Sitting of 19 June 1940

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the borough of Wandsworth (Central Division) in the room of Colonel Harry Louis Nathan (Chiltern Hundreds) —[Sir Charles Edwards].
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  FARNHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ITALY (OVERSEAS POSSESSIONS).
  Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  (1) whether, in view of the declaration of war by Italy against this country, the British Government any longer feels itself bound to recognise in the future Italian rights in connection with Ethiopia; and whether the Government holds itself free to consider any proposals that may be laid before it in this connection by His Majesty Haile Selassie, or by the Ethiopian people;

  (2) whether he will make it clear that, under present conditions, the British Government in no way recognises Italian sovereignty over Albania?

  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): In view of Italy's unprovoked entry into the war against this country, His Majesty's Government hold themselves entitled to reserve full liberty of action in respect of any undertakings given by them in the past to the Italian Government concerning the Mediterranean, North or East African and Middle Eastern areas. The
  140
  hon. Member may therefore rest assured that his representations are being borne in mind.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND JAPAN (TIENTSIN, AGREEMENT).
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milneasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the terms of the settlement negotiated between the British and Japanese Governments regarding Tientsin?
  Mr. Butler: I am happy to state that His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government have signed in Tokyo to-day an Agreement on certain local questions relating to the British Concession at Tientsin. These questions include police arrangements for the suppression of terrorist acts and the more effective maintenance of law and order, the circulation of currency in the Concession, and the disposal and custody of the silver reserves in a Chinese bank in the Concession. The arrangement covering this latter point has received the assent of the Chinese Government. In order not to occupy the time of the House with a long statement on this matter at the present time, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate certain further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should, however, like to say that His Majesty's Government welcome the conclusion of this Agreement in the confidence that it will facilitate the removal of at least some of the disabilities under which British and other third Power nationals and their trading and shipping interests have been suffering in China, and also as a manifestation of the possibility of solving the mutual difficulties between our country and Japan by patient negotiation.
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions. Will he tell the House what has happened regarding the barricades that were erected round the Settlement, and can he say whether his reply referring to the silver deposited refers to the whole of the Chinese silver in British hands or what proportion of British silver; also whether it refers to that silver only?
  Mr. Butler: In answer to the first point, the barricades round the concession are now being removed; and in regard to the

  141
  second point, I think I should prefer to call it the Chinese silver. The Agreement provides for about one-tenth of the total amount to be used for the humanitarian purpose of relieving distress among the famine-stricken population in the Northern areas, while the balance will remain under seal in the bank until its ultimate disposal can be decided later.
  Following are the further details:
  Certain particulars of the Agreement relating to Tientsin signed at Tokyo on 19th June on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government are being laid before the House in a White Paper. This paper comprises a joint communiqué summarising the objects of the police agreement together with the text of the agreements reached on silver and currency. I would add the following observations to what I said in my Oral reply to the hon. Member.
  The police arrangements provide for closer co-operation between the British municipal administration and the local Japanese authorities in cases against persons in whose criminal activities the latter are interested. I wish to emphasise, however, that in such cases the necessary action will always be taken by the municipal police themselves and that the administrative integrity of the British Concession is fully preserved in the Agreement.
  The Japanese Government have contended that the silver reserves belong to the people of North China and should be surrendered for their use. The Chinese Government on the other hand claim their ownership as part of the reserves for the national currency. The provisional agreement now reached does not prejudge this issue. It provides that about one-tenth of the total amount shall be used for the humanitarian purpose of relieving distress among the famine-stricken population in the northern area, while the balance shall remain under seal in the bank until its ultimate disposal can be decided in a less controversial atmosphere than is now possible. This settlement of the problem has received the assent of the Chinese Government.
  The circulation of the Chinese national currency within the British municipal area will continue. Federal Reserve Bank notes have, however, for some time past circulated side by side with the national
  142
  currency. This existing state of affairs is recognised in the Agreement.
  As hon. Members are aware, barricades have for the past year been maintained round the Concession and numerous restrictions have been imposed on its residents. These barricades and restrictions are now being removed and the Japanese authorities in North China have also undertaken to do everything in their power to suppress any anti-British action or agitation in the regions under their control.

