Estimates for defence are the pith and kernel of the matter—as he said, the cardinal issue of the Budget; and he went on to say that the shape and content of our financial burden is determined by our defence needs. But it is just there that his proposals for taxation seem to me to fall short of requirements. Surely, in the circumstances with which we are faced, the main need is to prevent private expenditure, and especially expenditure on luxuries, from competing with the national effort at rearmament in its demand upon skilled labour and upon capital. Therefore I join with the Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that there ought to have been much heavier taxation, for example, upon motor cars, and especially upon higher-powered motor cars, with the effect of putting at the disposal of the national effort in rearmament the capital and skilled labour which are now engaged in the motor car industry. I should have hoped that the Chancellor would have seen his way to carry that further, and indicate how he proposes to grapple with the fundamental problem of liberating our productive capacity for the needs of rearmament.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that the sale of motor cars in this country should be reduced?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, I am proposing that, and that the capital and skilled labour employed on their manufacture should be liberated for other productive purposes for which it is so badly needed. Unless we do that, we shall be faced with the problem of inflation in its worst form at a very early date. Then the Chancellor dealt with the problem of tax dodgers. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Chancellor has his heart in this business, and I am very glad that a man of his power and experience in these matters is in charge of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has described as a "hunt." I wish him good fortune in his hunt, and if there is anything we can do I can assure him that he will have the assistance of my hon. Friends and myself. As regards his minor proposals, I could not help wondering whether this penny will be of any help to the living theatre. I suppose it is a
    1004
    gesture, and perhaps it has more in it than some gestures that are made; but I doubt whether it will be very valuable to the theatre. As for patent medicines, I do not myself use patent medicines, but I am in a small way an amateur cinematographer, and, therefore, I cannot help wondering whether this letting off patent medicines at the expense of cinematographers is going to do the country much good.
    The Chancellor, in the early part of his speech, pointed out that the revenue estimate had proved to be £17,500,000 too high. Any of his predecessors would have felt bound to come before the House in a white sheet and apologise for so egregious an over-estimate, but, of course, the Chancellor is in a position to say that this is due to circumstances far outside his control, to international events. The error of the Government was obviously less of a financial error than a political error. It was an error in estimating the value of the appeasement policy which they had been following in recent months. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked us to trust to that policy of appeasement, but we can see that it has not led either to success in the field of foreign affairs or to any diminution of our financial burdens. On the contrary, we are faced with further demands. We shall have many opportunities of discussing the details of the Budget in the Debates that lie ahead. Broadly speaking, it seems to me that the chief criticism is that when so many supporters of the Government are demanding conscription of the man-power of the country, there is too little evidence in this Budget of an intention on the part of the Government to mobilise our economic and financial resources for the national effort which lies before us.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. Boothby: I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor upon what I think hon. Members on all sides must agree is a most admirable Budget in every respect. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend has struck the right balance, in circumstances of very great difficulty, first of all between revenue and loan expenditure, and secondly between direct and indirect taxation. If I may humbly be allowed to say so, it is a very remarkable achievement. With regard to some

    1005
    of the detailed proposals, I think the Committee as a whole will welcome the Chancellor's gesture to the living theatre. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that it may not be all that is required, but it is at least a gesture of sympathy with the living theatre in a time of difficulty, and it shows what the opinon of the House is. Equally, the House will welcome the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duty.
    With regard to the increase in the Horse Power Duty, I have no doubt that we shall hear very severe criticisms from hon. Members on this side, but I would like to say two things. First, I think the conditions on the roads of this country are rapidly becoming intolerable, and some reduction in the number of luxury motor cars on these roads is desirable until the time comes when we can do a great deal more in regard to the upkeep of existing roads and the construction of new trunk roads. Secondly, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland that, although it is not yet apparent, one cannot see how the enormous expenditure on armaments now contemplated can fail to produce a shortage of skilled labour over the next 12 months if the expenditure is actually carried out; and I think it is desirable that there should be a transfer of this type of skilled labour from the manufacture of what is after all a luxury, the private motor car, to the manufacture, not only of aeroplanes but of all the other forms of mechanical transport which are a vital part of national defence. Therefore, stiff though it may appear, I think my right hon. Friend is perfectly right to have greatly increased the duty on horse power. I think the events and experience of the next 12 months will fully justify his action.
    With regard to loan expenditure, I would like to point out that £380,000,000 represents very nearly 8 per cent. of our national income. Actually £400,000,000 represents 8 per cent. of our national income, so you can say that the loan expenditure contemplated represents very nearly 8 per cent. This is a very large sum, much larger, as Mr. Keynes pointed out the other day, than President Roosevelt has even contemplated spending in the United States. The question arises whether the money can, in fact,
    1006
    be raised. I think there is no doubt that it can be raised—and raised without difficulty. A certain part of it, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise, should be raised in the form of floating debt; and, in so far as possible, I would ask him to raise the money after the expenditure has taken place, otherwise it may have unfortunate effects on the general economy of the country. But that we can raise the money without serious difficulty, and at reasonably low rates of interest, I have no doubt. I do not think that anybody in the City of London doubts it either.
    I would, however, like to make one appeal to the Chancellor. I still feel that it is very desirable that everything possible should be done to keep down the rate of interest; in other words, to keep money cheap. There has been a tendency in recent weeks for the market rate for bills to rise. That is due to the fact that during recent weeks the banks have not been supplied with sufficient cash. They require a good deal to make them feel secure under existing conditions. This is an old theme of mine, and I do not wish to bore the Committee by going into it again at length this evening, but I believe it is absolutely necessary that the joint stock banks should be adequately supplied with cash reserves at the present time—and if my right hon. Friend likes to do it, in conjunction with the Bank of England, he can. And do not, under any circumstances, allow the impression even to be formed that until we reach the concluding stages of the next war, the bank rate will be raised. I believe it to be absolutely essential, if the financial policy outlined in this Budget is to succeed, that money should be kept cheap; and that the Government should be able to borrow on short, medium or even long term at low rates of interest. If that is done, we shall be able to surmount the admittedly enormous tasks that lie ahead with no difficulty whatever, and set an example to the world, and even to the totalitarian States.
    Mr. Tinker: Has the hon. Member any idea in his mind as to what rates of interest he would pay?
    Mr. Boothby: That must depend on the conditions prevailing at the moment; but I cannot see why His Majesty's Government should be required to pay more at any time than 2½ per cent. Hon. Members

    1007
    on both sides will, no doubt, ask themselves whether this enormous loan expenditure may not give rise to what is sometimes called inflation. I do not think that that will necessarily follow. There is still a considerable surplus of productive power, of labour and resources, in this country unused; and as long as that is the case no dangerous inflation is possible. A certain rise in wholesale prices is still justifiable.
    Mr. Silverman: I wish the hon. Member would explain what he means by saying that because we have this reserve no inflation is possible. Does he not mean that no inflation would be possible if, at the same time as you borrowed, you increased your use of that labour. If you borrow and leave that reserve of labour unused, then, indeed, you have inflation, and inflation of the worst kind.
    Mr. Boothby: No. Unless the Government go into the labour market and compete strongly with private industry until the reserves are exhausted, I do not see how retail prices or wages can be forced higher. I was endeavouring to point out that there is still room without any suffering on the part of the community as a whole, for a considerable rise in wholesale prices. The wholesale world price level has not risen during recent months. On the contrary the tendency has been for it to go down, with somewhat disastrous effects. If we get a moderate rise in the wholesale price level it will do no harm, and it will reduce the burden of debt. A rise of 1 per cent. per annum would reduce the real burden of debt by no less than £80,000,000. From this point of view it would do no damage to the general economy of the country; and, I am sure, would inflict no suffering whatever on the working class.
    There is another point, and that is the balance of trade. Here we are up against a very serious problem indeed; and I do not think that we can get through with this enormous loan expenditure without doing everything possible to rectify our adverse balance of trade, which otherwise looks like extending very considerably in the immediate future. In this connection, I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary, who we are all delighted to see in his new office,
    1008
    will forgive me if I quote one paragraph from an article of Mr. Keynes in the "Times" the other day bearing on this particular subject. I do not think that the outlook is so alarming in certain respects as Mr. Keynes seems to think with regard to the absorption of all unemployed and skilled labour over a very short period; but on the subject of the balance of trade I think that he is perfectly right. He says:
    "At a time of rapid increase in domestic expenditure there are two physical obstacles to overcome; and in such circumstances only these physical obstacles are fundamental. The first is the shortage of labour; the second is the shortage of foreign resources. Apart, therefore, from the labour problem, the balance of foreign trade must be our chief preoccupation. Our demand for imports will surely increase, and this may facilitate, at the same time that it makes more necessary, Mr. Hudson's excellent efforts to adapt our export methods to the times But, in addition to our demand for import, it is clear that we shall need large resources for political loans, while it is important not to impair our ultimate gold reserves more than is unavoidable. The handling of foreign trade cannot safely be left to individual enterprise unaided. For individuals have no machinery for the linking of imports to exports is now essential for our financial strength. This is an urgent problem of immense difficulty—not less so because the solution is so contrary to our traditions and our preferences."
    I would point out that under existing conditions we have not the machinery in this country greatly to expand our export trade; and that the ordinary private merchants and bankers cannot afford, without some form of assistance from the State, really to push ahead and run the risks which are now inseparable from the conduct of foreign trade. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Bill which was passed recently by this House to extend export credits may in the long run prove inadequate for our requirements. We must not, we cannot, allow the adverse balance of trade to grow; and it may well be that still further assistance to our merchants and traders for the purpose of expanding our export trade in these very difficult times, when the political risks cannot be shouldered by private enterprise, will have to be forthcoming from His Majesty's Government. It is a subject which deserves, and should receive, the most serious consideration. Mere expressions of opinion on the part of Ministers that we will beat the foreigners at their own game, and all that kind of thing, however admirable

    1009
    in themselves, do not necessarily mean that we are going to beat them. We shall have to devise a technique of expanding our export trade which alone can enable us to avoid a serious adverse balance.
    Those who are very depressed by this enormous and growing expenditure on rearmament would do well to remember that our recovery between the years 1933 and 1937 was based upon great capital expenditure on housing, upon cheap money, and upon confidence. I see no reason why the recovery of 1939–43 should not be based upon great expenditure on rearmament, on cheap money, and, again, on confidence. That confidence will actually arise out of the expenditure on rearmament, if it is done on a big enough scale, and with sufficient resolution.
    The only way to finance this very heavy expenditure in the long run, whether you do it by loan or by revenue, is by increasing the national income; and the only way to increase the national income is for us to do everything in our power to increase production and productivity in this country. For this reason one of the things which I welcome most warmly in the Budget of my right hon. Friend is his refusal to be lured into raising the Income Tax, because that is one of the things that might very easily have damped down enthusiasm in the business community, for psychological reasons apart from anything else, and helped to hold up the increase in productivity which is essential if we are to get through. I would much rather the Surtax payers, especially those in the higher ranges, and the payers of Estate Duty in the higher ranges had to bear the extra burden at the present time, as I think their shoulders are perhaps better able to bear it than any others.
    As far as indirect taxation is concerned, I think that hon. Members opposite will not find any great complaint to make about the Chancellor's proposals. If they result in the smoking of a little less tobacco, I do not think that anyone can say that it will have a deleterious effect either on the health or the habits of the population as a whole. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated wholeheartedly upon producing, in circumstances of almost inconceivable difficulty, an excellent and well balanced Budget.
    5.52 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon made the clearest statement when introducing his Budget that I have ever heard in this House. The most striking features of that statement, as far as I am concerned, were the following points. He had to budget for an expenditure of £942,000,000, and £8,163,250,000 is now the National Debt, an appalling figure. I also notice in the Blue Paper that we have to find £230,000,000 to meet the interest and administration of the National Debt. What struck me more than anything else perhaps was the way ex-generals and ex-colonels on those benches reacted to the statement about social services. Another point was that £500,000 less was spent on unemployment assistance in a year when the numbers applying for unemployment assistance considerably increased, and, according to the Blue Paper, calculation is made on the basis of the reduction of another £265,000 during the current year in unemployment assistance.
    Mr. H. G. Williams: I think that the hon. Member is under an honest misapprehension. The total in respect of unemployment insurance rose heavily, and it is in respect of unemployment assistance that the total fell.
    Mr. Smith: I will check up those figures afterwards. I have adopted at least one principle in life, and that is never to quote a figure or make a statement unless I am sure that it is the fact. On this occasion I have armed myself with the facts, and I am able to produce documentary evidence, if need be, in order that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams)can check up the facts after these statements have been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a clear statement from the Cabinet point of view as representing the rich people of this country. I have noticed during past years that when annual meetings of big businesses have been held, the chairmen of those meetings have, time after time, made veiled attacks upon the social services in this country and in particular upon the people to whom we belong. Chairmen speaking at these annual meetings represent the views of their own people, and on this occasion I want to speak from the point of view of our own people. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), for whom I shall

    1011
    have a sneaking regard provided he maintains the policy and principles that he has supported during the past few years, said that this was an admirable Budget. It is an admirable Budget for those who desire to maintain the status quo, but we are not satisfied with the maintenance of the status quo. I would call the attention of the House to the position with which we are confronted. I find the following people are the chief directors of the Midland Bank. Lord Ashfield, with six directorships; Sir Percy Bates, with nine directorships; Lord Davies, with 16 directorships; Mr. B. D. Docker, with 15 directorships, Sir Francis Joseph, with 16 directorships, and Lord McGowan with 15 directorships. One could show that these people hold between them from six to 16 directorships, receiving an average director's fee from the Midland Bank alone of approximately £26 per week, plus 16 per cent. on the shares they hold in the Midland Bank. There is the case of Barclays Bank, where Lord Essendon has 33 directorships, and the Westminster Bank, where Lord Hunsdon holds directorships of five other companies, and Lord Inchcape 27 directorships. One could go on giving an analysis of the financial directorships in this country, showing that on an average these persons receive as directors of banks alone £30 a week, which is paid, work or play, with no piece work and no loss of time, for 52 weeks in the year. That is the basis upon which I want to proceed to analyse the position of this country.
    The insecurity of our people throughout a period of development is economically unsound, and is not compatible with the enormous wealth of our country. There is no need for this insecurity, and I shall give facts and figures to show that from the point of view of most hon. Members it would be a good business proposition to eliminate this insecurity as it would be a great stimulus to the home market. We have often heard from the Gallery of this House a cry which many hon. Members have treated with ridicule, that social credit is the only remedy. While that may be a slogan, that shout represents the insecurity of our people. It represents urgent economic needs, and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to three urgent reforms which I suggest should be made as early as possible. They would be a small step to-
    1012
    wards bringing about a redistribution of wealth and cementing our people together to face the desperate situation as we on these benches want to face it.
    The first reform I want to suggest is that there should be an immediate increase in old age and widows' pensions. The men and women of the class to which we belong are entitled to at least £1 a week when they reach 60 years of age. The second elementary step is that the time has arrived when there should be introduced a system of State family allowances. I am not speaking critically of those who are responsible for running our industries, but what I am saying is that the responsibility rests upon every hon. Member to carry this legislation. As in the past 150 years we have set an example in the development of constitutional government we should set an example to the world in the development of our social services and so cement our people together that they will be ready to face any potential aggressor. Therefore, I suggest that a system of State family allowances should be introduced. In many cases wages are too low, they are a disgrace to every one of us. The parents of our children are eager to do the best for their children. Working people love children, but they are bound to have regard to the serious economic position and the present state of insecurity. The husband and wife talk things over, with the result that the country is now faced with a serious situation in regard to population. Therefore, in order that our people can do justice to their children the time has arrived when a State family allowance scheme should be introduced in order that innocent children can be taken out of the firing line of industry in which they have been placed too long.
    The next elementary reform is that there should be an immediate increase in unemployment benefit allowances and a reduction in the rents of our people. They are all reasonable reforms in themselves and would be a considerable help by increasing the spending power of our people. They would spend the money over the local counter, and would stimulate the home market. In that way we should bring about a fairer distribution of wealth and deal with many social anomalies which should have been dealt with long ago. Now may I turn to the

    1013
    hon. and gallant Members who are absent? Proposals which were made in 1938 meant changes in the Army.
    Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Where are the Members of the Labour party?
    Mr. Smith: I do not mind my attention being drawn to them, but I will put the average attendance of our people against that of hon. Members opposite at any time, including the hon. and gallant Member himself.
    Mr. McKie: Has the hon. Member inquired the average attendance of his party during the last Session?
    Mr. Smith: I do not mind party averages being considered, but if we go too far on that matter we should be called to order. In the Army changes made in 1938 the age of Generals and Lieutenant-Generals, was reduced from 67 to 60, Major-Generals from 62 to 57 and Majors from 50 to 47. The effect of these proposals was considerably to accelerate promotion, thereby giving increased pay. Then we find that a Major can retire at 47 years of age and receive nearly £9 a week as pension. The 1938 proposals mean an increase approximately in a Major's pension of £2 10s. a week. He gets £9 a week for 23 years' service, and then he can accept another job, probably as a chief constable, if he likes, and there is no means test at all. On the other hand, it is 10s. a week for the people to whom we belong, who have to toil in the mines, in the workshops and in other ways for 51 years with no unemployment pay, plus being subject to the means test.
    I was reading the other day in a newspaper an advertisement which in itself is a condemnation of every one who is prepared to acquiesce in the status quo, in the present financial position of this country. It is an advertisement which is typical of the position. Too long have our party and our people been prepared to acquiesce in this state of affairs. What an indictment against our social conscience that firms can capitalise poverty and insecurity in an advertisement for profit-making purposes! This is what a mother of three children says:
    "I often wish I had more to spend on food but with over £1 going out in rent and rates we cannot afford more than 24s. a week for food for all of us. I shop as carefully as I can because I do want the children to get good nourishing meals"
    1014
    What a tragedy lies behind that speech; and this woman is relatively well off compared with thousands who belong to the party to which we belong, and on whose behalf I am speaking in the House. My plea to-day is that this insecurity should be dealt with. It is a reasonable step which should be taken. During the past few years there has been an enormous increase in production in this country and, therefore, an enormous increase in wealth. Even if we are prepared to accept the present social system, surely the time has arrived when our people are entitled to more security.
    The next point I want to touch upon is the serious international situation in which we find ourselves. In the next few years we are going to require the maximum amount of good will in this country and the maximum amount of security and unity. We shall require it in the countries who may be our allies. I want to pay a tribute to the initiative taken by President Roosevelt, who has won the admiration of all thinking people in the world. He has stated time and time again that it is no use embarking on huge expenditure on defence unless at the same time you pursue a social policy which will extend and improve the security of your own people. Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the Government to the statement of President Roosevelt. I hope that the Ambassador who is now living in retirement in America will remember that, although he has been disappointed and that his daughter has put upon record the disappointment—let Sir Eric Phipps and Lady Phipps also take some consolation—that the common people are beginning to learn the truth as to how some people have carried on in Berlin during the past few years. If we are in doubt I should like every hon. Member to read a book which has just been published, "My Years in Germany," by Miss Martha Dodd, the daughter of the American Ambassador, who has recently retired from Berlin. In America, in New Zealand, in the U.S.S.R. more and more the people are being welded together. The eyes of our people and of the whole world are looking with admiration at the example set by our Colonies, New Zealand in particular. I am standing here because of the sacrifices made by our people during the past 150 years.
    I am a relatively young man. The reason I am here is to be found in the ster-

    1015
    ling qualities and characters of hon. Members among whom I have the privilege of sitting, men who have toiled in the pits and who have won their way to this House by reason of their sterling work. Having done that, and having helped to build a capitalist democracy in this country, we say that it is worth preserving, and that the only way in which we can preserve it is by uniting our people, basing that unity on a foreign policy which they can accept and upon a social security policy. President Roosevelt, and the New Zealand Government and other Governments, are setting us an example which we ought to follow as soon as possible.
    The hon. Member for East Aberdeen spoke about this being an admirable Budget. I say that it is all right provided that you want to maintain the status quo. I want to call the attention of hon. Members to a proposal that has been made as to how wealth can be conscripted. During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I noticed that one or two hon. Members opposite were sceptical as to the possibilities of carrying out such a policy. I would draw their attention to a proposal that has been made by Mr. Douglas Jay, the city editor of the "Daily Herald." He says that if a 2 per cent. tax were placed upon individual fortunes, it would yield £500,000,000 in one year. I do not suggest that that should be done immediately, but why should there not be an instalment as soon as possible? Therefore, I will be reasonable. I will not suggest a 2 per cent. levy on private fortunes, but will be satisfied with a 1 per cent. levy, which would produce £250,000,000 immediately. This would enable us at once to increase the old age and widows' pensions to £1 a week, to give family allowances of 5s. for each child, and to carry out a few other reforms that would make the lives of our people happier than they are at the present time. I want to call the attention of hon. Members to a book that was published for business men only a few months ago. It was entitled "Marketing Survey and Purchasing Power Distribution," and it was prepared for the guidance of business men. Here is an extract from it:
    "Brighton and the Rhondda have nearly the same population, yet Brighton has 139
    1016
    doctors, while the Rhondda has only 61 doctors."
    That is a typical example of the maldistribution of wealth in this country, as reflected in that particular way. Then, to discover the total market that could be "tapped" from a given centre, an examination was made in that book in order that the purchasing power could be checked in any centre. It showed that the purchasing power index, in 1938, in Bath was 135.8; in Bournemouth, 159.2; in Bedford, 165; and in Worthing, 157.4. In those four places, generally speaking, the residents are well placed, and no real wealth is produced there. Let us com pare the purcasing power in four places where wealth is produced and where work is done. In Stoke, the purchasing power was 113,2; in Merthyr, 107.6; in Sunder- land, 111.9; and in Oldham, 96.5. What a tragedy that represents—in Oldham, where 99 per cent. of the men and women have to go daily into the mills and the workshops, they have a purchasing power of 96.5 per cent. compared with 159.2 per cent. in Bournemouth. In Bournemouth, where they do not work, where they do not produce real wealth, and where, compared with the industrial areas from which many of us —
    Sir H. Croft: The hon. Member does not seem to be aware of the fact that we have some 60,000 workpeople in Bournemouth of one kind and another, and if the purchasing power of Bournemouth is so great, from where do they purchase their goods, except from British labour as a whole, and why, therefore, should the hon. Member desire to destroy that purchasing power?
    Mr. Smith: I should be very pleased, if an opportunity presented itself, to deal with this matter in Bournemouth, if the hon. and gallant Member desired. There is nothing I would like better than to put the case I am presenting from any platform against any hon. Member opposite. At the present time, many people are clamouring for conscription. I want it to be understood quite clearly that we on this side are prepared to defend this country, to defend the people to whom we belong, and to support a foreign policy that has as its object the rallying of the whole of the peace-loving peoples of the world; but there must be equal treatment in the country, and therefore, if we are to be called upon to defend our land, the

    1017
    land must become ours. If we are to be called upon to defend our country, as my generation did from 1914 to 1918, instead of the land being left in the hands of the landlords, as it was then, it must belong to the people. I have never forgotten a sentence that was uttered by the late Mr. Bonar Law. He said:
    "Never let it be said that you willingly gave of your sons and withheld your money"
    That has been indeliby impressed upon some of us. If a demand is to be made in this House for conscription, there will be an overwhelming demand outside that, along with conscription, there must be conscription of the wealth and the whole resources of the country in order that we may all pull together.
    Mr. Radford: When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget to-day, did he suggest that the taxation he was imposing was on a voluntary basis? When he called upon the people of the country, in accordance with their means and position, to contribute this money, it was not on a voluntary basis; it was compulsory. To that extent, there is a limited conscription of wealth.
    Mr. Smith: I appreciate the hon. Member's interruption. What he said is true, but, at the same time, these people will have millions left in the aggregate. They have never been better off than they are at the present time. As I go about London, I see more Rolls-Royces and Chryslers than ever before. One has only to go to the Cumberland Hotel, and all those places, to see signs of wealth. Compare that with the position of the people we represent. When the hon. Member interrupted, I was about to refer to what took place between 1914 and 1918. During that time, the wages of the miners increased by 78 per cent.—and if these figures can be put in bold type in the Official Report, I should like that to be done. During those years, the cost of living increased by 120 per cent. I remember Bob Smillie—whom I am proud to have known, who was one of the greatest characters our movement has had—saying that the miners would agree to withdraw their demand for an increase in wages if the Government would control food prices. But food prices never were controlled. The Government promised they would do so, but they never did. I
    1018
    will give a typical example of the profiteering that took place. The coal-owners' profits were, in 1913, £13,000,000; in 1914, £14,000,000; in 1915,£25,000,000; in 1916, £32,000,000; in 1917, £26,000,000. And Mr. Bonar Law said:
    "Never let it be said that you willingly gave of your sons and withheld your money"
    Mr. Wragg: The hon. Member must be wrong, because in those years the coal trade was controlled, and all the excess profits, with the exception of, I think, 5 per cent., went back to the State. I think the hon. Member is quoting the gross profits of the industry, and not the profits after the Excess Profits Tax had been paid.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman, who is familiar with the coal industry, objects to the figures I have given, but I think they are right. As a result of the feeling that was created in 1919 and 1920, the miners of the country were bubbling over with indignation at the way in which they had been treated, and there was growing unrest among them. The Government of the day appointed the Sankey Commission, and that Commission recommended a seven-hour day. Later, a six-hour day was recommended, and then nationalisation was recommended; but at the present time, the miners are working longer than they were in those days. During the last weekend there was a meeting of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and at that meeting a number of statements were made which are typical of the mentality and outlook of many hon. Members opposite. I will quote from the report of that meeting in the "Manchester Guardian":
    "National service as a condition of relief for the unemployed man whose contributory benefit is exhausted was advocated at the Conference of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in London yesterday. The suggestion was made by the President, Sir Granville Gibson, M.P"
    That statement is most unfair. Made by the people who were responsible for suggesting the means test, it will cause a good deal of indignation in the country. He went on to say that Britons are becoming too pampered:
    "Sometimes I fear that some people are so well looked after by social services at home that they will not take the risks. They are in many cases so pampered and so accustomed to the easy way that they will not take the rough road of the pioneer."

    1019
    I want to say calmly and coolly that that statement is deep-rooted impudence. Here I have invitations to the annual dinners of this organisation. Year after year they invite hon. Members to participate in their annual dinner at two guineas a time, and yet they have the impudence to make statements of that kind. The time has arrived when Members of this House should realise that, as a result of the education which we have received and of developments in the country, we are not prepared to acquiesce in a state of affairs which means the status quo, which means £36 a week for bank directors, some of whom hold from 10 to 26 directorships, and -£9 a week pensions for ex-colonels and generals, while the men and women of the class to which we belong have to toil in industry for 50 years and are entitled to only 10s. a week as an old age pension. The elementary step ought to be taken to increase immediately the old age pension, to introduce a State system of family allowances, and to increase unemployment benefit so that this country can be welded together as closely as possible in order that the indignation which is more and more developing can be removed. At the same time we should adopt the policy which President Roosevelt, the New Zealand Government and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have adopted in order that we can weld together all countries that stand for the preservation of peace.
    6.33 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The traditions of this House change slowly from year to year. There was a time when, after the Budget statement, the House rose almost immediately. I have had no experience of a fine full-blooded election speech being made on the first day of the Budget in so admirable a way as that to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). I do not expect, and I am sure he does not expect, that any hon. Member will reply in detail to him, because he ranged from bank directors to foreign policy, and altogether he had a fine enjoyable time. I do not know whether the new Financial Secretary intends to deal with the complete range of the hon. Member's speech. If so, I shall be delighted to listen to him because the hon.
    1020
    Member's speech was a comprehensive review of practically everything except the actual Budget.
    It is, of course, rather extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to listen to the few remarks which are made at this time upon his Budget. I understand perfectly well that not only has he a Cabinet meeting but that he is going to broadcast. That is another new departure in our world. I think we are coming to the time when the Budget speech will be broadcast from that Box. We have broken down the idea that there must not be a microphone there, because only a few weeks ago the Prime Minister spoke into a microphone in order that Noble Lords might hear him along the passage. Once we have broken down the tradition that you are speaking only to this room, and once you speak mechanically to another room from that Box, the whole idea against broadcasting has gone. I am certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will soon be speaking to the whole of England when he makes his Budget statement.
    I rose to speak on only one matter, namely, the contribution which is asked for by the higher horse-power tax on motor cars. This is a question which wants grave consideration because it butts into one of our only really successful light engineering industries, that is, the manufacture of motor cars. All through the difficult times through which manufacturing industries in this country went, the motor car industry pulled us out of grave trouble. The tax on motor cars was started in a curious and haphazard way by the original horse-power tax, and it had a serious and wonderful effect. It was first directed against the Ford motor car. The tax of -£25 a year on the Ford car was really a tax of 25 per cent. per annum, and it killed that car in this country. On the back of that curious horse-power tax was born the motor industry in this country. We must, however, get into our heads that when we are talking about horse-power we are really from a legislative point of view only talking about bore of engines. Horsepower and bore of engines are not wholly related to each other. These are technical details into which I do not now want to go.
    I want to call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the fact that this

    1021
    particular tax may have a bad effect upon the export market. The low pressure American car has a great advantage from the point of view of easy running in foreign countries and in the export market, whereas our homely high, efficiency little cars have not so far been too successful in that market. This tax will have a serious effect on it. The Chancellor might have taxed the whole movement by an increase in the petrol tax if it had not butted into the commercial world. Here is a tax devoted to the private motorcar, and I think that in the circumstances the Chancellor was perfectly entitled to tax this particular part of English life. Here are people who ought to be very pleased with the fact that they can afford a motor car, and the more powerful the car they have the more they ought to be prepared to pay.
    Let us remember that the motor car tax in this country was based first on the idea that the proceeds should go to our roads. That has long ago, unfortunately, gone, but it should sometimes be remembered. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has read the Alness Report which was got out as a result of a Select Committee set up in the House of Lords to go into road accidents. It was published on one of those days when there was one of our usual three-weekly crises, and nobody took any notice of it. It is a very interesting document in which the committee said clearly that they could not agree with the attitude of the Ministry of Transport that deaths upon our roads would not be altered if our road system were improved. In view of that, the Treasury have to take into consideration the fact that their refusal to spend money upon our roads is largely responsible for the enormous death roll of 6,000 in the year. If motorists can feel that some of these deaths are to be avoided by increased spending on road facilities, this money will be paid with pleasure and gratification. I am not pretending for a moment that it is not a good tax. I think, under the circumstances, it is, but I hope, that the manufacturers have been consulted and that they agree that that type of tax is one which will best affect the export markets and a very successful industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was here long enough to hear the first two speeches in this Debate, and an experienced Parliamentarian like he is
    1022
    can judge from them what sort of reception he will get during the subsequent Debate. He must now be broadcasting, I feel, in a happy vein because I do not think his Budget will have much trouble from the House of Commons.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. Alan Herbert: I should like, especially as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of my principal constituents, and I, therefore, take a kind of paternal interest in him, to add my congratulations on his performance and its reception this afternoon. Clearness is so much part of his nature that I believe he does not like to be told he is "lucid," but perhaps he will not resent a kindly reference to his brevity. He spoke of the first Budget of Gladstone, another Oxford man, and one of my predecessors. I am sorry he did not quote an extract from Gladstone's diary about the Budget speech of 1860, when he said:
    "Spoke from four to nine. Aided by a great stock of egg and wine. Thank God! Home at 11"
    I do not know whether he thanked God for the egg and wine or for being home at 11. In 1853 Gladstone took nearly five hours to get rid of the miserable sum of £50,000,000. Our Chancellor 80 years later has got rid of more than £900,000,000 in less than 90 minutes. So Mr. Gladstone's rate was £10,000,000 an hour and our rate in this decadent age is £10,000,000 a minute. On his brevity, then, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    In such a Budget at such a time anyone who gets anything at all must be duly grateful and is bound to express his thanks. I should like, on behalf of many Members in all quarters of the Committee who have for many years pressed the case of the living theatre for relief from the Entertainments Duty, to thank the Chancellor for what he has done. I will not say we did not hope for more, but we must not look a gift-horse in the mouth. It is gratifying to realise that private Members messing about in Budget Debates can get at least something in the end. In the last two years my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) and I have twice put down the same Motion. Last year the result was that the Chancellor said he would not automatically re-impose the tax without going into it.

    1023
    We know that he has done that; that he has taken a real interest in this matter; and we thank him for going so far as he has been able to do to-day.
    Mr. Boothby: Will my hon. Friend tell us precisely what he means when he refers to hon. Members messing about in Budget Debates?
    Mr. Herbert: It was a modest description of the kind of contribution I make myself to these high affairs. What the Chancellor has done is to give us one-quarter of what we asked for. The total abolition of the tax would mean a loss of revenue of £1,250,000, and he is losing £300,000 in a full year. I will not say it looks like a farthing damages, for it is something. I wish he had been able to say a little more. It would have been a fine thing, as we said when we went to him on a deputation, if at this grave time, when we are compelled to spend these incredible and unprecedented sums on weapons of destruction, he had been able to say, "We are not pressed so far by that barbarous necessity that we cannot afford to take away altogether what is generally regarded as an undesirable tax upon the things of the mind."
    But we do thank him for what he has done. If it does not seem churlish I should like now to express regret that he has not, in collecting this extra £24,000,000, made use of another tax which has not so far been mentioned at all; that is a tax upon betting. Our attitude towards this matter is one of the things which justifies the foreigner in the very prevalent conclusion that the English are raving mad. A Frenchman curiously pursuing the average man through an average day would be very much surprised. He would see that that average Briton was taxed upon almost everything he does, makes or consumes. He is taxed at breakfast time, and if he is so vicious as to smoke so early, he is taxed before. He is taxed upon almost every liquid that enters his mouth during the day, whether it is described as a little comfort of the poor or one of the loathsome luxuries of the rich—they are very often the same thing. He is taxed upon going to work and upon coming back. His industry, his earnings, the savings of the old, the pension of the widow, art and culture, the masterpieces, if any, of music and drama—all these are taxed.
    1024
    But there is one activity, one form of expenditure, which goes absolutely free, and almost one alone. What is that? Is it some special cultural or spiritual activity which is dear to the State? No, it is not. It is an activity on which the State frowns, at which the State sniffs, an activity as to which, when hon. Members confess to it, they generally confess facetiously and rather shamefacedly and not openly as I do, regarding it not as a crime but as a folly which is really desirable in very small ways. This activity, which is really a national imbecility, the setting of our puny human judgments against the concatenation of forces which govern the incalculable movements of temperamental beings such as the horse, the dog and the professional footballer, is the only activity which is not taxed and yet has not been mentioned at all in this Debate. The sums staked upon that activity have been estimated, not by wild persons like myself but by a paper called the "Economist," which no one can describe as a wild or a heady organ, at £400,000,000. It is true, no doubt, to say that some of that money is money spent or staked again; but that observation applies to all money and all taxes. At all events, no one seriously denies that the figure is within the region of £300,000,000 or £400,000,000; and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) might say, I hate to see this mighty river of revenue flowing past to the sea untapped for the service of humanity or for the benefit of the Exchequer.
    Why do we not tap that might river of revenue? Is there some practical difficulty in the way? There is not. It is one of the things which is done with perfect ease and order in other countries but cannot be done in this country. In France every bet, on the course or off, is taxed 12 per cent. In all the States of Australia they are still, I think, taxing betting. When I was there in 1926 the tax in New South Wales at least was 10 per cent. on every bet and, I think, 12½per cent. on winnings, on the totalisator. There is no real practical objection to such a tax at all provided the law and the arrangements are sensibly adjusted. Secondly, is there any moral objection? I do not think so, because the same people who do raise that kind of objection, the objection that the State should

    1025
    not taint itself with money from this base indulgence, see no particular harm in the State extracting a great deal of money from indulgence in alcohol; and in any case, considering the elaborate arrangements which the State makes for the benefit of betting and the extraction of a certain amount of revenue from betting in various small ways, that objection is untenable also.
    The real objection, I am afraid, as I shall be told, is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping tried such a tax and that it failed. That great figure stands like a colossal spectre in the path of this reform. I have no wish to attack him, especially at this moment when all his heresies have been gradually absorbed into the official ritual of Holy Church and though it may be said that he is still languishing in the condemned cell it looks as if he may be released in a short time. The great tragedy of my right hon. Friend's life has been that there has been a certain tendency to concentrate rather upon the rare occasions on which he has been at fault instead of on those massive and numerous occasions when he has been abundantly right. This particular tax was an example of both; for it was an example of his doing the right thing in the wrong way. He introduced his betting tax with less than his usual thoroughness and attention to detail; and he prosecuted that enterprise with less than his usual resolution.
    There were a great number of errors in the practical application of the tax. I remember it well because I had just come back from Australia, where I had been to the third Imperial Press Conference; and we all came back full of the good order and the common sense of the betting arrangements in Australia. I believe it was the amount that we wrote about it that caused the tax to be introduced here at all. Let me give an example of the wrong way of doing the thing. In Australia you go to the course and you take a ticket from Titus Oates in the ordinary way and on that ticket is stamped "Government tax 2s." or "10s." or whatever it may be. It is already stamped, so that I know the bookmaker has paid the tax and he knows that I have paid it, and all is well. I took the trouble to send one of those tickets from Sydney to Sir Edward Marsh for conveyance to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that it reached him.
    1026
    But what was done in this country? Here, in addition to the usual ticket, the bookmaker was supposed to have a betting-tax book, to fill up a counterfoil —a typical English proceeding—and hand a sort of receipt for the tax to his client. In other words, one had to make two or three motions instead of one. It opened the way to evasion; and anybody who had the smallest practical experience on a racecourse would have known that it would be a failure. That was one of the details which caused the tax to fail; but, it was one which could easily be remedied.
    But the fundamental reason why that effort failed was that an enormous volume of the betting in this country—I have seen it put at 50 per cent—is unlawful, illegal, betting with street bookmakers; and you cannot tax what is unlawful, because you cannot control it. Therefore, if you tax betting and permit, as you must, a street bookmaker to go on you have a situation in which the lawful bookmakers say, quite naturally, "This is a nice thing. Here I am having to pay a tax and those unlawful fellows are getting away from it" Further, you have a tendency for the lawful bookmaker to pass over into the low legions of the unlawful. That is what happened. Eventually, there was so much evasion that, after the bookmakers had marched indignantly down Whitehall, the tax was withdrawn.
    As I have said, you have got to alter the law before you can impose a tax. I, at least, am prepared to do that, and I have already taken steps; because last year I introduced a Bill which followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission and would have been a basis for an effective, easy and equitable tax. I made a long speech on 13th May which I have no doubt every hon. Member here has read with interest and instruction; and I say to my right hon. and gallant Friend whom I congratulate on his appearance on the Treasury Bench in his new capacity—another constituent of mine—that if the job is given to me I will get 20,000,000 a year not out of the productive energies of the people but out of this very foolish practice of betting, which I am very far from condemning in a pious manner, because I do it myself.
    There is one more consideration. We hear a great deal at the moment about the

    1027
    new sense of discipline and earnestness of purpose which has been instilled into our people by the foreign policy of foreign Governments and lately of our own Government, and I think it is true. We have been told that unless we have some form of military service our allies will not be persuaded of our earnestness, and that may be so; but I should have thought that if any foreigner were looking for evidence of lack of seriousness he would take as an example our attitude to questions like this. I wish that some of those elegant young gentlemen who are going about in grey flannel trousers muttering vague, nebulous, platitudinous stuff about moral rearmament, but have no single solution for the smallest practical problem, would face some of these difficult questions in which morality and politics are so closely intermingled.
    Let us regard the matter from that point of view. What is going to happen if war comes? Is this vast business of betting to go on uncontrolled and untaxed while every other activity is rendering its appropriate due to the revenue? I do not know. I conclude by congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget, which, I think, on the whole, will have a very fine reception, and I thank him in particular for what he has done for the living theatre: but it still remains true that all the productive earnings and industry of the people are taxed, that music and the drama are taxed not only on their profits but on their losses; while this, to say the least, improvident activity, rising to the enormous height of £400,000,000 a year, goes absolutely free. God forbid that I should have a Government job; but if the Government will make me their unofficial agent, and give me Government time to push a Measure through, I will square the bookmakers and the bishops— one are my friends and the others are my constituents. If I am given a free hand by His Majesty's Government I will undertake to get that Bill through and make it a foundation upon which in a normal year they can get £20,000,000 of revenue; and, as the monkey said to the bishop, "I can't say fairer than that."
    7 p.m.
    Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member, with his levity and humour, gets the House every time, and that makes it rather difficult to follow him. On the main point with
    1028
    which he dealt I think he will find a fair amount of support. It is known that many Members buy sweep tickets from Ireland, and thousands of pounds go from this country to Ireland every year, but we are too prudish to do it here. I think a national sweepstake would certainly have some hold if it were brought forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a difficult task. The surroundings of the Budget certainly give a very gloomy prospect of what we have to face. Hundreds of millions of pounds have to be found for a purpose which none of us really like, yet it has got to be done, and with a position of that kind, the prospect can only be gloomy.
    The right hon. Gentleman proposes to borrow £400,000,000. That is a tremendous sum and, as I listened, I asked myself who would lend it. It will be lent by the rich. Some will be found by the poorer people, but the vast bulk of it will be found by the rich. It is being borrowed to stave off immediate taxation. If rich people provide it and get interest upon it, I claim that the Chancellor had the right to call upon them for something more than he has done. It will cost: the Government 2½ per cent.—that is £10,000,000 a year for £400,000,000. I claim that that interest ought to have come: immediately from rich people. It ought to have been found by the Income Taxpayer. If the money were found by taxation instead of by borrowing, it would have meant a tremendous burden, and you could only have called upon the rich. By staving it off it has been made easier, and the rich people ought to meet that debt charge of £10,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman has done wrong in not dealing with that aspect straight away.
    With regard to the taxation of motor cars I never use a car myself; I am too fond of walking. But I claim that those who use motor cars can very well pay a little more for them in times like these, and I do not think there will be much objection to it, because a man who can afford a car is not in immediate want. Where motor cars are used for pleasure and for joy-rides I do not think anyone can object to increased taxation. I welcome the increase in Death Duties. That is a source of revenue which ought to be exploited to the full. The people who leave the money have no further use for it, and it is a windfall to those to whom

    1029
    it comes back, and they could very easily give the State much more than they do at present. Again, in regard to Surtax I think no one will grumble, because there has been increasing wealth over a period. Figures that I have show that there has been an increase since last year of 4,358 people who pay Surtax. Hon. Members opposite, who are regarded as the defender of rich people, cannot very well complain of the way the Chancellor has dealt with that point. The Surtax payer can very well meet the extra charge. I think the right hon. Gentleman could very well have left out the increased Sugar Duty. I do not think there is any need to call upon consumers of sugar at a time like this. If falls on so many poor people that I do not think he has done the proper think in calling for that kind of tax, and I think it will be resented, because the burden that the poor have to bear is growing heavier every time. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) has sent out a statement. He is one of the good old Tories. There are no half measures about him. He stands for the present Conservative system, and all credit to him. I like a down-right man when I come across one. He is one of those who stand definitely for Conservatism. On many occasions papers have been issued in his name which show how strongly he stands behind the present system. In this statement that he has sent out to-day he shows that the cost of living has gone up since 1931 by 9½per cent. Perhaps, in order to put all the facts before us honestly, he put that down to show what his Government has done since 1931.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: The hon. Member has omitted to say by how much wages have also increased in the same period.
    Mr. Tinker: I read the whole statement. The hon. Member has done well for the Tory party.
    Sir W. Smithers: I must repeat the point. During the same nine years in which the cost of living has gone up, wages have also increased proportionately.
    Mr. Tinker: I admit that, but it is not disputed that the cost of living has gone up by 9½per cent. I had hoped that the Chancellor might consider appeals that have been made to him with regard to old age pensioners. When I saw his photo
    1030
    in the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday I examined it to see if there was any hope at all, but he is like a sphinx. I could not see any sign of giving way. The cost of living has gone up by 9½ per cent.
    Mr. Marcus Samuel: It has gone up from 147½ to 156. That is not 9½ per cent., but 6 per cent.
    Mr. Tinker: It has gone up from 131 to 140½.
    Mr. Samuel: We are talking about the cost of living.
    Mr. Tinker: It has gone up by 9½ per cent.
    Mr. Samuel: By 9½ points—not 9½ per cent.
    Mr. Tinker: What is the difference? I hope, when the hon. Member interrupts me again, he will have something more substantial. The old age pensioner has to meet the increased cost of living without any benefit from wages rising or from the Surtax money being greater. No one can say that the burden of taxation is being distributed evenly. It is far heavier on these people than it was in 1931. I have figures showing 250,000 people going to the Poor Law authorities for relief over and above their 10s. a week, showing quite definitely how they are suffering, and yet no regard is paid to it in the financial statement. How can we expect people to respond to the call when this kind of treatment is being meted out to them—wealth on the one hand and extreme poverty on the other, and no attempt to meet it? On Saturday I addressed a meeting on old age pensions. One man told me how he was living. The barest necessities cost him 15s. a week. He asked me how he was going to get something better than that. I told him that the only alternative was to go to the Poor Law authorities. Then he asked me, "Do you advise me to go to the Poor Law authorities?" Here was a man who had reared seven children and was now left with his wife, and only 10s. a week between them, because she had not reached the age of 65. Is a man in that position to be advised to go to the Poor Law for relief?
    That is what is happening at the bottom end of the scale. The case which we put to Members of the House of Commons in this connection may not

    1031
    have a direct bearing on the financial statement to which we listened to-day, but it has a bearing on the position of our people, who have a right to expect that some regard shall be paid to them in relation to matters of this kind. When we put forward this case we are generally met by the statement that the financial position of the country would not stand any concession such as we demand, but that argument cannot be used much longer. That was the argument 10 years ago, and even five years ago. Now, when there is a demand for arms, we see how hundreds of millions of pounds can be found, somehow or other, to defray the cost, but nothing can be found for the old age pensioner. In the last Debate on this subject the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, used the stock argument that the money could not be found. He went on to say that the old age pension of 10s. a week was never meant to keep a man or woman, but was meant as an addition to the pensioner's resources. That argument is not sound or valid. The man of whom I spoke just now, told me that he was an ironmoulder and had only had intermittent employment since 1921. How can a man with seven children, who is in and out of work in that way, have any resources in his household when he reaches the age of 65? There are thousands of people who have no resources when they come on to the old age pension, and who are then dependent on Poor Law relief.
    That brings me to this point. To put that kind of thing on to Poor Law relief is not fair. The average rate in respect of Poor Law relief all over the country is 4d. in the £, but in Merthyr it is 3s., and in some places in Lancashire it is 2s., and in other places it is Is. in the £. Many of these poorer parts are very heavily rated, because of this extra charge. When we are dealing here with the financial position of the country and trying to put the burden fairly on every citizen, I claim that we ought to have a greater regard to the two ends of the scale. If this country were assailed by an enemy, and if by any chance we should lose, rich as well as poor would go to the wall. When danger of such an eventuality arises, it ought not to be out of accord with the feelings of the rich people to say, "Now is a time of crisis
    1032
    and we are prepared to give all we can to help the country out of its difficulties." Is it too much to ask them to do so? We know now that there is accumulated wealth in this country, and we know that the country is involved in extra cost because of the imminence of danger.
    Hon. Members opposite who, I submit, represent the richer people of the country, ought to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he wants extra taxation the burden should be placed on the shoulders of the rich. At the same time if national unity is wanted an effort should be made to lift up the poor people and there are no more deserving poor than the aged poor. It is wrong that at a time like this, when the finances of the country are being examined, no regard should be paid to the old age pensioners. I know that it is too late this time to do anything, but I hope that the agitation which we are creating on this question will achieve something and that when the next financial statement is being prepared, the claim which we are making for £1 a week for old age pensioners will be recognised as not excessive.
    Mr. Stephen: I would not like to accept the hon. Member's statement that it is too late to do anything now. I think we have to take account of the fact that there may be Supplementary Estimates. While I am in full sympathy with what he has said, I think that something should be done this year.
    Mr. Tinker: I would be glad to think that something could be done, but, having a practical turn of mind and knowing what has happened in the past, I feel it is rather too late to expect anything this year. However, if we can expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House to do something this year, I shall use every effort to that end. If we fail, however, I want hon. Members to realise that a great crime will be committed against these poor people. I hope that hon. Members opposite when they get a chance will attend meetings of these people and get to know the point of view of those who are most concerned. Remember that they are the men and women who have helped to build up the greatness of this country. They are ready, and their sons and daughters are ready, to do all they can to keep this country as great as ever, and I hope that the House of Commons will not forget them.
    7.22 p.m.
    Sir W. Smithers: It is a pleasure to be called upon to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). If I may say so with respect, he always put his case fairly. I honour him for what he said, and I agree with him entirely that the main object of the expenditure included in this Budget is to do a job which we do not like, but which must be done. My hon. Friend twitted me with being an upholder of the present system. I do not want to go into details now, and I will only say that I stand for my political principles just as sincerely as he upholds his, because I believe that with all its imperfections and with all its inequalities, the present system is better for everybody, including the very poorest, than a system under which the principles advocated by the hon. Members opposite would be put into operation. That is my sincere belief.
    I desire, however, on this occasion to make some remarks about the Budget. I think the outstanding feature of the Budget is the fact that it shows that with all the demands which are being made upon our resources, there is still an amazing reservoir of financial power and strength in this country. But the situation to-day is very serious and I think it only right that someone from this side of the House should utter a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country as a whole, to the effect that that reservoir of financial power and strength is not inexhaustible. We must remember that there is a limit to our resources, and that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back. The trouble to-day is that we are faced with such great uncertainty. We do not know how many more Budgets we shall have to face which will make further demands upon the taxpayers of the country for the provision of armaments. Therefore, I beg the Government to prepare and to look ahead as far as possible. The Prime Minister the other day referred to the mad rush for armaments, in which the world is heading for bankruptcy. It is some comfort, though but a small modicum of comfort, to think that we can probably hold out longer than most other countries. But at what cost? The mounting expenditure with which we are faced to-day is very serious.
    I was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in referring to the debt bur-
    1034
    den of this country, included the debt of the local government authorities as well as the National Debt. In considering the debt of the country it is necessary to consider the National Debt in conjunction with the local government debt. Both are incurred by the ratepayers and taxpayers together, who are to a great extent the same body of people and those two debts constitute a burden on the whole country. We must secure the most stringent economy in all expenditure, excepting only that required to make vital provision for defence, and we must make very sure of getting value for our money in all public expenditure, both national and local. I have made a great deal of inquiry recently into these questions and I have come to the conclusion that a growing number of people feel that at a time when no expenditure is too great to make our nation's defences secure, other Departments than the Defence Departments have seized the opportunity to dip their hands far too freely into the Exchequer. The truth is that the people of the country simply do not realise the magnitude of the national expenditure, and the Budget discussions give one an opportunity to produce a few figures.
    On 31st March, 1938, the net total of deadweight National Debt was £8,026,000,000 and in the last year for which figures are available, that is 1935–35 the gross loan debt of local authorities was £1,451,000,000. In the Chancellor's speech he showed that the net total of deadweight debt had increased. So we have, in round figures, a combined national and local government debt of £9,500,000,000.
    In parentheses I would make the remark, which I hope will reach the Ministry of Health, that it seems a great pity that the accounts of local authorities are so far behind. The last figures available are, as I say, those for 1935–36 and I think the presentation of these accounts for local authorities could be expedited considerably.
    I have pointed out that the total combined national and local government debt of the country amounts roughly to £9,500,000,000. The total national expenditure of the country is £1,266,000,000 and the total local government expenditure on revenue and capital accounts, is £567,000,000. That is a grand total of £1,833,000,000.