  TANGIER INTERNATIONAL ZONE.
  Mr. Manderasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the occupation of the international zone at Tangier by Spanish troops?
  Mr. Butler: On 14th June, the Spanish High Commissioner at Tetuan notified the French Consul-General that, in agreement with the French Government, the Spanish Government intended to occupy Tangier at once. On the same day also His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier received a note from the Spanish Consul-General stating that the military occupation of Tangier and its zone had been carried out by troops of the Shereefian Mahalla in the name of the Sultan of Morocco, with the exclusive object of securing the strict neutrality of Tangier. It was added that the occupation is of a provisional character, and that all the rights of interested Powers and of the established services in the zone would be respected.
  Mr. Liddall: Will my right hon. Friend recommend his right hon. Friend and the Government to take steps to clear out all Spanish troops from Tangier and so save a much more important and dangerous situation?
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that this occupation will in fact preserve the neutrality of that area?
  Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have been notified by the Spanish Government that they intend to respect the neutrality of Tangier.
  Mr. Shinwell: Are we receiving any information from the British Ambassador in Madrid?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That is why I said that we had been notified. His Majesty's Ambassador is very active.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AERODROME SITE, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Dr. Littleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the urgency of having a second aerodrome established at the earliest possible moment in Northern Ireland, he will give instructions that work on this aerodrome will be proceeded with at once in fulfilment of the repeated promises given during the past months?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I regret that it would not be in the public interest to add to the information given in my reply to the hon. Member on 23rd May.
    Dr. Little: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that several months ago an additional aerodrome was promised to be placed on a suitable site, that afterwards another site was prospected and a promise made that, if found suitable, an aerodrome would be erected thereon, and that, so far as is known, no steps have yet been taken to implement the promise made?
    Captain Balfour: In reply to the question as to whether or not the matter has been abandoned, I can assure my hon. friend that it has not, and it would not be in the public interest to say anything beyond that.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether, in order to expedite production, he will cut out unnecessary elaborations in specifications; and, in view of the fact that aircraft inspection department inspectors have no authority to sanction variations from specifications but must submit all queries to the technical or designs staff for decision, he will see that these departments are adequately staffed to enable prompt replies to be given?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): I can assure my hon. Friend
  144
  that close liaison exists between the design, production and maintenance directorates of this department to ensure that unnecessary elaborations in specifications are eliminated before production commences. Suggestions from contractors for speeding up production are encouraged, and I am satisfied that consideration of such suggestions is not delayed by lack of adequate staff. In addition the local technical staff stationed at firms have since the Ministry was formed been given wider discretionary power to release equipment not conforming precisely to specification.
  Mr. Cocks: Arising out of that very satisfactory answer, is it not the fact that in this department we have a Minister who gets things done?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir.

  POST OFFICE.

    BIRTH CONTROL BOOKLETS.
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that booklets advocating birth control, and giving many details of sex problems unsuitable for children to read about, are being sent through the post in open envelopes; that grave anxiety is being caused to parents by this procedure; and whether he will make it illegal to send such pamphlets through the post other than in sealed envelopes?
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware that booklets relating to these matters are sent through the post in open envelopes and that complaints occasionally arise. The transmission through the post, whether in open or sealed packets, of booklets couched in indecent or obscene terms is already prohibited and any new booklet brought under notice in this connection is examined, in case restrictive action may be necessary. The adoption of the suggestion in the last part of the Question would require legislation.
    Sir J. Lucas: Has my right hon. Friend taken specific action in the case that I sent to him last week, which was drawn to my attention by the workers themselves?
    Mr. Morrison: The case which my hon. and gallant Friend has sent to me is now under consideration.
    Mr. Denville: Cannot we put a stop to pamphlets during the war, as was done during the last war, in order to save paper?