    1035
    I am fully aware that account must be taken of the accrued interest on National Savings certificates, principal and interest on war debts, certain assets, and Exchequer balances, but my object is to try and give, in round figures, a picture which will show the enormous size of the financial problem with which we are faced. Owing to the necessity of defending our country and owing to the crisis, it is generally agreed that, for the moment anyhow, no reduction can be made in the expenditure on Defence services, but I think it was the Foreign Secretary who, in a speech the other day, quoted some rather remarkable figures. Even in these times, under democracy, under our system of Government, and under our political system, in the last Budget, which we have just left behind us, the social services took 29.6 per cent. of the then current Budget and the Defence services took 26.8 per cent. It is like running two horses in a race and expecting them both to win. I was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer today had the courage to say that for the moment—I quote from memory—no major increase in expenditure was possible. There is another large figure to add to my picture, and that is the gross cost of social services for the year ended 31st March, 1937, which was £494,000,000. Even under this system which is despised by some people, the amount of money which we can still, in these difficult times, spend on social services is very remarkable.
    I want to make one constructive suggestion and to reinforce a plea that I made in this House a year ago. I want the Government, if they possibly can, to set up a committee of inquiry or a commission to inquire into the whole working of local government. I am sure that there we can economise a great deal. [Interruption.] Before I am interrupted, I want to say that by economy I do not mean parsimony. Economy means the proper ordering of a household. I want to make it quite clear that I am not against social services being increased and extended as far as possible, but my plea to-day is on the broader issue. I want to appeal to the Government to do nothing which will hurt or injure in any way the whole financial structure of the country, for if we do spend more than we can properly afford,
    1036
    the social services will suffer and we shall not be able even to maintain them. I want an inquiry to overhaul the whole system of local government, and I am sorry to say that I think the Ministry of Health is not showing all the courage that it might in facing what must be a difficult and intricate problem. They rather take the view that if the local electors vote for certain councillors and get them to carry out certain policies, it is their fault. That may be true, but it is our duty in this House to tell those local electors that they should support this appeal which I am making for more efficient, more economic and more effective local government. Local government as at present organised is organised for extravagance. One of the difficulties is that committees in local government are both executive and deliberative bodies, and to my mind there is no proper efficiency and no effective financial control of local government expenditure.
    Mr. E. J. Williams: Does the hon. Member suggest that the ratepayers of this country are blind to their own interests?
    Sir W. Smithers: I do not, but if the hon. Member will look at the percentage of electors who vote at local elections, I think he will find that it is round about 30 or 40 per cent.— perhaps more in other places. I think they are very apathetic and that it is the duty of all of us to tell our local electors, at a time like this, that they ought to do all they can to economise without cutting down necessary services, while we are all agreed that we want all that we can get for Defence services.
    I want now to call attention to the experience of our allies in France in their recent financial difficulties, and I would ask hon. Members, if they have not done so already, to read a translation of a report by M. Reynaud and M. Daladier published in the "Economist" of 19th November last. There are some remarks there laying down general principles which were learned and proved by the bitter experience of the last two or three years in France. I will quote quite shortly from that translation, which applies so closely to the conditions in this House to-day:
    "The financial problem is a whole which it is useless to try to split up it the hope of an easier solution.

    1037
    The facts of the problem are simple, but they must be considered in their entirety…One Treasury must defray all public expenses; one money market is called upon to supply the needs of the State and of the other public bodies.
    It should be possible … to secure the establishment of an order of importance and urgency among the national expenses.
    A financial policy is, above all, a choice."
    We have lately had the principle laid down in this House when the right hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Burgin), who has recently been appointed as Minister of Supplies, has been given power to see that certain orders have priority over others. I suggest that that kind of principle should be pushed further into national and also local government expenditure. There are certain things now which may be very welcome to the country but which are not essential for our immediate needs.
    Mr. McGovern: For instance?
    Sir W. Smithers: I could give many instances, but I will give one. Lately they have laid along a country road which has very few houses, near where I live, for seven or eight miles of kerbing stone at a cost of £400 a mile. It is a very old road, which has been there for hundreds of years, and why at such a time—it was about a year or two ago—they should want to spend £400 a mile on putting a kerbstone along a country road passes my understanding.
    Mr. Lipson: I imagine that that is a trunk road, and, if so, that expenditure was incurred by the Ministry of Transport and not by the local authority.
    Sir W. Smithers: That is the very reason I am trying to combine the responsibility for both local and national government. There is one point which I think is important. I have referred to the financial difficulties of France, and I want to make this point, which cannot be made too often. France or any other self-supporting country may play ducks and drakes with financial and economic laws and may have to bring in very drastic regulations to put the country right, but in the last resort, speaking broadly, if their credit is smashed, the people of France can still get something to eat. It is not so with this country. We are not self-supporting, and every effort must be made, by all parties and by all classes, for the good of all, to see
    1038
    that nothing is done to injure our credit or to depreciate the purchasing power of our pound. If we do, we, unlike the self-supporting countries, shall be faced with want and starvation in a comparatively short space of time.
    Much has been said to the effect that some foreign countries do not yet believe that we are in earnest. We must in the end rely on our own strong right arm. There are two questions before the country to-day of almost equal importance. One is to raise the necessary manpower, and the other is to keep our finances sound and to raise the necessary money. As this is a Budget Debate, I want, in conclusion, to say this about finance. Of course, the man-power is important, but I want to stress the importance—it cannot be stressed too often —of confidence in our credit and stability in our finances. The lifeblood and success of our stand for freedom and liberty is a strong and stable financial position, in which not only ourselves but. the whole world can have confidence.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: I make no apologies for the departure from convention which this Debate represents. On the contrary, I think we are having an exceedingly interesting and useful Debate, and I think the Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), not merely for the speech which he made, but for the way in which he made it. I think it is quite right that these Budget Debates should be used as the occasion for seeing the social background against which these financial balance-sheets and stock takings are to be considered, and I think those who have taken part in the Debate have for the most part followed upon those lines. I was extremely interested in the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member began by saying that he sincerely believed in the principles of the political party to which he belongs, and I am sure he does. No one would question the sincerity of the hon. Member's convictions, but when he went on to say that he thought he held those convictions because he thought everybody, including the poorest people, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) had just been speaking, were better off under the system which he defends than under the system which we would prefer, I

    1039
    wondered whether he meant that the old people for whom he made his plea were better off without proper old age pensions than they would be with them.
    Sir W. Smithers: Has the hon. Member forgotten the crisis of 1931? It is not a question of the amount. I believe sincerely that if the policy advocated by the hon. Members opposite were brought forward, there would not even be 10s. a week for the old people.
    Mr. Silverman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his interruption, but it was unnecessary for him to remind me of 1931, because I shall have a remark or two to make about 1931 in relation to this present Budget, but I still ask him—I gave way to him, because I thought he was going to answer—whether he meant us to infer that these old people were better off without adequate old age pensions than they would be with them. The hon. Member is bound to admit that they have not adequate pensions. That is beyond controversy. These old people at the end of a long, penurious life time, during which they have given of their best to the full extent to which our economic system would allow them to contribute, at the end of perhaps half a century of hard work, in the evening of their days are living still harder lives, made penurious by a pension of 10s. a week, which everybody admits to be inadequate. It is our duty to see that these old people pass their few remaining years under conditions of at least comparative dignity and comfort. That is a debt of honour which society owes to them. It is as much a debt of honour as the maintenance of our own parents is a debt of honour.
    Mr. Wragg: Why did you not do it in 1929?
    Mr. Silverman: I was not here in 1929. I invite the hon. Member who interrupted me to say whether it is or is not a debt of honour which society owes to these old people that their last remaining years shall not be passed in the bitterness not merely of poverty but of destitution. It cannot be denied that it is destitution that is involved, because it is only destitution which the public assistance authority is entitled to relieve. The mere fact that people with old age pensions are in such
    1040
    large numbers receiving public assistance is an admission that they are destitute. We as a community have no more right to leave these people destitute than any one of us individually would have a right to leave our own parents destitute if we had the means to maintain them. To those who defend the present system as being better than any other system, I would say that if we cannot discharge that ultimate debt of honour we should change the system for some other system that holds out the hope, the promise, of being better able to discharge that debt of honour. Those hon. Members who take that view do pay a poorer compliment to their own system, than I, who am opposed to that system, would pay. I do not think that we are so hard up as all that. Even under our wasteful competitive system I do not believe that we are not able to discharge our debt. Our failure to discharge the debt is failure through lack of will.
    I now come to the position in 1931. I am sorry that the hon. Member who drew my attention to 1931 has left the House, but I hope he will do me the honour of reading my reply to his question tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In 1931 there was a financial crisis. We were said to be all heading for bankruptcy. This disastrous Labour party had to be turned out and men of good will, other than those belonging to this party, had to come together and form a National Government, in order to deal with the impending national crisis that was driving us into bankruptcy. That was the case made against us, fraudently, dishonestly but successfully, in the country. I say fraudulently and dishonestly. What was the size of the debt that caused the controversy? It was approximately £110,000,000.
    Mr. McGovern: That had been accumulated over a number of years.
    Mr. Silverman:The £110,000,000 had been accumulating for a number of years. What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us to-day? In the year before last we spent on armaments alone £265,000,000, last year £400,000,000, and in the current year we are budgeting for £630,000,000. I would contrast the present debt and examine the bankrupt balance sheet of to-day that can be made to balance only by unprecedented borrowing, and I would

    1041
    compare it with the paltry £110,000,000 of 1931, and when one does that, the dishonest and fraudulent character of the political controversy is seen clearly.
    The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) asked how long the present spending is to go on. He said that it will end in bankruptcy, not only for this country but for every nation in the civilised world. What does bankruptcy mean in this sense? At the end of it we should still have the land, as rich as ever. We should still have the natural resources of the land, all the minerals, all its power, and we should still have and would perhaps be compelled to use the skilled, semi-skilled and so-called unskilled labour of the workers of this and every other land. Later on, with those resources and that land, we should be in a position, perhaps, to build a civilisation worthy of the name. The whole lesson of the rapidly increasing expenditure, the colossal astronomical expenditure of the last few years, is that this financial question, properly understood, may be a very much less a thing, seen economically, than hon. Members like to pretend.
    I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget statement and on the skill with which he succeeded in disguising from the common people of this country the cost of National Government since 1935. He boils it all down to a measly £24,000,000 to be found, and he puts on an increase in the horse-power duty on motor cars, ¼d. a 1b. on sugar, and then says: "It is not so terrible as you thought" He was honest enough to point out what most people will very soon forget that borrowing to meet your expenditure does not abolish the duty to pay. You have to pay later on, and you have to pay more. The right hon. Gentleman succeeded in so framing the Budget as to disguise for the moment the cost. The rise in the cost of armaments from £265,000,000 one year, £400,000,000 the next year and £630,000,000 this year, is the cost of appeasement. What is that but the cost of the Government's foreign policy? I should he out of order if I attempted to discuss that matter in any detail, but I am entitled to say that you cannot divorce expenditure from foreign policy, and that the greatest possible condemnation and the most obvious condemnation of the Government's foreign policy in the last
    1042
    two or three years are the figures that I have just quoted, rising from £265,000,000 to £630,000,000.
    If you begin, as this Government began, by saying: "We must depend on our own strong arm," you must see that your arm is really strong. If you are going to throw over every possible ally, if you are going to throw over the system which depended on bringing into one bloc, and keeping them there, an overwhelming majority of nations which want peace, and you want to depend on your own strong arm, then, obviously, the cost of your defence forces must increase. If at long last the Government sees the error of its ways and turns round, when, as we hope it is not yet too late, they see the cost of their folly, if it be folly, the cost of their wickedness, if it be wickedness, is seen in the colossal figures given this afternoon. That is the cost of National Government and the price which we have to pay, the price which the working people have to pay for the Government's mistakes, to put it no higher than that, in the last three years.
    I hope the time will come when we shall have a different kind of Government and a different kind of social and economic outlook responsible for presenting Budgets to this House. I hope that time will come soon. I am confident that there are vast resources behind this nation, so vast that it would be unnecessary, if they were properly used, for people to come here humbly apologising for cravenly rejecting the duty that they ought to perform towards the claims of the old people. During all the years of unemployment much has been said about relief in the Special Areas, relief of the unemployed and the Government's great efforts to do something for the unemployed. One notices that in the year 1938–39 the Special Areas Fund was £7,500,000, but this year we are budgeting for just one-half of that amount—£3,750,000. That sort of figure is to be found on every page of the financial statement, small savings here and there, larger savings somewhere else, but always at the expense of the poorest people. That is unnecessary, but in so far as it is made necessary it is due to a false view of what social economics really mean. If we could only get a Government pledged in a fundamental sense to a reform of the system, we should be able to discharge our duties as a

    1043
    civilised community to the children, the old people and to other people of mature years. I believe that if the time ever came when we really could tackle the problem of poverty as it ought to be tackled, then we might find that in so doing we had solved the problem of war.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Samuel: I shall not follow the arguments used by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) or those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith), but I shall take a view which, I hope, will explain itself to the Committee. I am not going into detailed figures, and I am neither surprised nor disgusted at the Budget. Spending as well as lending is necessary in these days. It is a question of the equitable distribution of taxation, which the Chancellor has again achieved. The burden of lending will, no doubt, fall upon those who are able to bear it, or who find themselves having to borrow in order to lend to the Government. In these days we have to raise money by hundreds of millions of pounds just as we had to do in the years from 1914 to 1918, and we have to adopt methods that none of us like. Orthodoxy forbids, but necessity compels. We have always with us professors and economists whose chief object in life seems to be to teach us to be unorthodox on a wholesale scale, but if we had followed their advice about borrowing ourselves into prosperity, where should we be to-day? Has that policy been successful in the way it was adopted in the United States, I believe upon the advice of an English economist? Of course not. By no manner of means. Our opponents have often adopted an old war cry, which we have heard several times this afternoon and shall undoubtedly hear again in the next few days, namely, that the foreign policy of the Government has made this expenditure necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I thought I should hear a few hear-hears, although there are only about six Members on the Opposition benches.
    There are always to be found those who are keen and eager to supplant us in our position as a world Power. I ask hon. Members on the opposite benches, what greater encouragement could be given to such ambitions than to see the same debilitating forces working in England as
    1044
    nearly brought France to her knees under the Popular Front and which plunged Spain into a blood bath? These things are noted by the dictators as a sign of weakness in this country, but they do not understand our peculiar form of democracy which includes what I should like to call a united affront. All they see is a sort of official ministry for a coordination of offence from the benches opposite. It includes a continual supply of more or less offensive questions, and the washing of more or less dirty linen in public which we know is only our democratic method of opposition and party politics in this country. Hon. Members opposite would do well to ponder upon this question. In these difficult times, instead of putting all the blame for our financial stresses upon the shoulders of the Government, hon. Members would do better to wrap themselves in a red sheet rather than in a white one. I present this vision to them as a matter for their consideration.
    I come back to the Budget. Whatever may be said of the foreign policy of the Government there is no doubt that the whole credit for the home policy is entirely due to this Government. We have raised our Income Tax to 5s. 6d. in the £ and have raised the National Defence Contribution to whatever it may be, the Surtax to 7s. 6d., plus 10 per cent. and plus the other plusses announced, and Death Duties have been put up to 10s. in the £; yet we are still able to raise enormous sums by loan. That is only possible because of the wise actions of the present Government during the past eight years. We cannot too clearly or too repeatedly emphasise that only the careful husbanding of the national resources by the National Government has made it possible for the present financial effort to be made at all.
    How different would have been the position if hon. Members opposite had come into power four years ago. The hon. Member opposite was talking about wishing another Government to come in. I should think that was the last thing hon. Members opposite would want to happen when they remember what happened between 1929 and 1931. How different would have been the position. Having issued a variety of promissory notes for votes, as the hon. Gentleman was doing just now, they would have been bound to attempt to redeem them by their make-

    1045
    the-rich-poor-quick system and as a result of having raided the hen's nest they would have had no hens and no eggs at all.
    Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?
    Mr. Samuel: No. We have heard to-day many references to the old age pension, but that is only one of the multitudinous promises made by the Socialist party which would need for their redemption an increase in taxation of about £80,000,000. It is only one of a long list of their promises. The argument is used that if we are able to spend, say, £2,000,000,000 upon armaments we ought to be able to find an extra £80,000,000 for old age pensions.
    Mr. Silverman: That is not the argument at all. The argument is that even in the days when we were not spending£2,000,000,000 on armaments the hon. Member and his friends were saying that we could not afford £80,000,000 for old age pensions. I should be grateful if he would tell me the answer to this argument: Why was it impossible to find £80,000,000 before this armament expenditure became necessary, when it has been clearly demonstrated since that we can raise colossal sums for a quite different purpose without suffering any financial strain at all?
    Mr. Samuel: The hon. Member is always very impatient. He never likes to wait and hear the answer to his argument. I will tell him the answer if he will wait. Even disregarding the fact that the yearly cost of such pensions would be £80,000,000, the extra cost of their programme would be something like £1,000,000,000 or £2,000,000,000. Those figures are absolutely appalling. We cannot go on indefinitely spending at such a rate on armaments, but our armaments programme is not being financed out of income but largely out of borrowed money. Suppose the £2,000,000,000 has to be borrowed at 3 per cent.; for that we should have to pay interest which would amount to £60,000,000 a year, but that figure is £20,000,000 a year less than the cost of the old age pensions scheme of hon. Gentlemen, so that this single item of their election promises would have been equivalent to pledging the nation's credit to an annual 3 per cent. in perpetuity on
    1046
    a capital of £2,666,000,000. Does anyone imagine that, the nation's credit having been pledged to a whole series of new taxes such as that, it would now be possible for the Chancellor to borrow on favourable terms, or perhaps on any terms?
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very anxious to interrupt, but when one gives a reply they turn their backs and smile and amuse themselves in a very rude manner. I do not object in the slightest to that sort of thing because I only look for it in them; anyhow, the answer, as I say, is obvious. There would be no possibility of raising such sums. The Government have not curtailed the amount spent on the social services— quite the contrary. The social services are always increasing, both automatically and purposefully, and, as far as we can possibly see, within the limits of safety.
    We are told over and over again that more should be raised by taxation and most of it put on the backs of those who can best bear it, but if our friends opposite would only look into the facts we should hear less of this sort of argument. They should remember the camel. There is no doubt that for years past every 6d. put upon the Income Tax and the continuance of high rates of Surtax and Death Duty have thrown thousands of people out of employment. The ridiculous idea put forward by irresponsible optimists is that it is possible by taxing the rich and curtailing the use of luxuries to increase the demand for necessities, but that is perhaps the stupidest bit of propaganda that has ever been used. Let me illustrate what I mean. Motoring is a popular method of spending money just now with all classes of the community, but if a man, on account of extra taxation, has to dispense with the services of his chauffeur, this chauffeur is thrown out of employment. His demand for necessities is the same when he is out of employment as when he was in employment, but he no longer has the means to live, and becomes a charge on the community until he finds other employment. This is the sort of argument on which hon. Gentlemen opposite rely. We already have an Income Tax level almost equal to that which we had under war conditions. Borrowing on a large scale is necessary, and, happily, loans can be raised from willing lenders. I saw the position well illustrated in a recent letter to the "Times," in which it was stated:

    1047
    "The annual burden of the National Debt is approximately £120 millions per annum lower to-day than in the first year of this decade. The greater part of this 'saving' arises from the cessation of annual payments on the American Debt, suspension of Sinking Fund provisions, and the abnormally cheap rate of Treasury bill borrowings. If any or all of these are temporary (though the first two already wear an air of permanence), the saving effected by War Loan and other conversion operations and cheap short-term borrowing is of the order of £50 millions per annum, most of which is an enduring economy."
    As regards the American Debt, there are two sides to the ledger. If we could collect, as our Socialist friends did, enough to enable us to pay, we should be quite willing to start paying out again. The writer of the letter from which I have just quoted added:
    "From these considerations it follows that substantially new Government loans can still be issued without bringing the annual interest burden to the level of 10 years ago, and the interest burden is surely the principal cause of concern to the taxpayer when so much of the National Debt is irredeemable, or, what is nearly the same thing, redeemable only at the option of the borrower."
    In making my remarks to-day, I hope I have shown that the claims of hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is the Government's foreign policy which alone has caused the present expenditure on armaments are mistaken; and I have also tried to illustrate that it is the Government's policy alone that has conserved the nation's finances and enabled us to face up to our present expenditure. I have made somewhat of a study of conditions in the dictator countries, and, from what I can learn, they find it difficult to bear their present expenditure on armaments. The conditions of the people are immensely worse morally, intellectually and materially than those of our people in this country. They are at full stretch, while we in this country are just getting into our stride. I congratulate the Chancellor on producing an equitable Budget, and one which is likely to cause the least possible disturbance and discomfort in circumstances of the greatest difficulty.
    8.20 p.m.
    Sir John Mellon: Of the Budget in relation to its primary purpose of getting revenue, I have no substantial criticism to offer. I consider it to be a good, sound, honest Budget, and I congratulate
    1048
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. I think that, in view of the critical times in which we have been living for a considerable period, it is right that the Budget should also have an ulterior, or, perhaps I should say, a secondary object, and that is to endeavour to restrict luxury consumption and expenditure. The present Budget goes a certain way in that direction, but, in my view, not nearly far enough. The Chancellor is proposing to increase the taxation on private cars, and I welcome that, not only from the point of view of revenue, but in so far as it may tend to restrict luxury expenditure f only wish, in passing, to make this co-n-ment, that I think that, in the imposition of this increased taxation on private cars, special consideration should be given to cases where cars rated as private cars are used mainly or partly for business purposes. The Chancellor is also proposing to increase the taxation on tobacco, and that I welcome too, because I feel that the country should use its available foreign exchange, and especially its available exchange in the United States., for the purchase of articles which are more vitally required by us at the present time than tobacco.
    I should be prepared to welcome the taxation of any luxury at this time, and I use the word "luxury" in the widest sense. I should welcome the taxation of anything which is not essential to a moderate standard of life, and I feel that such luxury taxation should be applied especially in the case of any industries whose production is in competition with the requirements of national defence. I think the Government should very soon be prepared to take steps to give an absolute and unqualified priority to the requirements of national defence over other forms of production. Meanwhile I think that the special taxation of production which is not essential to our national life would have a very useful effect in diverting skilled labour, material, plant and premises away from non-essential production to the service of our military requirements. One very useful result of a reduction of luxury expenditure would be to increase the savings of the nation and make them available for investment in Government loans, and so would go far to assist the Government in borrowing the very large amounts required to bridge the gap between expenditure and revenue.