    PRIORITY TELEPHONE CALLS.
    Mr. Gledhillasked the Postmaster-General whether Members may be granted the privilege of priority telephone calls from their constituencies when dealing with Departments on urgent Parliamentary or national matters?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: Owing to the heavy priority demands which are being made on the telephone service al the present time, it is essential to impose a rigid restriction on the use of the priority facility and, in the circumstances, I regret that I cannot extend the privilege of making priority calls in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend. If, however, hon. Members should find it necessary to make any individual calls of urgent public importance, they should have no difficulty in obtaining early connection if the position is explained to the supervisor.
    Mr. Gledhill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that firms engaged on direct Ministry of Supply contracts have this privilege of priority, and surely it is reasonable that, if a Member takes up some particular complaint or difficulty which firms are experiencing, he should have that privilege on that particular occasion?
    Mr. Morrison: As I have explained, individual cases of public importance can be dealt with, but the House will appreciate that the more priority facilities are extended in number the less valuable they are.
    Mr. Gledhill: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how the Member is to obtain that particular privilege?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. If there is any case which an hon. Member feels to be of sufficient national importance, he should ask for the supervisor at the exchange and say, "This is a matter of importance," and explain who he is, and then facilities will be granted in every possible way.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RELATIVES' VISITS).
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many wounded soldiers are in hospitals at a great distance from their homes; and whether he will take steps to transfer cases which entail no danger to the soldiers to the hospitals nearest their homes and thus enable wives and relatives to visit them at much reduced expense, and in many cases where the expense cannot be met from the allowances paid them?
    The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): In the circumstances in which most of these soldiers arrived in this country, it was not possible to distribute them to hospitals according to the location of their homes, and transport and other difficulties make it impracticable to arrange transfers except for medical reasons. When patients are well enough to travel by ordinary conveyance, they are sent on leave and instructed to report at hospitals near their homes.
    Sir R. Young: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that many of these wounded men who are located in the West and are far from their homes in the North and that the expenses of travelling are greater than the allowance received?
    Mr. Law: I think the expense of travelling is partly met.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that many of these men are not able to get home because the hospital refuses to help them by transport in any way? Will he see that the ambulance service is properly used, because in certain cases that I know of vehicles have been standing idle?
    Mr. Law: I will certainly look into that point.
    Mr. G. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many wives and mothers of wounded soldiers are unable to visit their relatives in hospital because the reduction in fares is nothing like enough? They cannot afford it, and will he consider a further reduction in these cases?
    Sir R. Youngasked the Secretary of State for War whether a free, or reduced-priced, railway ticket is granted to the wives of British Expeditionary Force wounded officers to enable them to visit their husbands in hospitals, where these are at a distance from their homes; and, if so, will he state the concession made regarding price and distance to be travelled?
    Mr. Law: For visits to an officer in hospial, his wife and his children under 16 years of age can use concession vouchers enabling them to make the double journey at single fare. When the officer is dangerously ill, a free travelling warrant will be allowed for two relatives if they are unable to afford the cost of the journey.
    Sir R. Young: Does that apply to other ranks as well?
    Mr. Law: This Question addressed itself only to officers, but it applies to other ranks as well.

    INSTRUCTIONS TO TROOPS.
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that there shall be at least one public wireless set in all main-line railway hotels and others frequented by troops on leave or passing through, in order to ensure that any urgent Government instructions to troops may be brought to their notice without delay in the event of other means of communication being disorganised?
    Mr. Law: The method of issuing instructions has received careful consideration, but my hon. and gallant Friend will perhaps agree that it would not be advisable to make a statement on the subject.

    EX-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will exercise a liberal discretion in regard to the medical histories of ex-warrant and non-commissioned officers who served in the last war and are yet well able and anxious to serve their country at this time; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Mr. Law: Men who served in the last war may be accepted up to 50 years of age for the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps and for Home Defence Battalions, and up to 57 years of age for instructional
    148
    duties, provided that they are physically fit for active work.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that this matter is causing very great concern to members of the British Legion throughout the country, and my own branch in Greenock in particular, and does he recognise that these men have qualifications to train although their medical qualifications, in the eyes of the War Office, are not A1? Will he do something in connection with the matter to allow their ability to be used for the good of the country?
    Mr. Law: I do not think I can add anything to the answer.