    1049
    I am very glad that the Chancellor has decided not to increase the standard rate of Income Tax, because, although immediately an increase in the rate would have the effect of increasing the yield, none the less, in subsequent years, owing to the discouragement of enterprise, an increase in the rate now might well ultimately reduce the yield. It would further, by discouraging enterprise, affect our export trade, and the balance of our trade is one of the things which the Government have to watch very carefully at the present time. I welcome, for this reason also, the Chancellor's decision not to increase the standard rate. That rate is already very high. The increase to its present level was justified on the ground that a sacrifice had to be demanded, and that sacrifice was cheerfully made by the direct taxpayer. It would be unfair if the present rate were taken as a datum line, and upon that datum line further sacrifices were imposed. I particularly welcome the fact that the Chancellor has refrained from increasing the rate of the National Defence Contribution, because that is a tax exclusively imposed so far as companies are concerned upon ordinary shareholders, and one from which holders of fixed-interest bearing securities escape altogether. In the present very exceptional circumstances, the Chancellor has been entirely justified in being prepared to borrow a very substantial amount. I should be prepared to see him borrow even more liberally. It is perfectly sound finance to be prepared to borrow in times of strain and emergency, provided that provision is made to repay in times ahead, which we trust will be less critical and more prosperous.
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. Simpson: An hon. Member opposite has complained that on these Benches we are irresponsible optimists. If there is anything worse than an irresponsible optimist, it is an irresponsible pessimist. Therefore I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in his rather melancholy interpretation of history. It is rather difficult to understand some of his definitions and similes except as decorations on some Conservative party back-cloth. I rise to intervene very briefly, to support the very moving and impressive human plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in regard to old age pensions. We have had
    1050
    to-night some interesting declarations of political and economic beliefs, and we appreciate the sincerity of those declarations. But it was frankly admitted by hon. Members opposite, in defending their own doctrine, that it had its imperfections. I cannot imagine any phase of those imperfections at present more urgent than those associated with the position of the old age pensioners. Although we seek a change in the political system, even under the most speedy processes of electoral and legislative change, that takes time, but the day of these old and deserving people is passing. If there is no improvement in their position immediately, there will be no improvement at all.
    With the increase in the cost of living which is admitted, the fact that it is related to an increase in rates of pay is of no comfort to this class. They have no means of improving their position except through an increase in their pensions. It seems an indefensible suggestion that these people should be compelled, in their distress, to have resort to public relief. That means that those parts of the country that have the greatest need will be compelled to bear the greatest financial burden, and that, obviously, means an addition to local rates and a further handicap upon those local industries which are already depressed. It is argued, of course, that we live in difficult financial times, with big problems confronting us, and that is undoubtedly true. Those whose position in life-enables them to lend money can share in the interest that will be paid as a result of the policy of borrowing, but we should remember that the payment of that interest for the future can be guaranteed only by the existence of ordered industry and the continuity of loyalty and work-willingness on the part of the mass of the people, who are the successors of these people for whom we make this plea. Apart from any academic, political or economic considerations, apart from questions of high financial principle, this is an immediate human need, to which we ought to give our attention, inspite of all the other obligations that we have to meet.
    In regard to the respective merits of the two systems, about which we have argued to-day, I think our friends opposite would have a two-fold advantage if they would pay attention to this plea. In the first place, it would minimise the argument we are able to make against the old system,

    1051
    and it would reduce the degree of apology that they have to make for it. Therefore, they would benefit, even in regard to the possible continuity and future security of their own system. This is an immediate human plea, which should make some appeal to hon. Members opposite, apart altogether from our plea for a fundamental change in society. It is designed to give these people greater comfort and security in their old age, after a hard working life. Therefore, I hope that the plea made from these benches on behalf of the pensioners, however difficult it may be from a financial point of view to respond to it, may not fall on deaf ears, and that something may yet be done to assist this part of the community, who, in their own way, have contributed to the spirit of unity for which an appeal is now being made.
    8.35 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I am very glad of the opportunity of being able to occupy the time of the Committee for a few minutes in order to refer particularly to one of the subjects which is of great interest to our people in Northern Ireland. A number of hon. Members have spoken about old age pensions, and I would say to them that those who sympathise with old age pensioners are not all to be found on the benches opposite. I have always listened with the greatest interest to the moderate speeches of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), and I believe that there are a number of Members on this side of the Committee who are absolutely in accord with him in regard to old age pensions. I would like to know how we could find the money with which to increase old age pensions. We may be told that we can find money for armaments. I agree, but armaments are absolutely essential, and the supply of armaments is the policy of all sides of this Committee. We must provide money for armaments. If hon. Members say that, in addition to armaments, we must increase old age pensions, it would only be reasonable to show how the money could be obtained. Would it be by increased taxation? Is it suggested, for instance, that increased taxation should be put upon the working man's pint of beer, or upon any other commodities? Is it suggested that the Tea Duty should be increased for that purpose, and that there should be a further increase of taxation
    1052
    put upon sugar? I hope that the time will come when we shall be able to increase old age pensions at least to £1 per week, and I hope that I may be in this House when that time comes.
    An hon. Member opposite spoke of the present state of affairs being the result of the bad foreign policy of the present Government. It is my considered opinion that we are in this financial predicament because of the policy of disarmament that was indulged in several years ago. If we had maintained our position among the nations as an armed nation we would not have had this policy of spending so many millions on the increase of armaments today. An hon. Friend on this side wanted to issue a warning to the Government and to those responsible for expenditure in local government. It is a very simple thing to issue a warning, but I would like to put before my hon. Friend some of the questions that loom very large in the expenditure of local authorities. There is a unanimous cry for the abolition of slums, which should be carried out by local government authorities. There is the cry for the building of more houses by local authorities, for an extension of Poor Law relief in order to help old age pensioners, for the improvement of many hospitals, the conditions of which are a disgrace to the country, and for the provision of sanatoria all over the country. Not long ago I listened to a Debate in this House on the slum schools of Wales, when shocking revelations were made. It is absolutely necessary that these things should be put right, but we cannot help ourselves. Local authorities are also largely responsible for providing employment schemes.
    However, on the whole, I have no doubt that the country will be very satisfied with the Budget as propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has done a great service in maintaining the Income Tax at the present rate, and there will be a sigh of relief all over the country because the Income Tax has not been increased. I was particularly pleased to notice that there was to be no increase in the Tea Duty, but the one thing that I regret in connection with the whole business is the increase in the cost of a pipe of tobacco to the old people. I do not know what the big tobacco companies will do. They distribute to their shareholders vast sums of money which have been provided to a large extent by

    1053
    the poor fellows who smoke the humble pipe of tobacco. [Interruption.] The ladies smoke their cigarettes, no doubt, also contribute very largely to these profits. When I heard the announcement of the increase of taxation on tobacco, I wondered whether it would be possible for the large tobacco companies to utilise some of their enormous financial resources so as to avoid any increase in the price of tobacco to the old people.
    I must confess that my heart gave an extra jump when I heard that there was to be an increase in the motor car tax. Last December my constituents, thinking, no doubt, that perhaps I was becoming decrepit and would not be able to carry on with my work much longer in the British House of Commons, in which I have served for 21 years, thought fit to present me with a motor car. It was very kind of them. At first I thought that I would have to pay the extra tax, but I remembered that this tax does not apply to Northern Ireland.' The Finance Minister of Northern Ireland is in the habit of following the legislation of this country step by step. He has been able to balance his Budget this year, as in previous years.
    Mr. Logan: They get £10,000,000 from this country.
    Sir W. Allen: When I hear a story like that I wish the hon. Member would take a little more interest in the financial matters of Northern Ireland. Where does that £10,000,000 come from but Northern Ireland? We pay the same taxes as in this country, and the money comes right over here, a flowing river of money. Before condemning us I wish the hon. Member would find out the actual facts of the situation. We have had a Budget statement which has been more or less satisfactory. We are in a condition of affairs which I believe and hope and pray will pass. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned we are heartily with you and the Prime Minister in everything he has done and may do for the peace of this country and the peace of the world,
    8.46 p.m.
    Mr. Lipson: I am sure that every Member of the Committee would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) on the gift which he has received from his constituents, a gift he has so well earned, and
    1054
    also on being so fortunate as to represent a constituency which has been able to escape the net which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has flung so widely in his Budget proposals. I am sure I shall carry every Member of the Committee with me when I say that I hope he will be able to enjoy the use and pleasure of the car and that he will represent his constituency for very many years. It gives me the greater pleasure to say that, because I often find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member even when we both disagree with the Government which we generally support. Last year I accompanied him into the Opposition Lobby and voted against the Tea Duty, but I am glad that the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has been such that it will not be necessary for me to perform that painful operation a second time.
    I was glad my hon. Friend also pointed out that it is not only on the other side of the Committee that there is a very real appreciation of the position of old age pensioners and others who are unfortunate under our social system. I must say that I had hoped that at least one anomaly in the present position of old age pensioners would have been remedied in his Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I refer to the position of the old age pensioner who receives his pension at 65 and then ceases to work, but whose wife may be 60 or more, but not yet 65. These two have only the 10s. on which to live. I think with a cost of £4,000,000it might have been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have said that the wife shall receive the old age pension at the same time as her husband. If he had been able to find the money for that purpose it would have met with the approval of hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, because that is a very grievous anomaly which does result in a great deal of hardship and suffering. I do not believe it is beyond the financial competence of this country to alleviate this anomaly even in these difficult times.
    In fact, I hold that it might have been possible either to pursue the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Herbert) and see whether some money could not be forthcoming from the betting fraternity for this purpose, and, if not, whether a new tax on patent medicines would not find sufficient

    1055
    income to meet this reform. I listened with interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the tax on patent medicines at present was based on an archaic and confused law. I imagined that a repeal of this old law was to be followed by a new one which would bring it up to date, and make for the first time this particular tax effective. I believe there is a great source of revenue there, and if we are out to discourage certain industries or luxuries I think we might consider patent medicines in that category.
    For reasons other than those advanced by the hon. Member for Armagh I was very disturbed when I heard of the increase in the horse power tax on motor cars, and I came to the conclusion that it was done for political reasons; that in the present emergency it was considered, for one reason or another, that the industry might at least for the time being be slowed down, and that therefore the tax was imposed. I realise that the motor industry will suffer as a result of this horse power tax; it seems to me that it is bound to suffer considerably. The export trade will certainly be much affected and also the home market, because there are a great many people who, under present conditions, can only just afford to run a car out of which they get a great deal of pleasure, and sometimes also for business purposes. It is not a luxury, and it will mean that many of them will find that this increase in the horse power tax will just make it impossible for them to continue to do so. That is bound to have an effect on garage proprietors and others associated with the motor industry. Big motor firms will be able to shift for themselves. Morris, Austins and Rolls-Royce will probably turn to armament work, but it is bound to have a serious effect on the sale of motor cars; and the necessity for it I very much regret.
    We have heard during the course of the discussion a great many speeches expressing varying views, but I think that every speaker without exception has been able to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the manner in which he presented his Budget. I should like to join; in doing that. I agree that he has done his jab extremely well. And what a job he had to-perform this afternoon? The Budget which he had to introduce,
    1056
    and which he was compelled to introduce owing to the state of the world, is a pathetic monument to human folly.
    We in this country are called upon to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on Defence. It has been suggested that this expenditure is due to the policy of the National Government. I challenge that statement. Bad as the position is to-day, and heavy as is the budget that has been introduced, I tremble to think of the Budget that we should be dealing with now if the policy of the Prime Minister last September had not prevented the outbreak of a world war. I think the Government can take the credit for that. In fact, when the blame for this colossal expenditure is placed upon the Government, it must give much more satisfaction to certain governments in other countries than it can do harm to the Government of this country. But the Chancellor must have been aware that even about the Budget he has introduced there is no finality. Even he cannot be sure that before this year is out the country may not be called upon to bear still further burdens because of the international situation. That must be a very unpleasant fact for him to face, as it is for the people of this country. I should like to say that if any statesman could be found anywhere—I hope it might be a British statesman—who could lead the world in the paths of peace which would put an end to this intolerable burden that we are called upon to bear, the world would acclaim him as its greatest statesman.
    There is one question that we must ask ourselves in regard to this colossal expenditure on armaments. What are we buying with the money? I suppose it will be argued that we can regard this very heavy expenditure as an insurance, but the question then arises, as an insurance against what? Is it an insurance against war? If it succeeds in that, I think the country will be prepared to pay the price. But if it is not that, is it an insurance against defeat? Here again, I think the country will be prepared to pay a very high price to make sure of that, because we in this country have something of value to defend—our freedom, our free institutions, our tolerance, and the other things which have made this country and Empire great. I think there is no sacrifice that we would not be prepared to make to that end. It is because

    1057
    of the need to do that that we find ourselves in this difficult financial position. When the country is spending money on the very large scale that it is, I think it is imperative that every precaution should be taken to see that the country is getting full value for its money. With regard to the expenditure on armaments, very few voices are raised to suggest that we are spending too much. For the most part, such cries as we hear—I am not at the moment going to say whether they are right or wrong—suggest that, in view of the danger which faces us, we are not spending as much as we ought. Therefore, when money is being spent, with very little opposition, for any particular purpose on such a very big scale, it seems to me that there is a very grave danger of that money being spent without due regard to whether full value is obtained.
    I have heard, this evening and on other occasions in the House, criticisms of the expenditure of local authorities. I have had some experience of local government as a member of two different local authorities, one of them a county council and the other a municipal borough council. My experience on both those bodies is such that I would not for a moment support any statement to the effect that there is extravagance in the work of those bodies. What has amazed me since I became a Member of the House is the very little control that the individual Member of Parliament can exercise over national expenditure. I know it will be said—and truly said—that expenditure must depend upon policy, and that policy is controlled by the House; but there is an economic way of carrying out a particular policy and there is a wasteful and extravagant way. All I can say is that, as a Member of the House, I do not know whether the particular policies that have been approved by the House are carried out in an economic or an extravagant way. I know that, as a member of a local authority, every item of expenditure of any importance is always very closely scrutinised and examined. I should like to express the hope that it will be possible for more control to be exercised by Members of the House over expenditure so that we may be quite sure that there is adequate and proper control, and that the country is getting full value for its money.
    We have to realise that, whether we like it or not, we are spending more money
    1058
    than we can afford, and that we are not able to meet our expenditure out of revenue, and have to have recourse to borrowing and unbalanced Budgets. But the country is aware of the need for this and of the danger in which it finds itself, and is prepared to face all that that means. At the same time, the country has a right to expect that this expenditure should be closely scrutinised, and that by statesmanship every effort should be made to secure a reduction in this unproductive, wasteful, and in many respects alarming expenditure. Given the conditions of the time, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done extremely well and that the Budget will give very general satisfaction; but I hope that in the immediate satisfaction which many will feel that the burden for the time being is not too serious and not to heavy, we shall not be lulled into a fool's paradise and think that all is well financially and in other ways as long as things continue as they are at present. I conclude by expressing the hope that it will not be long before the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to bring forward a Budget nearer to our hopes, and one that will be more worthy of the twentieth century.
    9.4 p.m.
    Mr. McGovern: I have listened to the Chancellor's statement and to part of the Debate, and frankly, I fail to see why all these congratulations should have been showered upon the Chancellor for the things he has done in the Budget. I rather suspect that a large number of hon. Members opposite have complimented the Chancellor for the things he has not done, the things that they were afraid he might do. There was much holding of heads, quickening of pulses and beating of hearts when they thought there would be some addition to taxation, especially Income Tax. Now that they know the Chancellor has avoided placing taxation on the shoulders that are best able to bear it, there are compliments from all over the House. What has the Chancellor done to-day? He has simply postponed the evil day. He has handed down to posterity the right to tax themselves to the limit in order to pay back to the money-lending fraternity the money which has been lent patriotically at so much per cent, per annum. The people of the country have paid for the preparation for wars and the fighting of wars

    1059
    in that way all through history. During the last War we borrowed£2,000,000,000 at 5 per cent. and the people of this country have since then given their treasure and their lives in order to pay the money-lenders another £2,000,000,000 in interest, and yet we still owe that sum. Then we are told of the spirit of sacrifice that imbues members of the rich fraternity.
    I am always sceptical about this desire for national unity in order to prepare ourselves for another Armageddon and to find the money to assist us during the struggle on the battlefield, on the sea and in the air. In this country we are appealing to the people to render some service and to give their energies in preparation for war. It can mean nothing else. It is not preparation for peace; it is preparation for war. Do not let us fool ourselves about that. Germany and Hitler shout out that their preparations are for peace. Before 1914 we were told that the British Navy meant peace, but we knew that in the end it meant war. We are raising money for the purpose of defending the country. What are we defending? We are defending the rights of the bond-holding community, the money-lenders and the landlords who own the country. The workers own nothing but their poverty and slums. When we plead with the Government for an increase in the 10s. a week pension for the old people the familiar bogy is trotted out, "where is the money to come from?" One of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland spoke of the £10,000,000 which is handed back to the Government of Northern Ireland, the puppet Government, the plaything of the Government of this country. That amount would at least provide for the first half a crown towards an increase of old age pensions. The hon. Member told how they were escaping the motor-car duty. If they are escaping something which the British taxpayer has to bear and in addition are having £10,000,000 handed back, there is serious need for inquiry.
    The old story of where the money is to come from was heard when better housing was advocated and we were told that the miners would fill their baths with coal because they did not know how to use them. Every Tory argument is put for-
    1060
    ward to prevent justice being done. I want it to be noted that to-day, before we have struck a blow in war, we are raising more money for preparations for war than we spent during the whole of the last War. That money and the interest on it have to be contributed out of the energy and sacrifice of the poor. All wealth comes from human energy. Hitler has said that Germany had no gold reserve or credit, but only the ability of the people to labour. That is the only wealth which any nation possesses when applied to raw material. The people who produce the wealth give their energies and fight and die in agony, and those who survive are given in their old age a meagre 10s. a week on which to live. Let us supplement it in order to make their last few years more tolerable. When we ask that, we have the mean low-spirited cry of the so-called British sportsmen, "Where is the money to come from?" while their own class are languishing in riches and parading their tens of thousands of pounds in the divorce courts and spending their lives in profligacy. Then they say to the poor old people who have lived a decent life that they cannot give them the few extra shillings to enable them to live in some form of comfort.
    We are told that the £100,000,000 paid over a long period of years for the unemployment created a financial crisis in 1931. This money was spent to maintain the standard of food, clothing and shelter of a very low order. But the £2,000,000,000, spent before we had struck a blow, has not produced any panic because selfish materialists' possessions are in danger of being assaulted by another crowd of gangsters in another part of the world. The sons of the old men who are denied a comfortable existence are now being asked to fight and to contribute to national unity. On the one hand, there is the Marquess of Bute, who sells £20,000,000 worth of land in Wales, and, on the other hand, the means test victim and the old age pensioners have to join up in common fellowship to defend the possessions of the Marquess of Bute, who refuses to allow houses to be built on the Isle of Bute and orders have to be obtained in the court to compel him. I believe that we are now in the next war. It is not a question of when the war will come. We are in it. There are cunning

    1061
    manoeuvres in the Balkans and on the Continent and they are getting ready for the final assault.
    The sons of the men who fought in the last War are now being called upon to fight. I come across many cases of men who are denied pensions, whose disease and failing health are attributable to the last War, yet they are denied pensions. The medical men and the pensions Ministry are paid, not to see that pensions are granted, but to see that no pension is granted in spite of the medical evidence that is brought forward. I wish I could see a change in attitude towards the men who carried our burdens in the last War. I had a case last week of a man whom I knew during the last War. I did everything I could to prevent him joining up. He went to Lord Curzon's meeting in Glasgow when the father-in-law of Sir Oswald Mosley made a great appeal for the Empire and asked for men to go out and light the Germans—those whom his son-in-law is now using all his powers of oratory to protect. That man was carried away by what he heard and joined up. He was a fine type of manhood from the Highlands. When he came back from the War, one could see in him the gradual development of the effects of shell shock. To-day he lies a hopeless wreck, but because he cannot prove that the loss of power of his legs is the result of shell-shock, because it is said that it may have developed in the normal course, there is no pension for him. No evidence will be accepted on behalf of that man.
    I knew another man in the same area, a gardener in the employment of the Glasgow Corporation and also a Highlander. He fought in the last War and was wounded and lay for three days in the open. He was wounded three times and as he was anxious to get back his job he did not press for a pension. Finally he got a pension of 8s. a week. That man, because of his inability to carry out his employment, finally landed in Lochgilphead asylum. His case was examined and analysed by every medical and other test and the doctor said that he was a victim of the War but he has been refused any increase in pension and his wife and child are on the Poor Law. They were driven from their home, which was a fine type of home, because they could not keep it going. To-day their son? are being asked to fight in the defence of freedom which means in the
    1062
    defence of the means test and of the ten bob old age pension, and we are expected to get enthusiastic about it.
    If the country is to be defended—and I do not say that I am necessarily going to agree with defence even of the country —but if it has to be defended, you could at least say to the men who defended it in the past, "We will see that you get proper pensions and proper treatment. We will see that the fathers and mothers of the men who have created the wealth of the country will get decent treatment." I could understand the present position if there was a shortage of wealth. If we had not the wealth, of course we could not give it, but when a nation can give £10,750 a week for the Monarchy and only 10s. a week to the old age pensioner, it seems that there is something radically wrong in the system. A rearrangement is wanted. If there is a rearrangement of society and if everybody is given a decent stake in the country you could then appeal to us on the basis that we are all in this struggle and that there is something worth defending. We have heard from an hon. Member about certain expenditure which could be abolished and a demand has been made for an inquiry into the expenses of local authorities.
    What expense is it suggested should be abolished? There are to-day in Glasgow people living in overcrowded rooms; there are tubercular children living among and infecting healthy children. There are people living under conditions not fit for the brute beasts of the field. They were promised homes by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the end of the last War. We were told that that War would give the nation freedom and provide homes for heroes, but these people have been living in those apartments for years. Families have grown up under these conditions. Is it then suggested that expenditure on housing should be abolished? If we had any conscience, we would be trying to quicken the pulse of the nation in this respect, and trying to increase grants in order to solve our tremendous housing problem. In spite of the dictatorship and the brutality in Germany, I have seen around Berlin housing schemes that would do credit to any country. I saw near the Templehof Aerodrome in Berlin, flats built for the German workers, finer than any I have ever seen elsewhere. If we are to set

    1063
    an example to the dictator countries we must eliminate selfishness and meanness and raise the standard of life for our people and give them opportunities for decency and comfort.
    Is it suggested that hospital grants should be cut down when there are tens of thousands of people in every working-class area like Lanarkshire, Glasgow, Dumbartonshire, Stirlingshire and Fife-shire, as well as in Wales and other parts of the country, who have been on the waiting lists for months for hospital treatment? Many of them die while on the waiting lists and they cannot be treated in a proper and civilised way. Is it suggested that education grants should be reduced when there are schools with 40 and 50 children in a class? There are even 50 and 60 in a class in some areas in Glasgow where schools are not being built, because the capacity of the people to provide them has been taxed up to the limit. Many old age pensioners are compelled to go to the Poor Law and the money required for them is being found by the local people in areas which are being taxed up to the hilt.
    I say that no person in this country should draw more than a certain sum, and all in excess of that sum should be confiscated by the State. These people did not create that wealth; it was created by the workers. These people are enjoying stolen wages, stolen wealth, produced by the energy of the working class. They are living on the proceeds of the workers' labour and a person in that position has no right to own five or six motor cars and have 30 or 40 servants while people of the country are being taxed up to the limit and kept in poverty. The Chancellor has made his speech and has gone off to make other speeches. He is glorying in the sunshine of a great achievement in this House, but behind the scenes we know how much wreckage and poverty exists. I am prepared to advocate that people should fight, but I want to know whether it is necessary to fight and what they are to fight for and whether it is worth fighting for. If there is any struggle, wealth should be put into the common pool.
    I am prepared to consider the matter on that basis, but not if we are to be asked to fight the old fight, as in 1914
    1064
    to 1918, and if, when we come out of it, we are to find that we cannot get houses and cannot get jobs. I am not prepared to consider any such appeal if we are to have means tests and every kind of petty mean persecution, with people going round the doors to find out whether a boy is selling papers and earning an extra half-crown, and looking under beds to see whether a family has been selling bundles of sticks made out of broken boxes in order to get a few coppers; if we are to have inspections to find out whether a woman is making a little extra money by hair-cutting; if we are to have every kind of petty presecution that can only spring from inhuman minds on that bench and behind that bench—for I am not "kidded" into the belief that it is those on the Front Bench who declare policy. There is a power behind the scenes, the power of the financiers, who not only decide the taxation but decide the policy of the Government of the day.
    I see this nation going into another bloody struggle. I see money being raised in preparation for it. We are having fire brigades, gas masks, underground tunnels and shelters, ambulances, air wardens, bombing squadrons, aeroplane squadrons; in the Navy aeroplane carriers, submarines, torpedo boats, destroyers—every form of deadly weapon. It is not that human nature is at fault. It is not that the Germans are worse han the British or the British worse than the Germans. It is simply a question of continual warfare owing to the economic struggle of the few who use die many as tools in order to carry out their bloody struggle on the battlefield, and in order to safeguard the bondholding possessions of the ruling class. I realise that there are limits to what capitalism can give, because capitalism is going down and ruining itself owing to the developments of the very system itself. Its trade is being wiped out because the countries which were once your customers are now your opponents. They are producing themselves, and they are all looking for the markets which cannot be found because they are wiped out by the developments which have taken place. That throws the workers at each others' throats. It compels the Government to raise money for these deadly weapons in order to disembowel and blow one another asunder.

    1065
    After 2,000 years of Christianity we hear a representative of a Government priding himself on the fact that we are raising £2,000,000,000or £3,000,000,000 in order to throw millions of human beings at one anothers' thoats and murder one another on the battlefield. We are preparing for that deadly struggle. There are no limits to the power of the machine, to the power of human energy to produce if it were freed from the shackles and the restraints of capitalist production, but to-day there is a limit everywhere, and therefore you go on encouraging the people to serve. When the people of this country, the people of Germany the people of France, the people of all the countries in the world, once realise that they are periodically used as dupes to defend the possessions of the selfish few, war will come to an end, your bluff, your class antagonism will come to an end, and on that day a new system will be ushered in. It is up to every intelligent man— every Socialist—to point out to the workers that this system is going down in the struggle. It is not their duty to defend it. It is their duty to assist in its complete overthrow, and to appeal to the German workers in the same way to overthrow their tyrants and their rulers. Only then can there be peace in the world. Only then can we live in harmony and raise money, not to destroy one another but to build up and create life, to give the people an opportunity to look forward to long life, happiness, comfort and security. Your capitalist system cannot give that because of the greedy, selfish, soulless class interest which you are out to protect in every land.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Loftus: I have listened to almost every word of every speech made during the Debate, and I am tempted to reply to various criticisms of the Government and of the social and economic systems. I hope that the moving and eloquent speech to which we have just listened is an indication that certain rumours that have appeared about the hon. Member's party are untrue and that it will remain for many years to sound a very essential and admirable note in this Assembly. We have heard many old phrases used. I heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) use language which recalled the kind of stuff that I used to read in the newspapers many years ago
    1066
    by the kind of journalists who disregarded accuracy in search of a picturesque phrase. He called the Budget a bankrupt balance sheet. Journalists in the old days used to talk of the Budget as the balance sheet of the nation. Of course it is nothing of the kind. It is a mere cash account of expenditure and receipts, lumping in capital and revenue quite indiscriminately. I sometimes wish that our statistical methods were advanced enough to give us a real annual balance sheet of the nation with the total assets, the increase of assets, the increases in housing, in factories and in potential productive power achieved during the year. With such an annual balance sheet we could achieve such statistical accuracy as to help very much in getting a view of the economic life of the country and help greatly in framing our Budgets. Such a survey might well include what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) was so concerned about, the total rise in the amount of debt. We might then get an exact picture of the yearly increase of debt—not only national and municipal debt, but fixed interest debt of every kind.
    I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer both on the matter of his Budget and on the very clear and admirable manner in which he performed his task. I take it that it will be a popular Budget, or rather let me say it will be as little unpopular as any Budget could be which had to raise that amount of money. It is a Budget on orthodox lines and, within orthodox limits, it does as well as such a Budget could possibly be expected to do. If I have any criticism to make, I fail to see why we sacrifice a revenue of £770,000 derived from the tax on patent medicines. I heard my right hon. Friend's explanation of the anomalies of the tax, but I feel that it could have been retained and the anomalies removed. If a definition of patent medicine is wanted, I should suggest taxing any medicine advertised and sold which does not clearly have a label giving its exact composition, certified by proper hands.
    Another point that causes me a certain concern is an omission of expenditure. I think, speaking from memory, the sum authorised for expenditure on reserves of essential foods was £5,000,000. I thoroughly agree with the junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who had experience in food control during the

    1067
    last war, and who for two or three years past has been urging the necessity of storing very considerable stocks of food and petrol. Instead of an allocation of £5,000,000 I should have preferred that perhaps 10 times as much should have been allocated, because the one thing we have to guard against at all costs is the possibility of continued interruption or diminution of our food supplies.
    This mass of taxation, amounting to £1,000,000,000 a year is a crushing burden. It reminds me of the words of Matthew Arnold about the weary Titan bearing a burden almost impossible to bear, but staggering on. I think this burden will become almost impossible to bear unless we take certain measures. The Leader of the Opposition Liberal party asked, "How are these great burdens to be borne?" We can help to bear them by the fact that, luckily, we have abandoned the Gold Standard, that, luckily, we have destroyed the idea, I hope for ever, of money having per se a commodity value, and I hope we shall never return to that position. That will, and does, help us to bear this immense financial burden.
    But there is another thing. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said truly that we can bear the burden of taxation only by increasing national production. I myself have said that many times in this House. I have spoken on almost every Budget since I have been here and every time I have pointed it out. If we maintain our national production at the present level the burden will become intolerable, and, therefore, the whole essence of our policy must be to utilise to the fullest our resources in man-power, in land, in machinery and in wealth. I do not know whether hon. Members realise the enormous financial loss, looking at the question without sentiment and as a purely business one, caused by unemployment. All economists to-day are agreed that a man in employment in such a country as Germany, or Great Britain or France, produces on a average £250 worth of goods or wealth of some kind or another in a year. Some produce far less—some peasants in France, for example—and some far more—the very highly skilled men working with the latest machinery, far more—but it is an average of £250 a year. If we put 1,000,000 unemployed
    1068
    men to work we increase national production, that is, increase the creation of some kind of national wealth, by £250,000,000 a year.
    I do not think hon. Members quite realise exactly what Germany has done. Germany, of course, has very strict controls of all kinds which we do not want to copy, but we often wonder how it is that in one year Germany can spend over £1,000,000,000 on rearmament—probably £1,200,000,000—and, in addition, spend vast sums upon new motor roads and drive great streets through Munich, Berlin and other cities. How is it done? When the present German Government came into power there were nearly 6,000,000 unemployed. They are all absorbed.
    Mr. E. Smith: Under what conditions?
    Mr. Loftus: If we take the annual production of one employed man as £250 a year, which is the sum recognised by all economists and we employ 6,000,000 men, the national production of wealth increases by £1,500,000,000 a year. That is how Germany has rearmed and indulged in this vast capital expenditure.
    Mr. McGovern: She limits profits to 6 per cent.
    Mr. Loftus: She limited profits to 6 per cent. provided the balance is invested in Government securities, but I believe that system has been altered, and that at the moment there is no limitation, although I speak subject to correction. But I suggest that, apart from increasing national production, there are other methods by which we can ease this burden of taxation. On Thursday I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question bearing upon this point. I asked about the export of British capital to purchase foreign securities, and he gave me an answer which has caused some comment. He said:
    "I am sure that the good sense of investors will indicate to them that the export of capital at the present time when the requirements for National Defence are so great would be deleterious to the national interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1939; col. 518, Vol. 346.]
    I recognise that capital investments abroad can be a useful asset in war time, as they were in the last War, when the Government realised private investments abroad to help to pay for supplies, but I suggest that when we are raising a loan expendi-

    1069
    ture of £380,000,000 in one year, it will absorb nearly all our savings, and that we should not take the risk, with the pressure, of these huge loans coming out, of allowing an unlimited export of our capital to purchase dollar securities and other foreign securities, because we must retain our savings at home to finance our rearmament programme. I think it will be a narrow thing and that we shall require all our savings to do it this year.
    I suggest another way by which we could ease this pressure—and in the coming year we shall endure both financial and economic pressure, and our imports may present a problem affecting the balance of trade, as pointed out by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. We have vast foreign investments, and it would greatly help if we could encourage the payment of the interest due in the form of goods demanding no payment for them. A great mass of our foreign investments are to-day in default. I suggest that a slight rise in the price-level, as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen, would enable many defaulting foreign securities to become solvent, and enable those foreign debtors who now cannot pay, to pour goods of various kinds into this country in payment of their debts, which would demand no exports from us to pay for them. The Leader of the Opposition, who, I regret, is not in his place, said "Borrowing means inflation—must mean inflation" I suggest that it is not always so, that it is a great mistake to regard borrowing as at all times and under all conditions undesirable and as of necessity meaning inflation.
    We have to steer between Scylla and Charybdis, between the dangers of inflation and the miseries of deflation, and they are very real miseries, as hon. Members know because of what happened from 1929 to 1932. I think there is one principle which may guide us on this question of the dangers of inflation, and I suggest that it is this: At a time of falling prices and rising unemployment, taxation should not be increased but should be unbalanced and borrowing resorted to. On the other hand, at a time when unemployment is decreasing and prices are rising and threatening to rise, that is the time to tax, and to tax heavily. That is exactly opposite to the orthodox, old-fashioned policy, according to which, at a time of
    1070
    slump and depression, you intensified taxation and so intensified the slump and the depression and the unemployment, and at a time of boom you decreased taxation, and the inevitable slump followed. I suggest that there can be no inflation— this is in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—no matter how much money you create, while prices continue to fall and unemployment to rise.
    Last year, in the Budget Debate, I ventured to criticise the increase of the Income Tax by 6d. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition suggested that we should have raised the Income Tax this year, but I disagree with him, and I think it was a mistake to have increased it last year. I said in this House on 27th April last year:
    "I view this Budget with a certain amount of hesitation. We have had in the past 12 months a period of falling prices and increasing unemployment, and, in such a period, we want to do nothing to intensify such movements. Rather should we do everything to counteract them, and I fear that the effect of this Budget may be deflationary and that it may tend to intensify those movements to which I have referred"
    It did—that extra 6d. on the Income Tax. I added:
    "Judging by commodity prices to-day, I feel that the general effect of this Budget may be deflation, and, frankly, in view of the fail in prices and the rise in unemployment during the past 12 months, I am of opinion that greater recourse might have been had to borrowing. I would have no hesitation in borrowing if it did not force up the price level. I am not afraid of the word 'inflation.' Inflation is only dangerous when it forces the price level above that which is desired."
    Then I said:
    "My right hon. Friend the Chancellor doubtless felt, and rightly felt, that the colossal future expenditure on rearmaments, coming in the next 18 months, must circulate a greatly increased amount of money and that then, when the full programme comes into operation, there may be a tendency for prices to get out of control and to rise too sharply. Probably in view of that tendency he thinks it better to tax heavily to-day. That is a matter of opinion, of course, but if I may humbly express my opinion, I repeat that I think it would have been better to have waited until inflationary tendencies were clearly evident before imposing additional taxation"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1938; cols. 218 and 221, Vol. 335.]
    There is always a great human temptation to say, "I told you so," but reading that quotation from my remarks on that occasion, I feel that the criticism that I

    1071
    then made, that it might intensify unemployment, has been justified on the whole. How does this apply to this year's Budget? Are the inflationary tendencies so marked as to warrant an increase of general as apart from special taxation? I would suggest again that the symptoms of general inflation are not so marked to-day as to encourage a general increase in taxation. The danger of a general increase in all kinds of taxation such as we have is this, that it may intensify the boom in rearmament work and cause a reduction of purchasing power for other commodities, and while you have a boom in your rearmament work, you may have a tendency towards a slump in your other work, in the production of commodities for general consumption. I think the only inflationary symptom that we ought to guard against, using our Budget as an instrument for that purpose, is this, that there will be, there is bound to be, an inflationary tendency in all industries catering for rearmament. You are bound to have an inflationary tendency in the commodities that the armament industries want; you are bound to have a tendency to inflation in the prices of such things as tin, copper, and so on, and that is the danger that we must do our utmost to guard against. But it is unnecessary and undesirable to raise the general level of taxation to guard against the particular danger of inflation of prices in the commodities with which rearmament deals.
    I agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition party as regards motor cars, and I suggest that we ought to tax those industries that compete with the rearmament industries on materials such as steel, tin, iron, copper, and so on. We ought to tax those industries so as to prevent them competing with rearmament work and forcing up the price of those commodities that I have mentioned. I suggest that it would be quite right to discourage the production of motor cars, especially expensive motor cars, at a time like this, when we want to concentrate all our supplies of metals and skilled workers as much as possible on rearmament. Therefore, I advocate the taxation of motor cars, and I suggest that it might be well worth considering putting a sales tax on new cars rather than taxing the
    1072
    horse-power as has been done in this Budget. We must, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen specifically emphasised, watch the import situation and the question of the balance of trade, and here again I think that a Budget working on slightly unorthodox lines could be used as an instrument to help that situation by taxing imported luxuries and therefore decreasing luxury imports. Those are the two methods of taxation which I should like to see employed in the present Budget and which I believe would help to prevent any inflationary tendency and to keep an even balance between our rearmament and our general industries.
    One other point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen in his very interesting speech. He pointed out how necessary it was to keep the volume of money correct. I feel that it is very essential that the Treasury, controlling as it does the Bank of England, should see that the right volume of money is supplied or allowed to the joint stock banks. A slight rise in world prices would probably do more, not only for prosperity for the mass of human beings, but for peace itself and the preservation of peace, than most other actions that could be taken. I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) that this vast expenditure on armaments, on the instruments of death, is a reflection not only upon European civilisation but upon mankind. I would end by saying that this time next year we shall be faced either with another Budget worse than this, nominally a peace Budget, or we shall be faced with a war Budget, or with a real peace Budget, and consequently greatly decreased expenditure. I am hoping that it may be a real peace Budget. I would make an earnest appeal that this nation should again take a lead in a great effort to secure peace. I know the difficulties that face us. The proposals of President Roosevelt should not merely have our support, as they have, but we should even make an effort to go far beyond his proposals. We should be prepared to consider making economic concessions to the greatest possible extent. The money that is represented by the Ottawa duties or the preferences to the Crown Colonies represent a very small sum, very trifling compared with the cost of war. I hope and pray that our Government may make a wise and definite offer to their willingness

    1073
    to consider every possible economic concessions that will bring about satisfaction, peace, a better feeling and a higher standard of life to all the nations of the world.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. Tomlinson:I have listened with interest not only to the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the many interesting speeches that have followed. 1 understand that it is unusual for the Debate to range over a wide field on Budget Day, but I am glad that we are getting away from that tradition of the House, because of the fact that several hon. Members sat for the greater part of 21 hours on the last occasion of the Budget discussions and were unable to make a contribution. The desire to express an opinion upon what has been described as the nation's balance sheet, ought to be fulfilled on the first day when the opportunity presents itself. The hon. Member opposite said that this is an orthodox Budget, but the way in which he described it left me guessing as to its orthodoxy. If this is orthodox finance, then 1 suggest that it is because of its orthodoxy that it met with so much approval from hon. Members opposite.
    I was intrigued by the way that the Chancellor of the Exchequer successfully balanced his Budget, but running through my mind all the time was the thought of thousands of people who week after week have to attempt to balance the family budgets. The task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the resources available, was child's play compared to the balancing of the budget which was brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) of a man who with 10s. a week was called upon to face expenditure of 25s. or 26s. That man has a much more difficult task than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to-day, and he does not receive nearly so many plaudits or encouragement in the balancing of his budget.
    It has been pointed out that we are incurring these vast debts and raising such huge sums of money in order to defend our country, and at the same time we are making appeals to people to come forward and render national service. I am one of those people, I may be in a minority, who believe that you ought not to contract new debts until you have paid
    1074
    your old ones, that before you enter upon new obligations you should liquidate those that are outstanding. How does that apply to the State? There are many men to whom the State owes obligations. I have had a letter from one of these men during the past month, and I have sent him the reply of the Minister of Pensions to-day. That man gave four years of his life in the service of his country, and was shot through the forearm. He was supposed to have had his debt for the injury he suffered liquidated at the end of a given period; but he has developed, as a consequence of that war wound, a disability which is preventing him from obtaining employment with the labour market in its present state. Men who are sound in wind and limb are finding it difficult to obtain employment in some directions, and this man, who is a painter, finds that he is not wanted. The reply that I have received from the Minister was in very good English, in such good English that the man is almost expected to apologise to the Minister for having troubled him to inquire into his case. The consequence is that the man receives nothing. The debt of the State has been liquidated.
    Anyone connected with that man who is appealed to at the present time to volunteer in the interests of this country will not be an enthusiastic volunteer. It seems to me that they will be about as enthusiastic as volunteers for National Service as certain hon. Members may feel enthusiastic about the Budget. Their attitude may be somewhat like that of the minister who looked round his congregation at a prayer meeting and said: "We are doing badly, but thank God the Baptists are doing worse." They may feel inclined to say that, bad as the Budget statement is so far as we are concerned, the position must be much worse in Germany and other places. When it is suggested that the nation should be brought to a pitch when it will be worth while making some sacrifice for it, it is suggested that there is no money in the kitty. Old age pensions must remain as they are because there is no money, but we can always spend money on armaments. There is always money for armaments when it is wanted, but never money when it is required for the uplift of the worker. The suggestion is that it must be found. The hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) asked where the money was to

    1075
    come from; the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us to-day where some of it does come from.
    I heard the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) say he was sorry that the Budget statement was not an annual balance sheet but was only a statement which dealt with income and expenditure. He wished that we could have an annual balance sheet. We can get some very interesting figures from the report of the Inland Revenue Department for the year ended 31stMarch, 1938, and they give us one side of the nation's balance sheet with respect to a large number of people. The report deals with the returns of people who were called upon to pay Income Tax. The hon. Member asked where the money was to come from. There is only one place from which money comes. It is obvious that the only place where you can get money is where it is. It is not much good looking elsewhere. Here are some of the people who might be called upon to find some of the money about which we were speaking. I discovered among the returns that last year 539 people in this country had incomes of £40,000 per year or over, which means that they were in the millionaire class. I do not want anybody to get up afterwards or during the next three days and tell us about the money that we take from these people. It is not the amount that we take from people that matters but the amount that is left with them.
    Before I came to this House I never had the very pleasant task of paying Income Tax. I am paying it now, and I do so quite cheerfully. I always said that I would pay Income Tax cheerfully if ever I got the opportunity. The people who would pay cheerfully are usually those who never have sufficient money to give them the opportunity of paying. Do not talk to me about the poor taxpayers. I cannot weep crocodile tears about the effect that these taxes will have upon the people who are called upon to pay them. After all, these people are never in penury when they have paid the taxes. The Inland Revenue people are not very bad after all. I never had much to do with them before I came here, but I find them very accommodating. I know that they are not accommodating because they happen to be dealing with me. It makes a difference to come here, but I do not suppose that it makes all that difference.
    1076
    I find from these returns that we had 95,000 people in the country whose incomes exceeded £2,000 a year. They are subject to Surtax. Their incomes for the year amounted to £483,000,000. I do not want to work out the percentages because that would take too long and I do not want to keep the Committee waiting. The point is that there is a source of revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say this afternoon that he had prevented some of the mice from running down the hole which he had stopped up last year. He was dealing with the question of tax-dodgers, or tax-evaders, which I think is the proper term, and he said he had found that as he stopped up some holes clever people were making other holes. He referred to the calling into being of the one-man companies. I can assure him that I wish him well in his task because people who are seeking to evade taxation of any kind ought to be discouraged. I have a very kindly feeling in my heart, because I know that most of the voters in my constituency will not lose any sleep because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to prevent the setting up of these one-man estate companies in order to prevent tax evasion. I wish that the people at the top of the social scale who have money to burn— it is there we see them burning it regularly—would realise the position of the unfortunate people who are called upon time after time to balance their budgets and to attempt the impossible task of making ends meet when foodstuffs are rising in price and when the increase in the cost of living far outweighs over a period any improvement that takes place-in their meagre wages.
    I was in thorough agreement with one phrase used by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). He described this Budget better than anyone else has done. In one sentence he said that it was a pathetic monument of human folly. I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been on the Front Bench to hear the hon. Member, because the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be one of the humans whose folly has led to the bringing in of this colossal Budget. I am as certain of one fact as I am that I am standing here: References have been made in this Debate to the so-called

    1077
    financial crisis of 1931, but I am certain that the policy that has been followed by the Government since that date has rendered necessary this colossal Budget. If that is not so, how was it that in spite of the -so-called world crisis, or the financial crisis, there was at that time no talk of air-raid precautions? Instead of talking of armaments we were talking of disarmament, and instead of a Budget of £1,000,000,000 we were talking in terms of domestic needs of the community and not of war scares, which have developed while the present Government have been in control.
    Mr. Allan Chapman: Would the hon. Member tell the Committee whether his party would have advocated rearmament in 1931?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am pointing out that the Budget is a pathetic monument of human folly. In 1931 the need for rearmament was not there, and had it not been for the attitude taken by the National Government I question whether the uprising of Hitler, which is given as the reason for this colossal expenditure and the preparations that are being made, would ever have taken place. When you compare 1931 with 1939 you must take into consideration all the factors. It is not enough to go back to 1938 and to say that had the appeasement policy of Munich not been carried out we should be facing not this Budget but a more colossal one, you are not going back far enough. You have to go back to the 1931 period and to the time when the whole policy of the Government changed. As a consequence of that change, the need for rearmament began to reveal itself and to make itself felt.
    The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) suggests that the best thing we can do is to call for an inquiry into local government expenditure. I am not surprised at such a call; whenever any economising is to be done, it is always at the expense of the other fellow; there is always somewhere else where the economies can begin. If the hon. Member is so concerned about the debt that is being built up by the local authorities, I would ask him to distinguish between debts. One cannot look upon a debt backed by real assets as something to be ashamed of. The assets which back the debt of the local authorities represent
    1078
    something that is real. You cannot compare a debt that has been contracted for the building of houses, when the houses are there, with the debt that is being built up by the creation of armaments which are going to be destroyed and at the destruction of which, if it could be carried out without destroying human life, I should rejoice. The two kinds of debt are not on an equality.
    How has the increase in the expenditure of local authorities come about, and what is there in the Budget that is going to assist the local authorities? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has pointed out, the expenditure of local authorities has grown because of the burdens which they have been called upon to bear, and which ought to be borne by the Government. Is the expenditure in the County of Lancashire on the augmentation of old age pensions at 65, which is costing a 4d. rate this year, going to be questioned? Are the improvements that are to be made in the amenities of our children and elderly people to be cut down? Are we to deprive ourselves of the principal things that make life worth living in order to defend it at the point of the gun or the bayonet? I wish hon. Gentleman opposite would try to remember that, if the country is to be saved, the more it is made worth while to save it the better chance we have of saving it, and the more adequate will be the response to the appeal for voluntary service when the individuals who are called upon to volunteer are given a standard of life that is worth while.
    There is a great gulf between two sections of the people of this country. It is not only a case of the haves and have-nots in our European diplomacy. It is not only a question of nations being deprived of things which they think they ought to have, and about which they are creating trouble at the present time. Just as surely as in the days of Disraeli, there are in this country to-day two nations, a nation of haves and a nation of have-nots. From the Budget statement to-day, colossal as it is, the people who have will go to-night comfortably to their beds saying that it might have been much worse; but to the people who have not—and they are the vast majority of the people in this country—it means that they have a little less sugar in their tea, that they dispense with a little

    1079
    tobacco because the Chancellor has found it necessary to tax those articles, and they go on their way, hoping against hope that their domestic budgets will ever be balanced, and unconcerned in the main about the efforts that the Chancellor is making. Give them an opportunity to sleep with as comfortable a sense of economic security as the people who have the wherewithal to pay your taxes, and then you can call upon them for sacrifices, in the hour when sacrifices are needed, with some hope of response. The response will be tardy at the present time, because of their economic sufferings.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Magnay: I have sat here for seven-and-a-half hours all but ten minutes, and have heard the whole of this Debate, and I would like to say that in my opinion, for what it is worth, it has not only been an interesting Debate, but has been worth while and has justified all those who wished such a Debate to take place. I would like, first of all, to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what I deem to be a fair and reasonable Budget. I am certain that the whole of the North-country, for which I speak, at any rate on this side of the Committee, would agree with that opinion. If you want to know what the North-country thinks, always listen to me. I am a typical North-countryman, and the people in the North-country know that what I say goes. I should like to congratulate not only the Chancellor but the nation on the fact that, notwithstanding the huge outgoings, the social services are being maintained unabated and intact. I rejoice at that for the working people I represent.
    It is true that there is borrowing as well as taxation, but what about that? I am quite prepared to take up the challenge which has been thrown down. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as though there was something indecent about borrowing. Many of them have said it is the rich people who do all the lending. Have they ever heard of the Prudential and other big insurance companies? How on earth do they pay the huge benefits they give to their subscribers, except by lending their money to great advantage? One of the ways they secure these profits is by lending on the safe security of the Government.
    1080
    The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked what will happen when this has to be repaid. I can tell him that when it has to be repaid the lenders will be very glad to lend again on the same security. How do hon. Members think the banks keep going? They do so on the interest on the overdrafts, and it is the interest on well-secured funds such as these which keeps these huge societies in being. There is £24,000,000 to be raised by taxation. I am quite certain, being an accountant and knowing something about industry in the North, that industry will be very glad that there is no increase in the Income Tax to cripple it in these very strenuous times in the North-country.
    It is amazing how very little has been said about the Budget in the speeches to-night. There are two or three items about which I wish to speak. The first is the horse-power duty on private motorcars. It seems to me that this is a very easily got and easily assessed Income Tax on those who show proof that they have something to spare over the needs of living. If armaments are to have a prior claim it is quite obvious that they must get the skilled workers in the motor-car industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Opposition said he would take it upon himself to stop the motor trade, if necessary, altogether. I would not think of doing that. Income Tax has to be raised, and one cannot pay Income Tax until one makes income or profits. How to keep the finances of the country going if there is no income and no profit is a mystery to me. I can call "spirits from the vasty deep," but will they come? [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will listen to me, it will be to their advantage. Subsidised foreign makes of cars will not be bought so easily and readily. This tax may make all the difference in the choice of a foreign or a home-made car.
    I understand that the additional taxation of tobacco means an increase of three halfpence an ounce. If a man is a moderate smoker, he ought to pay on not more than two ounces a week. When the doctor asked me how much tobacco I smoked per week, I said, "Two ounces," and he replied that I should smoke one ounce. I believe that if I had said that I smoked four ounces a week, he would have said that I ought not to smoke more