  DUNKIRK EVACUATION (CIVILIAN SHIPPING LOSSES).
  Captain Pluggeasked the Minister of Shipping whether it is proposed to replace small vessels belonging to civilians who were called on to help with the evacuation from Dunkirk and which were lost in the operations?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping (Sir Arthur Salter):
  I am afraid it would be impracticable for my Department to replace small vessels lost during the evacuation from Dunkirk, but owners may claim compensation for their loss. A notice which deals with this point among others has been issued to the owners of all ships known to have been engaged in the operation.

  EVACUATION TO DOMINIONS.

    ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can yet make any statement as to the possibility of sending children and mothers to Canada and the United States of America; and whether the names of those who wish to go should be sent to him for registration, together with their ability to make any financial contribution?
    Captain McEwenasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in considering the question of the evacuation of children from the United Kingdom to Canada and Australia, consideration has been given to the possibility of including French children in the scheme?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): This and other questions relating to the same subject have been considered by the Committee mentioned in my answer yesterday to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal proposes, with the permission of the House, to make a statement on the whole subject at the end of Questions, and I would ask the right hon. Member to await that statement.
    At the end of Questions:
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The Inter-Departmental Committee set up to consider offers from the Dominions, the United States and elsewhere for the reception of British children overseas has presented its Report, and the Government has adopted it as a basis for approach to the Dominion Governments. The Report will be published forthwith, and copies will be available in the Vote Office this evening. An executive body to be called the Children's Overseas Reception Board will immediately be established with the necessary secretarial staff to administer the scheme in this country. The Chairman of this Board will be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who will answer all Questions in Parliament in connection with the operation of the scheme. He will be assisted by an Advisory Council composed of persons with experience of the problems involved. Lord Snell has consented to act as Chairman of this Advisory Council, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions have also agreed to serve on the Advisory Council.
    His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are deeply grateful for the generous offers received from the Dominions and elsewhere to maintain and educate for the period of war children sent out from Great Britain. The Government consider the establishment of the necessary machinery for the operation of the scheme to be a matter of the utmost urgency. Preliminary discussions have already taken place with representatives of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and I have every confidence that the consent of those Governments
    150
    and complete co-operation in the scheme will be forthcoming at an early date.
    Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask whether, whatever the limitations of the Dominions scheme may be, the American offer will possibly include children under five, mothers and old people, whether the American offer is to take children without any payment, and whether the American Government have now been approached by the Government as have been the Dominion Governments?
    Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will look at the Report first of all, to see what has been done.
    Colonel Wedgwood: But the Report does not deal with America. Cannot my right hon. Friend tell me whether America has been approached?
    Mr. Attlee: The Report does cover the United States as well.
    Captain Sir William Brass: Will the Minister get into touch with the Fairbridge Farm Schools, which are very experienced in migrating children?
    Mr. Attlee: That has already been done.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Will some arrangements be made whereby those who wish to migrate their children to America and Canada, and cannot at present do so because of the exchange difficulties, although they are prepared to pay the money themselves, may be able to do so?
    Mr. Attlee: That is also dealt with.
    Mr. Logan: What experience of children have the people who have been appointed?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the nature of the Advisory Council? It is very important that this body should be a businesslike body with experience of the migration of children.
    Sir Annesley Somerville: As the Advisory Council cannot possibly be an executive body, may I ask in whose hands the executive power will be placed?
    Mr. Attlee: The executive power is in the hands of the Government, acting through the Minister. I have not yet set out all the names of the Advisory Council, because not all the appointments have yet been made. I have merely indicated certain of the appointments.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a woman with experience of children is appointed on the Advisory Council?
    Mr. Attlee: I will bring that point before my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Lindsay: I gather that an Advisory Council, of which some names have been mentioned, is to be set up, but is there also to be an overseas reception board which is to be entirely run by the Government with representatives of shipping companies and voluntary organisations and people with knowledge of the subject?
    Mr. Attlee: I thought I made it clear. I gave the name of the chairman and certain members, but, of course, the Advisory Council will include people with experience of such problems. That is what I stated.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: As this is far too big a question to be discussed across the Floor of the House by question and answer, will my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity of debating the report when it is produced?
    Mr. Attlee: Of course, the hon. and gallant Member can raise this question again at a proper opportunity, and doubtless he will do so when he has received the report.
    Mr. Maxton: Under what Supply Vote will this come?
    Mr. Attlee: The Dominions Vote.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSION SAND GRANTS.
    Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Gunner Peter Dykstra, No. 933434, Royal Artillery, has had his right foot blown off and now only receives 9s. 9d. per week pension; that he gave his widowed mother 40s. per week before joining up; and what action does he intend to take to make a more adequate pension allowance?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the facts. Mr. Dykstra is at present receiving pension at the total disablement rate, and will continue to receive this rate until an artificial foot has been fitted and he is
    152
    judged to be in a condition to use it. The rate of 9s. 9d. referred to is that judged to be appropriate to the estimated permanent disablement.
    Mr. Logan: Is it not a fact that this man is receiving only 9s. 9d.?
    Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. He is not; he is receiving 32s. 6d.
    Mr. Logan: Would the Minister kindly see whether this man is receiving that money, because I have not got that information?
    Mr. Leslie Boyce: On a point of Order. Is it not a gratuitous waste of time of the House to have these individual cases brought forward when, as has been admitted in the House, the facts of this case were not known to the hon. Member who raised the Question and could have been obtained by writing to the Minister?
    Mr. Logan: Further to that point of Order. I have the facts from the man's home in my pocket now, so that it is not a gratuitous waste of time.
    Mr. Speaker: I have often dealt with that point of Order before. It has always been the practice in this House that Members can bring cases of local or individual personal interest to the notice of the House at Question Time.
    Sir W. Womersley: May I suggest that the hon. Member sees me after Questions?

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    BINOCULARS AND TELESCOPES.
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce immediate legislation making the possession of a licence compulsory before any individual can purchase any prismatic compass, or any form of sight-aiding glass other than spectacles, such as binoculars and telescopes?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend agrees with the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view, but he is informed that the Ministry of Supply have not only absorbed the entire manufacturing capacity for these instruments, but have also purchased from dealers all available stocks of binoculars

    153
    and telescopes which are suitable for Army use. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by attempting to control their sale.

    AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
    Major McCallum (for Mr. Martin)asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the shortage of steel, he will consider taking control of the supply of shelters, etc., by private firms?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): The object which my hon. Friend has in view is already achieved under the Steel Control set up by the Ministry of Supply. Steel for air-raid precautions purposes can now be obtained only under specific authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    PRIVATE FORTUNES.
    Mr. Rileyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate number and total value of private fortunes in Great Britain in excess of £10,000 and £20,000, respectively?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): No, Sir. I regret that the information is not available.
    Mr. Riley: Have the Government any intention of levying a special contribution on these fortunes for the prosecution of the war?

    FACTORIES (WELFARE WORK).
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour what measures are being taken, in the factories and workshops under his control, to care for the health and welfare of the young persons employed at these places; and, in particular, the increasing number of young women in employment?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): Detailed measures for the health and welfare of persons employed at factories are required under the Factory Acts. These are supplemented to a considerable extent by voluntary action by employers and others, and my right hon. Friend is developing a special organisation, which includes a central Factory and Welfare
    154
    Advisory Board, for promoting, with the assistance of the Factory Inspectors and other local officers, further action for the welfare of the employés outside as well as inside the factory. My right hon. Friend was assured yesterday of the support of a large number of voluntary organisations which are interested in this matter.

    SKILLED ENGINEERS.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he is aware that there are thousands of skilled engineers who desire to make a greater contribution to the national effort, many of whom are working pre-war hours; that many of these men have applied for permission to leave in order to start at firms where men are feeling the strain of continuous overtime and have been refused; that some firms engaged on urgently required equipment are not on continuous working; and what steps are being taken to ensure maximum production by using skilled experience to the best advantage, avoiding strain and encouraging the workpeople in their effort for the nation?
    Mr. Assheton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on 22nd May by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal as to the establishment of the Production Council and local organisations based on area boards to deal with the regulation of labour supply. The Labour Supply Committees are beginning to function, and a staff of inspectors of labour supply has been appointed. The immediate duties of these bodies will include a survey of the labour position in their areas and the arrangements for transferring workpeople from one factory or job to another as required to secure the best use of available labour. Skilled engineers at present engaged on nonessential production who want to transfer to armaments work should give their names and addresses and occupations to the local Employment Exchange, but they should not leave their present employment until asked to do so. I have no information that permission is being refused to men engaged on less essential work to leave their employment for work of national importance. If my hon. Friend has knowledge of such cases, perhaps he would be good enough to send me particulars. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have just given