    1081
    than two ounces. Two ounces may be regarded as a moderate consumption, and I believe that most men will be able to afford the extra 3d. per week in taxation. I am sure that, as far as my constituents are concerned, they will not grumble, nor will the housewife in having to pay a farthing a pound, or an extra penny on every four pounds of sugar. I think that she will be rather proud of the fact that she is contributing a little towards the huge expense of the nation in order to make this country safe for her kith and kin.
    I regret that no mention was made of any increase in old age pensions. In the Budget Debates last year and the year before, I made a plea on behalf of these old people, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should give this matter his most earnest consideration. Thousands of old people, who receive only the pittance of the old age pension, have to go on public relief, and are therefore receiving money from public funds. Why cannot the Government pay them in one payment instead of in two payments. [An Hon. Member: "How would they get it?"] They would get it by means of a block grant, as is the case now. I am old enough in politics to know that £4,000.000 saved by Mr. Asquith when Chancellor of the Exchequer was dispensed by his successor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was said in this House that the payment of old age pensions would sap the moral fibre of our people. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that it irrigated channels of trade in that this £4,000,000 was circulated, making trade better, not because of sentimental reasons at all but because it increased the purchasing power of our people. The fact ought to be considered that we are paying old age pensioners public relief through public sources, and it would be more dignified for the old people to be paid in one payment direct from the Exchequer.
    The Leader of the Opposition said there was no background to this Budget. I think he has made a mistake, and I regret that he is not present to hear what I have to say. The dogs and the stones in the street are eloquent about it. He was answered by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland who said that rearmament was the cardinal issue. That
    1082
    is the background of the Budget. For once I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
    The right hon. Member who opened the Debate for the Opposition also said that it was a policy of borrowing and inflation. I would like to know what is his alternative to borrowing. I think everyone else would be interested. Inflation—what a blessed word it is for some folks. What a bogy it is. I am terrified of deflation, but I am not at all afraid of inflation. There are terrific checks against inflation, but very few checks against deflation. Of all men the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers) agreed with the right hon. Member who opened the Debate for the Opposition that inflation was a dreadful thing to contemplate. There is nothing static in the national income. The old idea that there is a reservoir with a fixed quantity and that once it is tapped there is nothing else to replace it, has gone. The national total capacity is now X; it is an unknown quantity, in fact, there is no limit to it. We can produce to any extent we like, and these Rip Van Winkles simply amaze me. It would never do for them to come up to the North country and stand as candidates, because the people are politically educated there. Hundreds of millions are saved each year by the community, but the trouble is that it is not invested in industry, but put into gilt-edged securities and thousands of other things for safety, instead of the community taking the risk of investing it in industry. The consequence is that we have unemployment, and other things which we mourn so much.
    The right hon. Member for Caithness said that this was a pedestrian's Budget. I thought he gave it the best recommendation that it was possible to give it. It is a pedestrian's Budget; both feet are on the ground. The right hon. Gentleman also talked about borrowing and asked how we were going to repay. I repeat that it depends on circumstances. Nobody can argue with a prophet; you must either believe him or disbelieve him. When we come to the bridge we shall cross it, not before. I was very sorry to hear him of all men say that appeasement had failed— and he was not sorry about it. I should expect a Liberal of all men to mourn the fact that appeasement by negotiation had failed.
    Mr. Logan: This is calling "spirits out of the vasty deep."
    Mr. Magnay: The hon. Member may be a judge of spirits; I am not. The right hon. Gentleman said, almost in tones of rejoicing, that appeasement had failed. I was sorry as a Liberal, trained in the old Liberal traditions and a Liberal still, to hear any Liberal so far forget his traditions and his teachings. I repeat that I am certain the North Country will agree with me that this is a fair and reasonable Budget, and will congratulate the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on it.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like to deal with two points that were raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before I make some general observations on the Budget. First of all, the Chancellor referred to the fact that, despite every effort that has been made to produce legislation that would bring tax-dodging to an end, there are certain people in this country who are so cunning, so clever, and so ready to use the most unscrupulous means, that they are still able to dodge taxes. I want to know from some Member of the Government why these tax-dodgers are not put in gaol. I am absolutely certain that if any unemployed man tried any trick of that kind at an Employment Exchange, there would be no hesitation in putting him into gaol. I demand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a definite decision that these men will be picked up and put into gaol. That is the treatment they should receive. I hope that there are certain Members of the House who will come into that category. There are one or two of them I would like to see behind the bars.
    The other point to which I want to refer is the Chancellor's reference to the National Defence Contribution. The right hon. Gentleman still intends to carry on, with the National Defence Contribution, the totally unjust tax on the co-operative movement. It is one of the outstanding scandals of this Budget and the previous Budget that this National Defence Contribution, which was first introduced by the present Prime Minister as a means of getting a special tax on to armament makers, should now be utilised in such a way as to penalise the co-operative movement and take money from the very poorest of the poor. I hope that when
    1084
    we discuss the Budget on the Committee stage, we shall be able to do something to rectify this very great injustice. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) referred to the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition that this is a borrowing and inflationary Budget. The hon. Member, who claims to know all about it, asked what was the alternative He does not know very much if he does not know what the alternative is. The people from whom you are borrowing have the cash. Instead of borrowing it and paying a percentage of interest on it, just take it from them.
    Mr. Magnay: Do I rightly understand that the hon. Gentleman is advocating confiscation?
    Mr. Gallacher: It is a good thing that the hon. Member told us that he knows all that is to be known, because if he had not done so, many of us would have been of the opinion that he did not know anything. Let the hon. Member ask his colleagues what is happening in connection with the 5s. 6d. Income Tax. What is that? If there is a rate of Income Tax of 5s. 6d., you do not introduce any new principle if you increase it to 10s. You can make it 15s. and no new principle is introduced, but it means that instead of borrowing money and loading the country with a burden of debt, you are taking and using the money for the purposes of the country as a whole. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said that he hoped the Prime Minister and the Government would be prepared to make the widest possible economic concessions to Germany. I am quite certain that some hon. Members opposite would agree with that. I am absolutely opposed to any economic concession being made to Germany, for every concession would simply strengthen Germany's aggressive power and desires. But why not economic concessions to the masses of the people? Those are the economic concessions that are wanted.
    The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) tells us that the Chancellor in his speech disposed of money at the rate of £10,000,000 a minute. It is certain that the people will not dispose of their heavy burden as the Chancellor disposed of the millions in his speech. It is a terrible burden arising out of a war that is past and preparations for the possibility of a new war because of the policy of the National Government. It is some-

    1085
    thing against which we have a right to protest—this heavy and growing weight, this mass weight that is resting on the shoulders of the people and bearing them down into poverty. The Chancellor said that there was very great expenditure on the social services. We are always getting hints about that expenditure, but the Government have to take note that in spite of the expenditure on social services the population is not holding its own. If it were not for the fact that for the past 40 years, since the coming into the political field of the Labour movement and the terrific campaigns it has waged in order to advance social services, we would have had in this country by this time a terrible slaughter of the population because of the character of the economic exploitation that is carried on.
    With all the expenditure on social services about which there is so much talk the population is not increasing and is scarcely holding its own. We can have, as I pointed out the other night, a world-famous athlete coming to Scotland and, in an interview with the Press, saying that from his experience Russia takes the first place in the world for physical fitness and that Britain takes sixth place. Why do we not get facts like that brought out when the Budget is presented? The fact that we take sixth place in physical fitness demands a great increase in the expenditure on social services. What is the use of expending great masses of wealth, in piling up armaments, if we are not able to build up a population that is capable of defending itself against attack? We want a strong, virile, healthy manhood, womanhood and childhood before we can talk about the people being concerned with the defence of the country. Why did not we get something in the Budget about taking the land out of the hands of the private owners and making it the land of the people, of taking industry and wealth out of the hands of private owners and putting it in the hands of the people? Then they would have something to defend.
    Take the question, which has been raised by many Members on this side, of old age pensions. How is it possible that the Chancellor can come forward at this stage, with all the knowledge and experience we have, with all the advance that has taken place and all the development we have seen of social amenities and
    1086
    culture, and refuse to do anything whatever for the old age pensioners? After 50 years of service in the mines, the mills or the factories—10s. a week. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others talk of the sanctity of home life in this country and the necessity of protecting home life, but the mother who makes home life possible gets, after 50 years of devoted service, 10s. a week. Those who oppose the demands made on behalf of these old folks always ask, "Where is the money to come from?" and say that too much is being spent upon the social services. They themselves will, as the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) pointed out, go to a dinner costing two guineas a head—mere than an old age pensioner gets for a month, after 50 years of service.
    When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward with a Budget to raise hundreds of millions of pounds for armaments, do they ask, "Where is the money to come from?" When there is a subsidy to be raised for the sugar-beet growers, or the shipowners, or for the landed interests, or any of the others, do we hear hon. Members opposite asking, "Where is the money to come from?" No; it is only when there is a question affecting the poorest of the poor, only when it is a question of trying to raise those who are down in the depths of poverty. Yet it is the masses of the people who produce the wealth. There is no other source of wealth but the labour of the working classes. Those who have the wealth do not get it because it falls from the clouds; they do not pluck it. from the trees or pick it from the roadside. They get it out of the unpaid labour of the masses of the working classes, and yet the masses of the working classes who produce the wealth are faced continually with bitter poverty. Much of what has been said about heavy taxation, Super-tax and all the rest of it is illusory. The rich who are paying those taxes are becoming richer. The armament makers and the financiers are piling up huge fortunes. The millionaires are increasing. Does this mean that they are paying for the armaments? No. They are profiting out of the armaments. They are not emptying their pockets, but filling them. When it comes to paying for the armaments the masses of the people are unanimously elected for that job. There is a variety of ways in which the money is got out of them.

    1087
    Therefore, in discussing this Budget we want to face the fact that the burdens which are being thrown on the masses of the people are associated with policy, and we cannot get rid of those burdens, we cannot begin to organise a Budget for the development and betterment of human life and human society, unless we have a policy that will provide us with the possibility of a firm basis of peace in Europe. That is the problem that confronts us. If we are to face all the consequences that must follow from borrowing it is necessary to take up the question of policy. The Prime Minister would rather be the junior partner of Hitler in a capitalist Europe than risk the consequences that might follow from the defeat of Hitler, and the same applies to members of the party opposite. We are told that there is a change in policy. 'There is no change.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is getting rather far from finance now.
    Mr. Gallacher: The discussion has been on a very wide range and all these things have been brought in during it. I am only trying to show that, in facing this question of finance and how we are to overcome the heavy burdens being placed on the masses of the people, how we are gradually to produce a Budget concerned, not with weapons for the destruction of human life but with the building and extension of institutions which will make for the highest possible form of human life and culture, it is necessary to take into consideration the question of policy. That is how I have introduced this question, which has been talked about by very many who have preceded me. There are so many indications going to show that we are still pursuing a policy which will impose upon us still greater burdens in the future, not a policy which is going to establish peace in Europe but a policy which is going to lead to the strengthening of the Fascist forces in Europe, and will therefore throw upon us the consequences of still heavier commitments—the building up of armaments instead of the development of the social services. I cannot close my eyes to the fact that recent events—the return of the Ambassador and the appointment of Lord Lothian to America—are all indications to Hitler that his friends are still in power.
    The Chairman: I really cannot let the hon. Member continue that line of argument.
    Mr. Gallacher: I accept your Ruling, Sir, and I will not pursue it, but I am sure that everyone present has a clear understanding of what I am getting at. I object very much to the sugar tax. It is one of those mean, petty things. Someone has referred to the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Every time we are getting new straws placed on the backs of the poorest of the: poor. Last year it was a small tax on tea; this year it is a small tax on sugar. Always new small taxes are being placed on the backs of those unable to bear them. It means a little less for those who have too little already. The Chancellor said that it was a duty, and he believed it would be accepted as a duty by all, to contribute their share. I say to him and to every Member opposite that it is a crime against humanity to take however little from those who have not the necessities of life, to take from those who have no surplus of any kind, even the smallest, until you have taken every penny of the surplus from those who have the money. The Chancellor has no right to impose a tax upon the poorest of the poor while there are masses of wealth capable of taxation. I am opposed to the Chancellor on the question of the co-operative societies and National Defence Contribution. I am opposed to his leniency towards tax-dodgers. I consider that this Budget places an unbearable burden on the masses of the people, and that we shall only get rid of those burdens and get a Budget directed towards human well-being and happiness, when we get rid of this Government. The task of all intelligent men and women in this country is to strive with all their power to get rid of the Chancellor and the Government with which he is associated, and then there will be the possibility of peace and high hopes of progress.
    Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
    The Chairman: May I ask the Committee to allow me to read the Resolutions which have to be disposed of to-night? I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee, but I would point out to hon. Members that those Resolutions have to be read, before we can bring the Debate to an end.
    Mr. Mander: But I understand that the Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended.
    The Chairman: I realise that, and I merely wanted to put it to the Committee that nothing can be done to end the Debate until we have read the Resolutions, but there is nothing to prevent the Debate continuing to-night on the last Resolution in the same way as it would continue in the ordinary course to-morrow.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Are we to understand that after the Resolutions have been put, the Debate can continue?
    The Chairman: The usual custom is that the last Resolution remains un-disposed of after the others have been passed to enable the general discussion to continue. That is what would have happened in the normal case, in regard to the remaining two days' Debate, and the same thing would happen as regards the continuation of the Debate to-night.
    Mr. Bevan: If the last Resolution remains undecided the Debate can continue to-night?
    The Chairman: The Debate can continue on the last Resolution.
    Mr. Bevan: I am only trying to help. Do I understand that the first Resolutions can be carried at the moment and that we can then go on to Debate the last Resolution?
    The Chairman: That is the point. Nobody can move any Motion to or, rather, the Committee cannot well agree to report Progress until these Resolutions have been disposed of, and that is why I am asking the Committee to allow me to read them and put them, and then the Debate can go on upon the last Resolution until the Committee decide to report Progress.
    Mr. David Adams: That will not narrow the Debate?
    The Chairman: No, certainly not.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TOBACCO (EXCISE DUTY).
    Resolved,
    "That in lieu of the duties of excise now chargeable on tobacco grown in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be charged the following duties, that is to say:

    Upon tobacco unmanufactured, viz.,

    s.

    d.

    containing 10 lbs. or more of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.

    9

    3½

    containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof the lb.

    10

    0⅞

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.,

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.

    11

    4⅞

    and so in proportion for any less quantity.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    TOBACCO (DRAWBACK).
    Resolved,
    "That as respects tobacco on which the increased duties proposed by the foregoing Resolutions have been paid, drawback shall be allowed at the rates set out in the following Table instead of at the rates set out in Part III of the First Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931.

    TABLE.

    Description of Tobacco.

    Rate per pound.

    In respect of tobacco on which full customs duty has been paid.

    In respect of tobacco on which customs duty at a preferential rate or excise duty has been paid.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Cigars

    12

    9

    10

    6

    Cigarettes

    12

    6

    10

    4

    Cut, roll, cake or other manufactured tobacco

    12

    3

    10

    1

    Snuff (not being offal snuff)

    12

    0

    9

    11

    Stalks, shorts, or other refuse of tobacco including offal snuff

    11

    9

    9

    8

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    SUGAR, ETC. (INCREASED CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    " That as from five o'clock in the evening on the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the duties of customs on sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin shall be charged in accordance with the following provisions—

    (a) for the full rates of customs duty set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1928, there shall be substituted

    1091
    the rates specified in Part 1 of the following Table;

    (b) for the rates of duty on certificated colonial sugar set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1934, there shall be substituted the rates set out in Part II of the said Table, and any certificates issued under Section one of that Act, whether before or after the passing of this Resolution, shall have effect accordingly.

    TABLE.

    PART 1.

    Full Rates of Duty

    Article.

    Rate of Duty.

    s.

    d.

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 ° the cwt.

    14

    0

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 97 ° but not exceeding 98 ° the cwt.

    10

    8·8

    Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 ° the cwt.

    5

    7·2

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76 ° and not exceeding 97 °

    Intermediate rates varying between 5S.7 ·2d. and 10s. 8 ·8d. per cwt.

    Molasses (except when delivered to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits or yeast, or to a person for use in the manufacture of yeast in premises used solely for that purpose): — if containing—

    the cwt.

    s.

    d.

    70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter

    8

    10½

    less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

    6

    4½

    not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter

    3

    1½

    Glucose, solid

    8

    10½

    Glucose, liquid

    6

    4½

    Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use). the oz.

    4

    6

    PART II.

    Rates of Duty on Certificated Colonial Sugar.

    Article.

    Rate of Duty.

    s.

    d.

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99°. the cwt.

    4

    8·7

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98° and not exceeding 99° the cwt.

    3

    10·3

    Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76° the cwt.

    1

    10·8

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76° and not exceeding 98°

    Intermediate rates varying between is. 10.8d. and 3s. 10.3d. per cwt.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    SUGAR, ETC. (INCREASED EXCISE DUTIES).
    Resolved,
    "That as from five o'clock in the evening on the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the excise duties on sugar, molasses, glucose and saccharin shall be at the rates specified in the following Table instead of at the rates theretofore chargeable.

    TABLE.

    Article.

    Rate of Duty.

    s.

    d.

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99° the cwt.

    6

    11

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98° and not exceeding 99° the cwt.

    5

    11.1

    Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76° the cwt.

    2

    11.3

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 76° and not exceeding 98°

    Intermediate rates varying between 2s. 11.3d. and 5s. 11. 1d. per cwt.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    SUGAR (DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Resolved,
    "That where a duty of customs or excise has been paid in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin at the higher rates for which provision is made by the foregoing Resolutions, drawbacks shall be paid and allowances shall be made as if in Part II of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1928, the following Tables were substituted for Table 1 and Table 2.

    TABLE 1.

    SCALE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SUGAR PRODUCED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM MATERIAL ON WHICH DUTY HAS BEEN PAID.

    Nature of Sugar.

    Rate of Duty Paid.

    Rate or amount of Drawback.

    Per cwt.

    Per cwt.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98° produced from material on which the full duties of customs have been paid.

    14

    0

    14

    0

    less than

    14

    0

    11

    8

    Sugar of polarisation exceeding 99°produced from material on which customs duty at the general preferential rates has been paid

    8

    2

    8

    2

    less than

    8

    2

    7

    4·7

    Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99° produced from material on which customs duty at the

    4

    8.7

    4

    8.7

    less than

    4

    8.7

    3

    11.4

    TABLE 2.

    SCALE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF MOLASSES PRODUCED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM MATERIAL ON WHICH DUTY HAS BEEN PAID.

    Nature of Molasses.

    Amount of Drawback.

    Produced from material on which full customs duty has been paid.

    Produced from material on which customs duty at the general preferential rates has been paid.

    Produced from material on which customs duty at the certificated colonial rates has been paid.

    Produced from material on which excise duty has been paid.

    Containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter and weighing not less than fourteen pounds to the gallon - the cwt.

    2s.

    9½d.

    1s.

    9d.

    11d.

    1s.

    5½d.

    Containing more than 50 per cent. but not more than 60 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    4s.

    2½d.

    2s.

    7½d.

    1s.

    5d.

    2s.

    2½d.

    Containing more than 60 per cent. but not more than 70 per cent. of sweetening matter — the cwt.

    5s.

    7½d.

    3s.

    6½d.

    1s.

    10½d.

    2s.

    11½d.

    Containing more than 70 per cent. but not more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    7s.

    8½d.

    4s.

    10½d.

    2s.

    7d.

    4s.

    0½d.

    Containing more than 80 per cent. of sweetening matter the cwt.

    8s.

    9d.

    5s

    6½d.

    2s.

    11½d.

    4s.

    7d.

    Budget proposals

    Nature of Sugar.

    Rate of Duty Paid.

    Rate or amount of Drawback.

    certificated colonial rates has been paid Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 99° produced from material on which excise duty has been paid.

    Per cwt.

    Per cwt.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    6

    11

    6

    11

    less than

    6

    11

    6

    1.7

    Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 98° produced from material on which the full duties of costumes have been paid and sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 99° produced from material on which customs duty at the general preferential rates or the certificated colonial rates, or excise duty, has been paid.

    Any rate of duty.

    A drawback equal to the duty chargeable on sugar of the like polarisation.

    In the foregoing Tables—

    (a) the expression 'the general preferential rates' means the full rates of duty reduced by the amounts of the preferential reductions specified in the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1928;

    (b) the expression 'the certificated colonial rates' means the special rates of duty applicable to colonial sugar accompanied by a quota certificate.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913

    PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES AND FILM (EXCISE).
    Resolved,
    "That on and after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, there shall be charged—

    (a) on all sensitised photographic plates and film manufactured in the United Kingdom, other than X-ray plates and film, an excise duty at the rate of fourpence halfpenny per square foot; and

    (b) in respect of every licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer in the United Kingdom of any sensitised photographic plates or film an excise duty of twenty shillings.

    For the purposes of this Resolution, references to photographic film include references to cinematograph film and paper negative film, and the area of any perforations in any piece of photographic film shall be treated as part of the area of the film"

    PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES AND FILM (CUSTOMS).
    Resolved,
    "That on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine—

    (a) the rate of additional duty chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1932, on un-exposed sensitised photographic plates and film, other than X-ray plates and film, shall be such as will, with the rate of the general ad valorem duty, amount to ninepence per square foot;

    (b) the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section six of the Finance Act, 1938 (which relate to duties on Empire goods) shall apply in relation to unexposed sensitised photographic plates and film, other than X-ray plates and film, subject, in the case of plates and film other than cinematograph film, to the modification that the preferential rate shall be fivepence per square foot instead of two-thirds of the aggregate full rate of the duties applicable to the goods;

    (c) no unexposed sensitised photographic plate or film shall on re importation be admitted free of duty under Section fourteen of the Import Duties Act, 1932, unless any excise duty which was chargeable has been paid and either no drawback was allowed
    1096
    on exportation or any drawback so allowed has been repaid;

    (d) the additional duties chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1932, on exposed cinematograph film of the classes or descriptions specified in the first column of the following Table, shall, whether the film is or is not Empire goods, be at such rates as with the rate of the general ad valorem duty will amount to the rates specified in the second column of that Table:—

    TABLE.

    Film—

    Per linear foot.

    (i) of a width not exceeding one inch; or

    (ii) containing only a single sound track; or

    (iii) shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be a duplicate of film on which Customs Duty has been paid at the rate of sixpence per linear foot and not refunded

    2d.

    Other film

    6d.

    (e) in the case of a film of a greater width than the standard width of one and three- eighths inches, the Customs Duty in the cases mentioned in the last preceding paragraph shall be increased in proportion to the ex tent to which the width is greater than the standard width;
    (f) if, in the case of any exposed cinematograph film, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners either—

    (i) that the production of the film was organised by persons whose chief or only place of business was in Great Britain or Northern Ireland and the producer of the film and all the principal actors and artists employed for the production thereof, except five, or, if the total number of principal actors and artists is less than twenty, not less than three-quarters of the principal actors and artists, were British subjects and domiciled in Great Britain or Northern Ireland; or

    (ii) that the Board of Trade have certified that the requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-seven of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, or of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-five of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938, have been com plied with in relation to the film or in relation to any film of which the film forms part;

    the duty chargeable on the film shall be the duty, if any, with which it would have been chargeable if it were still unexposed;
    (g) the exemption of sound track negatives from duties of Customs conferred by the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 4) Order, 1938, shall cease to have effect;
    (h)no draw back of duty paid at the rate of 6d per linear foot on any piece of exposed cinematography film shall be allowed under the Second Schedule to the Import Duties Act 1932, if a duplicate thereof, or any part thereof, has been imported into the United Kingdom, but the Commissioners may waive or modify this provision in any particular case. Subject to such con-

    1097
    ditions as they may consider necessary in order to safeguard the revenue;
    (i) the provisions of this Resolution, other than those of paragraph (b), may be revoked or varied in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were contained in an Order of the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932.
    For the purposes of this Resolution—

    (i) references to photographic film include references to cinematograph film and paper negative film;

    (ii) the area of any perforations in any piece of photographic film shall be treated as part of the area of the film;

    (iii) all sheets or strips of unexposed sensitised photographic film which are of a length not less than twelve feet shall, whatever their width, be treated as cinematograph film;

    (iv) references to exposed cinematograph film shall include references to all such film whether it is positive or negative, whether it is developed or undeveloped and whether or not it contains or consists of sound track;

    (v) 'the Commissioners' means the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

    (vi) two lengths of film shall not be deemed not to be duplicates of each other by reason that one is positive and the other is negative, or, where both lengths represent the same objects and are intended for use in the production of a coloured picture, by reason of any differences ascribable to the nature of the processes involved in producing such a picture.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    BEER (PRIMING AND COLOURING SOLUTIONS).
    Resolved,
    "That it is expedient to make provision for authorising a brewer for sale to add priming and colouring solutions to beer at premises other than premises entered by him for the brewing of beer or a bonded warehouse, subject to the premises being licensed for the purpose and to the payment, on the grant of any such licence in respect of any premises for any licence year or part thereof, of a duty of excise in accordance with the following Table:

    TABLE.

    £

    Where the premises have not been licensed as aforesaid for the preceding licence year or any part thereof

    25

    Where the premises have been so licensed and the number of bulk barrels of such solutions received for use at the premises in the preceding licence year did not exceed twenty-five

    25

    Where the premises have been so licensed and the number of bulk barrels of such solutions so received exceeded twenty-five—

    For the first twenty-five barrels For every further twenty-five barrels

    25

    or fraction of twenty-five barrels

    5

    Provided that where the premises have been so licensed for a part only of the preceding licence year, the number of bulk barrels of solutions received for use at the premises in that year shall, for the purpose of the foregoing Table, be taken to be a number which bears the same proportion to the number so received in the period for which the licence was in force as twelve months bears to the length of that period.
    In this Resolution the expression 'bulk barrel' means a quantity of thirty-six gallons, and the expression 'licence year' means the twelve months ending on the thirtieth day of September."

    CUSTOMS DUTY ON FRUIT PRESERVED IN SYRUP.
    Resolved,
    "That on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, any duties of customs chargeable under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, on goods of the classes or descriptions specified in the first column of the following Table shall be charged at the rates specified in the second column of that Table.

    TABLE.

    Class or description of goods.

    Rate of duty.

    The following fruit salad preserved in syrup, that is to say, mixtures of fruit (but not including mixed fruit pulp) containing not less than four separate descriptions of fruit, in which each of at least four descriptions constitutes at least eight per cent., and no one description represents more than fifty per cent., by weight, of all the fruit in the mixture (excluding syrup)

    5s. 6d. per cwt.

    Loganberries preserved in syrup

    4s. 0d. per cwt.

    Pineapples preserved in syrup

    5s. 0d. per cwt.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    CUSTOMS DUTY ON PATENT LEATHER.
    Resolved,
    "That on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the customs duty imposed by Section six of the Finance Act, 1934, on patent leather not forming part of another article and goods composed wholly of patent leather shall, in the case of goods on which no additional duty is for the time being chargeable under Section three of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be reduced to seven and a half per cent, of the

    1099
    value of the goods, and accordingly the said Section six shall on and after that date have effect—

    (i) as if in Sub-section (i) thereof for the words 'fifteen per cent.' where they first occur, there were substituted the words 'seven and a half per cent.'; and

    (ii) as if in the proviso to the said Subsection (i) the words 'if the aggregate amount of the additional duty and the general ad valorem duty exceeds fifteen per cent, of the value of the goods' were omitted.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    AMENDMENT OF OTTAWA AGREEMENTS ACT, 1932, AS RESPECTS INDIA.
    Resolved,
    "That, as from the date on which the agreement made on the twentieth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India comes into force under Article 16 thereof, the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and any other enactment relating to customs which amends or relates to that Act, shall have effect as if that Agreement were substituted for the Agreement set out in Part VI of the First Schedule to that Act."

    REPEAL OF DRAWBACK IN RESPECT OF LINSEED.
    Resolved,
    "That the drawback of customs duty heretofore allowed in the case of goods manufactured in the United Kingdom and exported or shipped as stores there from, in respect of linseed used in the manufacture thereof, shall not be allowed except in the case of unmixed linseed oil, that is to say, linseed oil not mixed with any substance other than driers."

    REPEAL OF DRAWBACK IN RESPECT OF GROUND-NUTS.
    Resolved,
    "That, in the case of ground-nut oil (whether hydrogenated or not) manufactured in the United Kingdom and exported or shipped as stores there from, no drawback of customs duty shall be allowed in respect of ground-nuts used in the manufacture thereof."

    MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES (INCREASED EXCISE DUTIES).
    Resolved,
    "That as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty. Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, which imposes duties of excise in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles, shall, as amended by any subsequent enactment, have effect as if for paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Second Schedule to the said Act (as so amended) there were substituted the following paragraphs:

    Description of vehicle.

    Rate of duty.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1. Cycles (including motor scooters and cycles with an attachment for propelling them by mechanical power) not exceeding 8 cwt. in weight unladen:

    (a) Bicycles—

    Where the cylinder capacity of the engine thereof—

    (i) does not exceed 150 cubic centimetres

    17

    6

    (ii) exceeds 150 cubic centimetres but does notexceed 250 cubic centimetres

    1

    17

    6

    (iii) exceeds 250 cubic centimetres—

    in a case where the bicycle is one in respect of which a licence was taken out before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, and does not exceed 224 lbs. in weight unladen

    1

    17

    6

    in any other case

    3

    15

    0

    (b) Bicycles, if used for drawing a trailer or sidecar

    1

    5

    0

    (c) Tricycles—

    neither constructed nor adapted for use nor used for the carriage of a driver or a passenger

    2

    0

    0

    other tricycles

    5

    0

    0

    The duty chargeable under sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph in respect of any bicycle shall be chargeable in addition to the duty chargeable on the bicycle under sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph.

    Description of vehicle.

    Rate of duty.

    £

    s.

    d.

    (6). Any vehicles other than those charged with duty under the foregoing provisions of this Schedule:

    Electrically propelled vehicles

    7

    10

    0

    Other vehicles—

    not exceeding 6 horse-power

    7

    10

    0

    exceeding 6 horse power—

    for each unit or part of a unit of horse-power

    1

    5

    0."

  INCOME TAX.

    CHARGE OF TAX.
    Resolved,
    " That—

    (1) income tax for the year 1939–40 shall be charged at the standard rate of five shillings and sixpence in the pound, and. in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

    1101

    (2) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year 1938–39 shall have effect with respect to the income tax charged for the year1939–

    .
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913."

    HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1938–39.
    Resolved,
    "That income tax for the year 1938–39 in respect of the excess of the total income of an individual over two thousand pounds shall be charged at rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate by the amounts specified in the second column of the Table in Section six of the Finance Act, 1931 (as originally enacted) increased—

    (a) in the case of an amount relating to any part of the first six thousand pounds of the excess, by 15 per cent. of that amount;

    (b) in the case of any of the remaining amounts, by 20 per cent. of that amount. And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    AMENDMENTS AS TO SURTAX ON, AND APPORTIONMENTS OF, INCOME OF CER- TAIN COMPANIES.
    Resolved,
    "That there may be included in any Act of the present Session relating to finance such amendments of Section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1922 (which relates to Surtax on the undistributed income of certain companies) and of any enactments relating to or amending that Section or referring to apportionments thereunder, as Parliament may determine, and any such Act may provide that any of the said amendments shall have effect for the purpose of assessments for any year not earlier than the year 1936–37 and authorise any necessary additional assessments for any such year."

    NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION.
    Resolved,
    "That the enactments relating to the national defence contribution shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect subject to such amendments as will secure that, in the case of the businesses mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 7 of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1937, any income received from investments or other property is taken into account in computing the losses to be carried forward under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule, notwithstanding that that income has been separately charged to income tax by deduction or otherwise."

    ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE).
    Resolved,
    "That, in the case of persons dying after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred
    1102
    and thirty-nine, the rates of Estate Duty set out hi the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1930, shall, so far as they relate to estates the principal value of which exceeds fifty thousand pounds, be increased, in the case of each rate, by one-tenth of the amount thereof."

    ESTATE DUTY (AMENDMENTS AS TO CERTAIN INTERESTS ARISING ON DEATH AND AS TO CERTAIN DEBTS).
    Resolved,
    "That the enactments relating to Estate Duty shall, in the case of persons dying after the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be amended with regard to—

    (a) the annuities and other interests that are to be treated as passing on the death of a deceased person by virtue of paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1894, and as being property in which he had an interest;

    (b) the exclusion of certain debts and in-cumbrances from those which may be deducted from the value of the estate of a deceased person in determining the value of the estate for the purposes of Estate Duty;

    (c) the inclusion in property passing on the death of a deceased person by virtue of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1894, of property applied to the discharge of certain debts and incumbrances, and the payment of Estate Duty accordingly, notwithstanding anything in Section three of that Act."

  MISCELLANEOUS.

    POWER TO BORROW FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL PURPOSES.
    Resolved,
    "That the whole or any part of the sums required in the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment, may be provided out of money borrowed for the purpose under Section one of the War Loan Act, 1919,instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

    UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.
    Resolved,
    "That the National Debt Commissioners shall, as and when the Treasury request, pay into the Exchequer out of their account of unclaimed dividends, under Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870, sums not exceeding in the whole one million five hundred thousand pounds, and may for that purpose sell any stock standing to the credit of that account"

    AMENDMF.NT OF LAW.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance."
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): Mr. Mander.
    11.35 p.m.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. It is not my wish to question in any way the discretion of the Chair as to which hon. Member shall be called upon to continue the Debate, but it may perhaps be within your knowledge that when the Debate was proceeding, before the reading of the Resolutions, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Sexton) rose to continue the Debate, and was in fact on his feet when the Chairman requested that he should give way so as to allow the Resolutions to be read. Therefore, I would ask you most respectfully whether my hon. Friend ought now to lose his place?
    Mr. Mander: Further to the point of Order. May I point out that I also was on my feet, and gave way.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) may not question the discretion of the Chair. The Chairman is entitled to call any hon. Member who catches his eye, and that must not be challenged. Mr. Mander.
    Mr. Mander: I do not propose to make any lengthy remarks, but I want to deal with one particular matter —
    Mr. Logan: On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. Should I be out of order in moving that, on account of there not being a Quorum present, the Committee should now adjourn? Under the Rules of Order, would that finish the Debate? If I called a Count, what would be the result?
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member called a Count, and there were not a Quorum present, the last Motion would become a Dropped Order and we should have to start all over again. Therefore, he would not achieve his object.
    11.37 p.m.
    Mr. Mander: I should like to refer to the Budget from the point of view of what is commonly known as the conscription of wealth. Several hon. Members have expressed the view that we really have that already, and that, in particular, the increases in the Surtax and the Death Duties that are taking place are a considerable measure of conscription of wealth; but I do not take that view, and
    1104
    I think that if we really want to pay our way and to make an impression on the world, we ought to go in for something like a levy on capital and pay our debts right away. That would make it clear where we stood. I think this matter becomes very relevant, and will become increasingly relevant, in connection with the Budget discussions on account of an announcement that has been made to-night—to which, of course, I may not allude—that the Government intend to introduce military conscription. Clearly, that is a matter to which I may not refer in this Debate, but I cannot help feeling that that most serious announcement may greatly affect the Debates on the Budget Resolutions. One cannot help remembering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, on a previous occasion when such a matter arose in the middle of the War, resigned rather than consent to it.
    Mr. Wise: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member quite properly said that he must not discuss this announcement to-night, and yet he has been discussing it for some minutes?
    Mr. Mander: May I ask for your protection, Colonel Clifton Brown? I am sure you will call me to order when I am doing anything wrong. I was calling the attention of hon. Members to the difficulties that may arise in our discussions of the Budget Resolutions and in the subsequent stages of the Budget in view of the known attitude of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. As I have said, there was a previous occasion during the War when he felt obliged to resign office rather than consent to a measure of conscription. Suppose he takes that view now, and to-morrow we are told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resigned office, holding very strong views as he must do on this matter, sooner than assent—
    Mr. Logan: If these premises are to be taken at their face value, would not it be better to wait until to-morrow?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I agree the hon. Gentleman is raising a very hypothetical question which has no relevance to the discussion.
    Mr. Mander: I would ask you to be good enough to allow me to develop it a stage further. This hypothesis is founded on a historic fact of 20 or so years ago and we may find ourselves

    1105
    placed in a very awkward position. However, I realise that probably there is nothing in it, because the Government are incapable of committing a dishonourable act or breaking a pledge, and certainly it would be a deliberate breach of faith for the Government to bring in any measure of conscription of man-power. In view of what is evidently to happen during the next few weeks and months, we shall have during the course of our Debates to revolutionise this Budget. The one we have had to-day is quite out of proportion to the new developments that are now taking place, and we shall have to insist during our discussions that pari passu with any other measures that maybe taken financial measures in the Budget of an equal kind shall be carried out. The main point I want to make is that it is impossible to believe that the Government, in view of what they have said, could be guilty of a deliberate breach of faith in doing what is announced on the tape to-night and introduce military conscription.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Mr. James Stuart].
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SOLICITORS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve o'Clock.

  HOME-GROWN TIMBER.
  HOME-GROWN TIMBER.
  GERMANY AND ITALY (BRITISH CREDITS).
  GERMANY AND ITALY (BRITISH CREDITS).
  HOUSEHOLD FOOD STORAGE.
  HOUSEHOLD FOOD STORAGE.
  COASTAL SHIPPING (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  COASTAL SHIPPING (FOREIGN COMPETITION).
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  POLICE RECRUITS (TRAINING).
  POLICE RECRUITS (TRAINING).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE CHARGES (FLATS).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE CHARGES (FLATS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT AND COMMISSIONS).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT AND COMMISSIONS).
  HOUSING (BIRMINGHAM).
  HOUSING (BIRMINGHAM).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
ROYAL WANSTEAD SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
WILD BIRDS (DUCK AND GEESE) PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVEST- MENTS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
EXETER EXTENSION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT NICHOLAS MILLBROOK (SOUTHAMPTON) CHURCH (SALE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to solicitors, and for purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to the membership of the Law Society and committees of the Council thereof; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CONGLETON) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Congleton; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MARGATE) BIILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Margate; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MATLOCK) BILL. [H.L.]
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Urban District of Matlock; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

REORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.17 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZEILAND): My Lords, this Bill relates to the machinery of Scottish administration and is designed to give effect, so far as legislation is required, to the recommendations made by the Committee on Scottish Administration which reported in October, 1937. The Committee was presided over by the Right Honourable Sir John Gilmour, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and was strong both in political and in administrative experience; and its inquiry into the organisation and duties of the Scottish Administrative Departments under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been of the utmost value. I should like to take this opportunity of renewing the expression of the gratitude of His Majesty's Government to the Committee, whose recommendations had the merit of being unanimous and have been generally accepted by the Government.
The main recommendations of the Committee which require legislation are that the functions of the Scottish Education Department, the Department of Health for Scotland, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the Fishery Board for Scotland, and the Prisons Department for Scotland should be vested in the Secretary of State. At present, as your Lordships will be aware, the Scottish Education Department is nominally a Committee of the Privy Council, of which the Secretary of State is Vice-President. The other Departments concerned are separate legal
710
entities and possess statutory powers distinct from those of the Secretary of State, though they are required to act under his general direction. It is desirable that the form of organisation should reflect the constitutional position—namely, that the ultimate responsibility to Parliament for all Departmental action must lie with the Minister; and this is the basis of the recommendations. Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to the change and makes various consequential provisions. By subsection (4) the Secretary of State may make Orders for incidental adaptations of enactments, and subsection (5) provides that the Orders so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament for twenty-one days before they take effect. Subsections (7) and (8) are designed to facilitate procedure in relation to property vested in the Secretary of State and to legal actions to which the Secretary of State is a party.
The proposed transfer of functions to the Secretary of State will clearly pave the way for a Departmental reorganisation and a redistribution of certain Departmental activities. It is proposed, as recommended by the Committee, that in future there shall be four main Scottish Departments. Three will be Departments of Education, Health and Agriculture respectively, and the fourth, a new Scottish Home Department, which, broadly speaking, will take over the functions of the Scottish Office, the Fishery Board and the Prisons Department. These four main Departments will be of equal status, and each will be in charge of a Secretary responsible to the Secretary of State for the duties of his Department. The Secretary of State will also have the assistance of a senior officer—the permanent Under-Secretary of State—who will be outside the Departmental organisation and available as adviser on matters involving the co-ordination of Departmental action, or where the matter at issue falls outside the recognised province of any one of the Departments.
In the case of the General Board of Control for Scotland, whose functions, as your Lordships will no doubt be aware, relate to lunacy and mental deficiency, it is proposed, for the reasons set forth at some length in the Report of the Committee, to retain the existing type of organisation. The Board will, however, be reconstituted and brought into closer

711
contact with the Department of Health. The reconstituted Board will comprise a paid whole-time Chairman, who will rank as an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health, two paid Medical Commissioners, a paid part-time Legal Commissioner, a representative of the Scottish Education Department, and three unpaid members representing the general public. The necessary provision is made in Clause 2 of the Bill.
Clause 3 provides for a Scottish Fisheries Advisory Council. The present Fishery Board, whose functions are being transferred to the Secretary of State, includes four trade representatives, and after its abolition it is proposed, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, to institute a Scottish Fisheries Advisory Council, so as to ensure the closest contact between the new Fisheries Administration and the fishing industry. The Council will consist of not more than twelve members, appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the various sections of the fishing industry. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the appointment of the staff of the Registrar General, and is designed to clarify the existing statutory position. It is proposed, as recommended by the Committee, to associate the Registrar General more closely with the Department of Health. Clause 6 provides for the bringing of the Act into operation in accordance with Orders to be made by the Secretary of State. It is hoped that the general scheme of reorganisation will be ready by the forthcoming autumn.
A special feature of Scottish administration, which is fully dealt with in the Committee's Report, is the importance of basing administration on Edinburgh, where close contact with Scottish public opinion can be maintained, and, at the same time, of ensuring the effective representation of Scottish interests at the seat of government. For many years the day-to-day administration of the Scottish Departments, with the exception of the Scottish Office and of a section of the Scottish Education Department, has been carried on in Edinburgh. A branch of the Scottish Office was opened in Edinburgh in 1935, and it is intended that certain further branches of work
712
should be transferred to Edinburgh. The Scottish Departments in Edinburgh will in the main be accommodated in the new Government building which is now approaching completion at Calton Hill, Edinburgh, and Dover House, in Whitehall, will be the headquarters of the representatives of the Scottish Departments in London for the purpose of keeping constant touch with Ministers and the London Departments, and for carrying on such branches of the work as may require to be done in London. The proposed reorganisation will substitute for the existing organisation, which has developed on different lines and not on any very ordered pattern, an organisation which will be more efficient and at the same time more flexible. I commend the Bill to the House as a useful measure for the reform of Scottish administrative machinery. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
4.29 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not think it would be seemly to allow this important measure, as affecting the Northern Kingdom, to pass without a word from this side of the House, and I rise to support the Bill. As your Lordships have heard from the noble Marquess, it is based very largely on the Report of the Gilmour Committee. A very distinguished member of my Party, the right honourable Thomas Johnston, took part in the work of that Committee, and it would not be right if a word was not said from this side of the House on this important matter, in the Scottish interest. My right honourable friend signed the unanimous Report, as the noble Marquess has said, but he did include a very important note, which is to be found on page 56, in which he regretted that the terms of reference to the Committee were somewhat narrow. I would like, respectfully, to support that. I was, for many years, in another place, and I remember that I always thought that the handling of Scottish business there was a scandal. How they could possibly take the whole business of Scotland in one day, usually a Derby day, and deal with all the great matters concerning Scotland, it was impossible to understand.
Mr. Johnston makes, I think, a most valuable suggestion—namely, that the

713
Scottish Grand Committee upstairs, which deals with matters peculiarly affecting Scotland, should be given wider powers and should sit in Edinburgh in order to save the expense of witnesses coming before this Committee who have to travel to London—another, and I think a justifiable, grievance on the part of Scotland. I also regret with Mr. Johnston that it was not possible to examine into these proposals. I hope therefore that this Bill is one stage towards a measure of devolution for Scotland. The members of my Party are in favour of a much wider measure of devolution for Scotland, among other reasons—and not the least important reason—because of the hopeless congestion of business at Westminster. But this is a small step in the way of a better organisation of public business in Scotland, and therefore we support it.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: My Lords, I would wish in the first place to thank the noble Marquess for the very clear and lucid exposition that he has given of the contents of this Bill, and I would like also to express my gratitude to the Government for introducing it, though somewhat belatedly. If I have any complaint at all to make about this Bill it is that it is so long since these matters were mooted which are now being the subject of legislation that the delay has become a matter of complaint among what I may call the least exacting and most uncomplaining people in the British Isles. I take leave to differ from the account which the noble Lord opposite has given of the conduct of Scottish business in the House of Commons. It is somewhat minimising the amount of time given to Scottish business to say that it occupies one Supply day in the Session and that that day is usually Derby Day. I have come more recently from another place than he has and I can assure him that Scottish business takes up a great deal more time than one Supply day. Of course, Scottish people are somewhat more laconic than the people South of the Border and they contrive to get through a vast amount of business in a very short period of time.
But there are in fact real objections felt by Scottish people to the way their business is administered and I hope that this Bill, in the new forms of administration which it gives us, will tend to cure a great
714
many of them. For many years Scottish administration has been conducted in what I may call rather a ramshackle way. The various Departments which are in control of the business of Scotland have been, if I may use a Scottish word, a somewhat disjaskit collection of bits and pieces, and what this Bill contrives to do is to bring all those Departments together under one appropriate head. As the noble Marquess has said, the Education Department is at the present time a Committee of the Privy Council and I think that Committee has not met since 1913. That will show the kind of condition in which Scottish organisation has been left. It is quite true that the Secretary of State, who is a member of that Committee, has contrived to conduct its business by himself, but in this Bill we have the Education Department put under the control of the Secretary of State, who is made the sole person responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the educational business of Scotland. I think also it is a merit of this Bill that other Departments—namely, those of Health and of Agriculture—are put in the same way under the direct control of the Secretary of State.
There are perhaps some laments to be made for the dispersal of the Fishery Board because there is no Department which has worked more successfully than has the Fishery Board for Scotland; but I am glad to see that while that is brought into what is described as the Home Department of the Secretary of State's business, nevertheless there is to be continued an Advisory Council in connection with fishery which will indeed take the place of the old Fishery Board and have within it the knowledge and experience which will enable it to advise successfully the Secretary of State in the conduct of fishery business. There is another question which the noble Marquess mentioned—namely, that of the Board of Control, which deals with lunacy. As I understand it—I hope I am reading rightly the terms of the Bill—the Board of Control will continue to function just as previously, and I think that is a wise provision. There is nothing which is more delicate to deal with than lunacy and one knows that very many questions arise not merely of ordinary administration but of law which the Board of Control in Scotland have dealt with most successfully.

715
They have gained the complete confidence of the whole population. I think it would have been a very great pity indeed if that Board of Control had been dispersed and I am glad to think that they will continue to function as previously.
Now what will be set up, as I conceive the lay-out of the Scottish Office, will be these various Departments with a competent Secretary at the head of each, all of whom will report to the Secretary of State and he of course will be the final voice upon all the questions that come before them. There is a certain difficulty which arises out of the fact that you have the Office functioning in London so far as Parliament is concerned, while nevertheless most of the business is conducted in Scotland. The difficulty was, as I understand it, to make a liaison between the two parts of the Office and still leave the Departments with the Departmental Secretaries with direct access to the Secretary of State. In these circumstances I think that probably the contrivance which has been adopted is as good as any other. It is certainly that which was recommended by the Committee under Sir John Gilmour—namely, to set up a Permanent Secretary under the Secretary of State who would form a connection between the various Departments and would also perform the function of meeting Permanent Secretaries of other Departments in the joint conduct of business which affects other Departments of the Government as well as those of Scotland. He will also represent the Secretary of State at conferences when necessary. That I think is probably as good a device as can be adopted.
But further it was suggested by Sir John Gilmour's Committee that the amount of business which is transacted by the Scottish Office is much more than one man with a Parliamentary Under-Secretary can accomplish. In fact the Scottish Office has, in the past, been something like a miniature Government with a great many Departments within it, and I think myself that its many functions are really far too great a burden to put upon the shoulders of any single individual. The suggestion of the Committee was that instead of one Under-Secretary, there should be two in order that this work might be distributed more fairly. I regret that this suggestion has
716
not been adopted, and I hope that the Government will take it into further consideration in the future.
The noble Marquess has paid a tribute to Sir John Gilmour and his Committee for the work they have done, and indeed we all ought to express our deep appreciation of the care which they gave to the consideration of Scottish administration and of the recommendations which have been made. Sir John Gilmour perhaps deserves better of his countrymen than any other man of his time for the devotion he has given to Scottish business, and I am glad to see some of the fruits of his labour in the Bill which we have now seen presented to us. The noble Lord who has just sat down has made some complaint that not everything which should have been included is to be found in this Bill. For my part I feel it is a pity that the work of the Forestry Commission so far as Scotland is concerned was not also transferred to the Secretary of State in the same way as the work of other Departments. In Scotland the Forestry Commission has problems of its own which are quite distinct from any which have to be dealt with in England, and accordingly forestry might very well have been transferred. The duties of the Commission on Crown Lands in Scotland, also, might have been put under the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sorry that these particular matters have been omitted.
But there are people who go much further than I do. There are people who, as I understand the noble Lord, would like to see all the various Departments transferred to Scotland in so far as they perform Scottish business. I am not going to embark on any discussion of Scottish Home Rule at the present time, but I should like to say that it is perfectly obvious there are Departments which it would be very improper to transfer. For example, take the case of transport; I happen to know a little about that. It would be the greatest mistake in the world if you were to put under a separate Department for Scotland the problems connected with transport which affect the whole country—for example, the railways. At the time when the new arrangement with regard to railways was passing through in 1921, as I am sure

717
the noble Lord will remember, it was the Scottish members who made the most vigorous protest against the possibility of running the Scottish railways as a group distinct from the English railways. They insisted, against the opinion prevailing at the time—and their protest not only carried weight, but triumphed—that the Scottish railways should be worked along with the English railways instead of being confined to a separate system. That is only one example of the necessity of keeping the administration of problems which really affect the whole of the island under one body and only transferring those which are local, such as Scottish Agriculture or Scottish Health.
Let me take another example. It would be putting back the clock if you were to put the trade of Scotland under a separate Board from that which manages the trade of England, because the trade of the country is one and indivisible. Take, again, such a question as labour. It would be a monstrosity if to-day you were to try to administer labour problems in Scotland as distinct from those in England. Why, the trade unions themselves operate over the whole country. They do not divide up their organisations. They act as one when it comes to a question that affects, for example, wages. The railway unions act as one; the coal mining unions act as one; and it would be perfectly impossible, as it seems to me, to have any carving up of the labour problem in the way the noble Lord has suggested.
I am afraid I have divagated from the main theme, but before I sit down I should like to say that I do not think that this Bill, by itself, would effect so much if it were not that it is being accompanied at the present time by the building of offices in Edinburgh which will accommodate the whole of the Scottish Departments. Up till now these Departments have been scattered about in different buildings in Edinburgh—Departments carved in two, and all the Departments segregated, with no sort of connection between them, and with the result that business has been very difficult to conduct with efficiency. By the month of August of this year, I hope, we shall see the completion of the great building on the Calton Hill of Edinburgh which will house all the Government Departments and will provide proper accom-
718
modation for the Secretary of State for Scotland himself. It was a scandal for many years that the Secretary of State for Scotland had to conduct his business in a little room off the Parliament House in Edinburgh with quite insufficient staff. It is that kind of thing which has roused resentment in Scotland rather than the larger problem which the noble Lord has indicated.
It is because these things have been left in a state of confusion and because the work of the Scottish Office has been impeded that the Scottish people have felt irritation. I hope these bad days are finished and that the Scottish people will have direct access to these various Departments in Edinburgh instead of having to make their complaints in London. I am perfectly certain that it will effect a real transformation in the conduct of Scottish business. I bless this Bill, but I bless it all the more because we are going to have, I hope, in the immediate future a system by which our business can be conducted in Scotland—the noble Marquess said these Departments will be based in future on Edinburgh instead of on London—and we shall have a much more satisfactory solution for the various problems which affect the Scottish people.
4.49 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I am deeply conscious of the able way in which the noble Marquess expounded this Bill. It more or less adds the finishing touch to what many of us have agitated for, for many years—namely, the bringing together of all the various Scottish Departments under the Secretary of State. That is a thing for which we in Scotland have asked for many years. There is a great deal to be said for what the noble Viscount, Lord Horne, said just now, that we do want another Under-Secretary of State in order that there should be in Scotland a Minister to whom the various interests can go, in order to get the advice they require. I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme to provide for one Under-Secretary of State to be in Scotland and the other in England. I know that is felt very strongly, especially among people who want to promote Bills and other things in Scotland, and I think it is one thing that ought to be looked into in the future. I am only sorry that the Bill does not more clearly define the duties

719
of the Board of Control. It is left entirely to the Secretary of State to lay down what those duties shall be. I would have liked to see a more careful definition of just what those duties are rather than that it should be left in the hands of the Secretary of Slate. The work that has been done by Sir John Gilmour and his Committee, who produced the Report on which this Bill was founded, has been most admirable, and I would like to testify in this House to the great gratitude we in Scotland feel towards Sir John Gilmour for having taken over this and other work relating to Scotland.
There is a very great deal to be said for what the noble Viscount urged in reference to the Forestry Commission. I think it would be a very wise thing if we could bring afforestation in Scotland under the Secretary of State, because we cannot really get a sound economic scheme for the re-establishment of the Highlanders on the land in the many deserted glens of Scotland unless we combine very closely the actual afforestation programme with the use of the land during the warmer periods of the year. One knows that in various parts of the world, in Germany and elsewhere, that has been very successfully done. Unless we do something of that kind we are not going to get any benefit out of the wonderful Report produced by the Economic Council of Scotland, which I read with very great interest and which I hope the Government are going to deal with satisfactorily. You will find from that Report that if you are to get an economic scheme, a scheme that will really be based on what can be produced by means of it, then you have to associate the cultivation of the land along with afforestation. That I am sure is one of the real foundations of successful resettlement of the Highlands of Scotlands.
There is one thing that I hope this Bill will ensure when it collects all the people into the new buildings in Scotland, and that is that when various grievances and schemes are put before the Board of Control they will keep their eyes towards Scotland and not towards Westminster. The curse in Ireland, as I saw it, was that whenever anything came up to Dublin Castle eyes were always directed towards Westminster to ascertain what effect any proposal or scheme would have there rather than to dealing with the real
720
trouble in Ireland. I hope that when this scheme is worked out and is functioning the Board will keep their eyes on the real problem in Scotland rather than on the effect any proposal will have politically in London. Lastly, I would say this. If this scheme is going to be a real success, if we in Scotland are going to get a better administration of our affairs, it will depend very largely on how the money from the Treasury is going to be allocated. If we have to fight for every individual item in the various programmes that come forward, then I think we shall go back to the bad old days. I would much rather see an allocation of block grants towards the various Departments concerned than that. I will say, however, that we in Scotland think this Bill represents a great advance in the administration of Scottish affairs, and everyone most cordially supports it.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute of appreciation to the noble Marquess for the very clear manner in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should also like to give a welcome to the Bill, but in my opinion, for what it is worth, I do not think it goes far enough. I feel rather that it represents a lost opportunity. But if I may turn for a moment to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I would like to say that I saw a speculation in a Scottish newspaper the other day as to what would probably happen if our nation became engaged in a war with a foreign Power and were defeated. The paper went on to speculate with some assurance that after the dismemberment of the Empire the first thing that would be done would be that a measure of devolution would be forced upon Scotland and upon Wales. I am very sorry to feel that any members of the Party for which the noble Lord speaks should share an opinion which has been attributed with so much confidence to our enemies. To my mind the Union of Scotland and England is a thing that is unique in the history of the world, and for my own part I would use every effort to make the relationship more and more close rather than foster the idea of dissolving it. In fact, my reason for feeling that this Bill represents a lost opportunity is that I think it would be to the advantage of Scotland if the Scottish Office were to be done away with alto-

721
gether and the various Departments of Scotland were to be joined to the corresponding Departments in England.
Such a step would be to the advantage of the members of the Scottish Office themselves as well as to the advantage of Scotland. After all, the Scottish Office concentrates its thoughts and experience on Scotland alone, and to that extent it is detached and isolated from the general body of the Civil Service as a whole. That must bring certain disadvantages. It may be that it administers to Scottish pride, but at the same time it does bring great disadvantages, and I always feel that we suffer in Scotland from this detachment. I do not want to say anything that may appear like a reflection upon the very able and loyal body of men who compose the Scottish Office. I am quite sure that the Civil Service as a whole is distinguished above all bodies in the world for integrity, intelligence and industry, and I do not think the Scottish Office falls behind the Civil Service generally in those respects, but things have changed very considerably is the last thirty years. Thirty years ago a strong Minister could carry out far-reaching reforms in his Department. To-day, except in very rare circumstances, I do not think it is nearly so easy for a Minister to carry out wide reforms in his Department. If any Department of Stale gets into a bad condition of any kind, then the one thing that will save that Department is free correspondence and communication with the other Departments of the State.
There is another point. If Scotland is governed by Departments which are one with the Departments in England, then Scotland is far too big for anybody to rise to the head of any Department without Scottish experience. The result of that is that the servant of the State who is ambitious to get on will see to it that he gets Scottish experience. In that way Scotland will get the finest service in the world. It will get far finer administration than England is likely to get, and I want to see Scotland get the best that is going. My experience has been that those Departments of State which are common to Great Britain show a very high degree of sympathy, of local knowledge and of understanding of local conditions in the government of Scotland. I should be very glad to see an extension of this system, and I find that a great many other
722
people share my view. It is the way the world is going. The Surveyors' Institution is not a body with which I would like to suggest that the Government should be compared, but not long ago the Surveyors' Institution came to the conclusion that an organisation for Great Britain would be far more useful than one for Scotland and one for England. They decided to amalgamate the whole body, and I am sure that will have a very useful effect in the future.
There is another question which people who have business to do with the Government have put to me. They say: "This new change is all very well. We shall have to go to Edinburgh to do business, and what shall we find when we go to do business with a Department? There is hardly a single question we raise that does not affect the Treasury. If we are in London, we ask who is the official concerned; we can get hold of him, and get the whole matter settled. But if we go to Edinburgh we may have to go away unsatisfied and return to get an answer another time." It is far more convenient to get the whole thing done in London, because, after all, London is the centre of government. Local patriotism can be carried too far. London is the place where the government of Scotland is centred and London, I think, is just as much the capital of Scotland as it is of England. For my own part I should very much like to see the union of the two countries made far more effective than it is at present, and I am perfectly certain Scotland would be very much better governed as the result.
5.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I am very gratified to find that in all quarters of the House, though for varying reasons, this Bill is welcomed. Certain comments rather than criticisms have been made upon various of its provisions, and I can assure those who have made them that I will see that they are conveyed to the Secretary of State. As I understood it, my noble friend who has just sat down took a precisely opposite view to the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The noble Lord who has just sat down said, rather unexpectedly to me, that local patriotism could be carried too far. As I understood his proposal it was to concentrate the administration of Scotland in London, whereas my noble

723
friend Lord Strabolgi would have gone a good deal further than the Government have gone in this Bill in the way of delegating administrative authority to Edinburgh.
There was a point raised by my noble friend Viscount Home which I am not sure that I appreciated. It was with reference to the Forestry Commission. If I understood him rightly, he suggested that it might be made a branch of the Scottish Office. Unless my memory is at fault the Forestry Commission is a body which serves not only Scotland but England. It is a statutory body which was set up either during or very soon after the War to discharge certain functions with regard to the preservation and increase of timber and so on. It occupies a semi-independent position and is in fact not a Government Department at all. I am not sure, therefore, what my noble friend has in mind when he wishes to place it, so far as Scotland is concerned, under a Government Department.
VISCOUNT HORNE OF SLAMANNAN: I am afraid I expressed myself in rather a shorthanded way. I did not mean, of course, that the present body which exercises jurisdiction over the whole island should be transferred to Scotland. What I meant was that the functions which are exercised in Scotland by the Forestry Commission should be transferred to a Forestry Commission under the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think the Scottish problem is entirely different from the English problem.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will give due consideration to the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made. I think there was only one other major question raised upon which I might say a word, and that was in regard to the possible appointment of an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland. Reference has been made to the fact that in the Report of the Committee that matter was touched upon, but it was only touched upon because the Committee, as a matter of fact, were only reporting upon the permanent staff. They therefore made no recommendation but merely mentioned the suggestion that it had been proposed that an additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary might be required. My right honourable friend the
724
Secretary of State for Scotland has had that matter under consideration, and he is of opinion that for the present an additional appointment of that kind would not be justified. That, however, does not mean that the possibility may not come under consideration again in the future if this Bill becomes law and the reorganised office has actually been seen at work.
I think those were the main points raised in the course of the discussion, and I need only add that I am most grateful to your Lordships for the welcome given to the Bill. My noble friend Lord Saltoun asks me to say something about the people who come to London to do business. They will be able to come to London to do business in the future, just as they do now, because the Secretary of State for Scotland will still be in London and he must necessarily have a portion of the Scottish Office with him in London. I really do not think that my noble friend will find that people who come to London to do business with the Scottish Office will be labouring under any greater difficulties than under the present system. They will have the same facilities as they enjoy now.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA AND BURMA (MISCEL- LANEOUS AMENDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is perhaps not surprising, in the case of an Act of the length and the complexity of the Government of India Act, 1935, that experience of its actual working should bring to life a certain number of defects calling for correction. May I remind your Lordships that the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act contain together some 480 sections and 16 schedules? The Bill for which I am about to seek a Second Reading this afternoon consists only of seventeen clauses and one schedule, and it will effect, broadly speaking, some twenty disconnected Amendments in the original Acts. These Amendments are, of course, primarily of interest to the Governments which are functioning in India itself, and I accordingly re-

725
quested the Viceroy to submit these proposals to the Ministries in the different Provinces in India for their comment. While the Ministers in three of the Provinces felt themselves unable, for reasons upon which I need not enlarge, to express any opinion with regard to them, I have given careful consideration to the views put forward by the Ministers in the remaining Provinces, and I am glad to say that I have found it possible to give effect to some at least of the suggestions which they have made. I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude for the time and thought which they have devoted to the matter. And, if it be not thought to be invidious to make mention of particular Governments, I would express my special thanks to the Bengal Ministry for the thoroughness with which they have dealt with the various provisions of this Bill, and to the Punjab Ministry for the spirit of cordial co-operation in which they have met my requests for their assistance.
The Amendments to the various sections and schedules of the original Act are, as I have said, disconnected, and I have therefore issued for the convenience of your Lordships a White Paper in which is shown the wording of the different sections of the original Act as it will come if this Bill becomes law. The greater number of the Amendments are designed merely to give clear expression to what was quite obviously the intention of Parliament when the Acts were originally passed, or to make good deficiencies which experience in the working of the Constitution has shown to exist. So far as Amendments of this kind are concerned, I need not perhaps do more than refer your Lordships to one or two typical examples.
Take, for example, the first subsection of the first clause of the Bill. It was always the intention that while Corporation Tax—and by Corporation Tax I mean the Super-tax paid by the companies—should be a Federal source of revenue, the Income Tax paid by companies, as distinct from the Super-tax paid by them, should find its way into a pool from which the Provinces as well as the Federal Government are entitled to draw. The existing definition of Corporation Tax in Section 311 of the Government of India Act has, however, been found to be faulty, in that it embraces both the Super-tax and the ordinary In-
726
come Tax paid by companies, thus depriving the Provinces of revenue to which they are entitled. The purpose, therefore, of subsection (1) of Clause 1 is to amend the definition so as to give effect to the original intention of Parliament.
Then, again, take subsection (2) of Clause 2, which provides for the insertion of two additional items in the Provincial legislative list contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. It was never intended to deprive Provincial Governments of the right which they have hitherto enjoyed of taxing both motor vehicles and the consumption of electric current. With the passing of the Act, however, doubts arose as to the competence of the Provincial Governments to continue to levy these taxes. In the case of motor cars the doubt arose because, while the item "mechanically propelled vehicles" appears in the concurrent legislative list, there is no specific mention of the taxation of those vehicles, and in any case it would clearly be inconvenient that they should be liable to taxation by two different authorities. The doubt which has arisen in the case of the tax on the consumption of electric current has been due to a different cause. Duties of Excise are included in the Federal legislative list, and with the passing of the Act it was thought that a tax upon the consumption of electricity might be said to be an Excise, in which case the right of levying it would be vested in the Federal Government and not in the Provincial Governments. The purpose, therefore, of the clause is to lay these doubts at rest and to make it clear beyond possibility of dispute that the levying of these taxes is a Provincial and not a Federal right.
Clause 3 is in a somewhat different category, and may be stated to raise a question of principle in that its effect will be to give the Federal Government power to levy Customs duties and to impose export and import control on the frontier of any unit of the Federation itself. It is to be hoped, of course, that little occasion will arise for the use of this power. It is important, nevertheless, that the Federal Government should be in possession of it, and I will explain to your Lordships why. When the Federation comes into existence, the control which the Federal Government will exercise in the Federated States over such matters as the subsidising

727
of industries and the conditions of labour will be but slight. It would be possible, therefore, for a State to embark upon a policy of unfair competition against other units of the Federation, and it is to protect itself against this development that the power is required. I may point out to your Lordships that, as a safeguard against the abuse of the power, it is provided that legislation to give effect to it shall not be introduced without the previous sanction of the Governor-General acting in his discretion.
Then I come to Clause 4 of the Bill, to which I admit some exception has been taken by the Provincial Ministries in India. Its purpose is, in a word, to furnish the Central Government, in the event of war, with executive authority throughout the country. It was, of course, realised when the Government of India Act was being framed that in circumstances constituting a grave emergency a large measure of central control might be necessary, and provision was made, in Section 102 of the Act, whereby the Federal Legislature would be empowered in certain circumstances to legislate on matters which normally fall within the legislative field of the Provinces. But the fact was overlooked that the power to make rules under an Act is an exercise not of legislative but of executive authority, with the result that under the Act as it stands the Central Government would not be competent to include, in any Act relating to subjects lying normally in the Provincial field, provision to enable the Central Executive to make rules on the subject-matter of the Act in question; nor would the Central Government be competent to confer upon its own officials, as, for example, military officers, executive powers in relation to Provincial subjects.
I am fully satisfied that the successful prosecution of a war in present day circumstances requires some measure of unified control, not only of policy but of its execution; and for this reason, and for this reason only, Clause 4 provides both for the rule-making power, to which I have referred, and for the exercise by the Central Government of general powers of superintendence, direction and control, similar to those which it has enjoyed in the past. Examples of the sort of case in which the necessity for the exercise of
728
such powers is likely to arise will no doubt very readily occur to your Lordships. The control of lighting in connection with air-raid precautions provides an example. Or, again, the regulation of supplies, not merely for the armed forces but for the civilian population also, and the prevention of profiteering or of the withholding of supplies from the market.
It is true, of course, that the conferment of these powers on the Central Government may be represented as an invasion by the Centre of the sphere of authority conferred by the Act on the Provinces, and I can appreciate the objection which has been raised to it by some at least of the Provincial Ministries in India on this score. Let me, therefore, say categorically that I should be the last person to approve of any such extension of central powers in normal circumstances, or for the purposes of day-to-day administration. It is to meet the emergency of war only that these powers are sought, and it will be realised, I hope, that while the Viceroy and I consider it essential to provide in case of necessity for a measure of unity of direction and control, we have no wish whatsoever to undermine the authority of the Provincial Governments, but, on the contrary, our aim is the closest co-operation, in the interests of India as a whole, between the Central and the Provincial Governments.
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal for the most part with technical defects which the actual working of the Constitution has brought to light, and I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any explanation of them; but I need hardly say that should any one of your Lordships desire information with regard to any one of these rather technical Amendments I shall, of course, be only too willing to do my best to provide it. The last of the operative clauses of the Bill—namely, Clause 16—is a printing clause, the effect of which will be to secure that every officially printed edition of the Government of India Act, and of the Government of Burma Act, which is issued after the passing of this Bill, will contain the text as amended by this Bill. I hope that this will meet with the approval of those, in particular, who dislike what is known as legislation by reference. With these words I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

729
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
5.28 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it was always in the minds of those who were responsible for the framing of the Report out of which the Government of India Act came that whatever Act was passed would probably, in the light of experience, reveal certain defects. It was a long and very complicated measure, and although endless time and thought were given to it none of those associated with that work dreamed, for a moment, that what they were doing would be perfect. On the whole the work of the Provincial Governments has gone on so smoothly and so hopefully that I should be very sorry indeed to see any subsequent legislation that would appear to the people of India to invade the rights which that Act conferred upon them.
The noble Marquess, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not, I think, clearly inform us—if he did I did not clearly understand him—that, apart from Clause 4, the Bill was on the whole an agreed Bill apart from Bengal and the Punjab, that the Provincial Governments assented to the main principles. If they have done so, and this Clause 4 quite clearly relates only to war emergencies, then I think the House should consent to the Second Reading, with the right always of looking at it more closely before the Third Reading takes place. I do not personally like at all this proposed invasion of the rights of the Provincial Governments, and I should like to know, if the noble Marquess feels he can properly tell us, how many of the Provincial Governments have protested against the proposed clause as it now stands. I do not think I want to discuss the matter further at this stage, but express only those doubts about the possible effect that the Bill may have upon the working of the major Act.
5.32 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the words that he has used. I think, broadly speaking, I may say that, with the exception of Clause 4, this may be regarded as an agreed Bill. There are one or two of the provisions of the Bill upon which different Provincial Governments have held different views, but that, I think, is inevitable, and the Bill fulfils, I think, the greatest measure of agreement
730
that is possible in the circumstances. Then, with regard to the question which the noble Lord asked me, as to how many of the Provincial Governments expressed dissent from Clause 4, I cannot tell him the exact number, but I think I may safely say that the majority expressed apprehension at the inclusion of this particular clause, though not all of them.
I would like to remind noble Lords of what I touched upon in passing when I was moving the Second Reading, and that is this, that the original Act does contain a clause, Clause 102, which gives to the Central Government and Legislature the power in a grave emergency to legislate in respect of subjects which lie normally in the Provincial field. This, therefore, is not introducing a new principle. It is only to make good an omission which was made at the time as the result of an oversight in Clause 102, that Clause 4 is included in this Bill. As I explained, the present position is really an anomaly, because while in the case of war the Central Government could legislate in respect of Provincial subjects, where that was considered necessary in the interests of the safety of the country as a whole, it cannot make the rules which in the case of legislation of that kind are so often an essential part of the legislation, and it is in order to give the Central Government that additional power that this clause is incorporated in the Bill. But I would like to repeat what I said, that I should be the last person in the world to wish to bring about an invasion of this kind so far as day-to-day administration is concerned, or so far as normal circumstances are concerned. It is simply and solely a war measure and nothing more.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.35 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, this little Bill, which consists of one operative clause only, was passed through another place without dissent anywhere, and without any amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will be able to treat it

731
in the same way. It is parallel with the Bill relating to similar subjects for England, which, as has already been reported to-day, has now come up to this House in an agreed form from another place. It was felt better that the matter should be dealt with separately so far as Scotland is concerned, for reasons which I will mention in a moment, which appear in Clause 1. Otherwise it is on the same lines as the English Bill. There is no doubt at all that these "bings," as they are called in Scotland, are sometimes a source of danger, certainly to the health of the community, sometimes even to their property, and I believe that in some cases they might indeed be very serviceable to hostile forces who want to come and bomb certain places. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, will perhaps give us an illustration of that, drawn, I believe, from a place not very far from his own home. Anyhow, these bings burn day and night, and are sometimes very dangerous. Whether it is possible physically to put them out is another matter. I should think a good many of them could not be put out by any means that we know at present. But at all events it is to be hoped that the Bill will prevent the addition to their number, and I think it is rather a preventive Bill than anything else.
In the case of Scotland it was felt that it was fair and right to provide that before an authority took the steps which the Bill authorises them to take to declare one of these deposits a nuisance, those affected should have the right to have the case heard before a trained legal authority rather than take the chance, which might be variable sometimes, of the treatment they might receive before an ordinary bench of untrained magistrates. Therefore it is provided in Clause 1 (1) that the case should be heard before the Sheriff. And then a safeguard further for those who are responsible for making the heap is provided in the words of Clause 1 (2), that it should be a defence if it can be shown that practicable means have been taken for preventing the accumulation of deposit from becoming liable to spontaneous combustion. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, that he will wish to move one or two minor Amendments to the wording of this subsection, as to which of course I can say nothing until I see precisely what they
732
are. But the Bill as it stands has, as I say, received the approval of all Parties in another place, and was passed through all its stages without alteration. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Addison.)
5.39 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise for a moment to support the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. My home in Scotland is just about ten miles away from the naval base at Rosyth, and I was there at Easter, a couple of weeks ago. Every night, when I went out for a turn the last thing, I could see, blazing like a beacon in the sky, a tremendous bing or "blae-heap," as we call them, and it would undoubtedly form the most wonderful guide-post for enemy aeroplanes. My home is, as I say, ten miles from Rosyth. This pit lies about halfway between—that is roughly five miles from the naval base; and whether the weather is thick or clear you can see this great heap blazing in the sky. As a matter of fact I was sitting down to write to my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to call his attention to this state of affairs when I saw the noble Lord's Bill on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House. I should like to have an assurance either from the noble Lord opposite or from the noble Marquess who will answer for the Government that this Bill will deal with this very serious state of affairs.
The Bill refers to deposits of refuse which are liable to spontaneous combustion. What I am concerned about is a heap which is actually on fire at the present moment. Is that a deposit which is liable to spontaneous combustion in terms of the Bill? The noble Lord opposite expressed doubt as to whether these fires could be put out. This particular fire must be put out even if it involves dragging it stone by stone and possibly spreading it over acres of the countryside. I cannot conceive a more dangerous state of affairs than to leave this dangerous beacon where it is. I should like to have an assurance before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House that it covers this state of affairs, or, if it does not, that the Bill will be amended accordingly. I am quite convinced that this is a matter of urgent national im-

733
portance. I believe the noble Lord has placed the House under a debt of gratitude by bringing the Bill forward, and I should like to support it with all the force at my command.
5.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, Lord Gainford has asked me to say that the mining industry is in sympathy with the general provisions of the Bill, but some of your Lordships may feel that the word "liable" is much too wide and may cause interference with the proper working of the mines. I should like to refer to the Public Health Act of 1936 which, in Section 109, provides that "nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as extending to a mine of any description so as to interfere with or obstruct the efficient working of the mine." That is an important point, and it is possible that this word "liable" may interfere with the working of the mine. It might be possible to alter the wording so that the refuse which is deemed to be a nuisance should be "in respect of which there is reasonable cause to believe that spontaneous combustion is likely to occur." I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is proposing to set down certain Amendments dealing with these points. One other point is this: that it might be possible to take the two Bills dealing with this matter together—the Scottish and English Bills. I would like to suggest that.
5.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I must apologise for intruding on your Lordships' time once more, but Scotland and India seem to be having a field day to-day. I desire on behalf of His Majesty's Government to express approval of this Bill, at any rate as far as its Second Reading is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, asked whether under this Bill it would be compulsory to destroy a refuse heap which is actually burning. I am bound to say, as I read the Bill, that would not be so. What the Bill does is to say that in certain circumstances these refuse heaps which are liable to spontaneous combustion shall be regarded as a nuisance under the provisions of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. That means that proceedings could be initiated
734
against the owners of one of these refuse heaps if it were proving to be a nuisance or if it were proving to be a public danger. In the case of the particular instance to which the noble Lord has referred, it would undoubtedly be a case, I think, which would be regarded as a nuisance. But the owners have a certain defence in proceedings taken against them, or proceedings which might be taken against them, if this Bill becomes law. If they have done all that is decided by the Sheriff's Court to be reasonably practicable to prevent these refuse heaps from becoming a nuisance, then that would be a good defence.
It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that at the present moment discussions are taking place between the technical officers of the Mines Department and the Department of Health in Scotland and the owners of the majority of the collieries where these dumps are actually on fire. It is apparently the case that no fewer than sixty-eight collieries at the present time own refuse heaps which are burning to a greater or less extent, and se far discussions have been entered into between the technical experts and thirty-three out of the thirty-eight companies who own these burning dumps. Discussion has still to be initiated with the remaining five companies. In addition to that, the technical officers have inspected some thirty-seven refuse heaps to enable them to suggest ameliorative measures suited to the conditions in each case. I understand that it is not easy to be certain of preventing one of these dumps from breaking out into fire, but precautionary measures are now possible, and, wherever these precautionary measures can be taken, as a result of the passing of this Bill they will have to be taken. I hope that to some extent that may have proved an answer to the noble Lord's question, though I quite appreciate it does not go the whole way to meet his point. On the whole the Government regard this Bill as a useful measure and wish to give it their blessing.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, there is nothing for me to say except to thank the noble Marquess for what he has said.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I would like to remind your Lordships that we shall meet to-morrow at a quarter before four o'clock—that is, at the usual time, instead of at three o'clock, as had been suggested.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.

Preamble
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 additional provision in the following Bill:
Droitwich Canals (Abandonment) [H.L.].
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
All Hallows Lombard Street.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petitions for the following Bills ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bills:
Saint Peter's Chapel, Stockport,
Milford Haven and Tenby Water,
Barmouth Urban District Council.
And that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for
738
additional provision in the following Bill:
London Passenger Transport Board ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

SAINT PETER'S CHAPEL, STOCKPORT BILL [H.L.] MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL. [H.L.] BARMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read 1a.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR PLACES OF HISTORIC INTEREST OR NATURAL BEAUTY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:

E. Granville,

L. Ellenborough,

L. Dorchester,

L. Snell,

L. Romer (Chairman).

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 10th of May next, at eleven o'clock; with leave to the promoters to be heard by Counsel if they see fit.