    155
    to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on the subject of the health and welfare of workers.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that the answer is totally unsatisfactory, will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Minister of Supply and the Minister for Aircraft Production as soon as possible because of the uneasiness which is finding expression in the engineering industry? Further, will he as soon as possible see that all the available skilled labour is utilised in order that the nation can get the best possible results and that three shifts are worked in the case of the most needed equipment, and aircraft production?
    Mr. Assheton: I need hardly say that my right hon. Friend is in constant touch with the Minister of Supply and the Minister for Aircraft Production, and is most anxious to meet all the demands that are made.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the Parliamentary Secretary any information to show that in some factories engaged on essential production the men are not fully employed? Is that matter being immediately investigated?
    Mr. Assheton: That is a matter which is not a concern only of the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not the question of the full utilisation of our labour resources in munition factories a question for the Minister of Labour?
    Mr. Assheton: It is a question in which the Minister of Labour has a close and important interest, but it is a matter which also concerns other Departments.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that these Ministries do not work in watertight compartments and that there is more liaison beween them, so that results may be obtained more quickly?
    Mr. Assheton: There is no question of the Departments working in watertight compartments, and the Production Council is in constant session.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of skilled engineers doing insurance work in the
    156
    country? Does he not think that these men should report to the Employment Exchanges throughout the country?
    Mr. Assheton: I hope that the Question and the Supplementary Questions will draw further attention to this matter.

    CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether he will, in war-time, apply the same rules regarding the efficient conduct of the war to senior civil servants as to military commanders and will consider retiring or transferring to other positions all high civil servants who were specially associated with the policy which has resulted in a deficiency of tanks, aeroplanes and other weapons of war?
    Mr. Attlee: No distinction exists in the treatment accorded to military and civil officers where any question of efficiency is concerned. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had occasion to point out to the House on the 6th June, responsibility for policy rests not upon officials but upon Ministers.
    Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that often the efforts of a Minister may be hampered by civil servants who have been trained in the old school of circumlocution and delay?
    Mr. Attlee: The answer to the hon. Member is that if a Minister finds that his orders are not being carried out, he has his remedy.
    Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the original answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall never get on with this job unless there is a ruthless cutting away of the dead wood in the Civil Service?

    WOMEN'S ORGANISATIONS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider some scheme of unification for all the existing organisations engaged on war work and national service, dealing with the recruitment and enlistment of women throughout the country, with a view to ensuring greater efficiency and co-ordination?
    Mr. Attlee: Every effort is made to co-ordinate the activities of organisations engaged in recruiting women for the various branches of national service. I am satisfied that no further special measures are necessary.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not true that while many of these organisations are doing excellent work, it is also true that there is a great deal of overlapping and competition? Would it not be very desirable to have compulsory service for all women up to a certain age?
    Mr. Attlee: I do not think so.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same inefficiency exists in other organisations and that there is no real co-ordination between the services?

    GRAMPIAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY SCHEME.
    Major McCallum (for Mr. Snadden)asked the Minister of Transport why the Grampian Electric Supply Company are allowed to continue work on their extensive schemes in the districts of Dalwhinnie and Laggan, having regard to the length of time that must elapse before these schemes become productive; the large number of skilled men employed; the quantity of material used; and the need for skilled men and material in the production of essential war munitions?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I have looked into this matter, and I am satisfied that the work is fully justified.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (CHILDREN, SCHOOL-LEAVING CERTIFICATES).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he has arrived at a decision with regard to reintroducing the practice whereby Employment Exchanges ask to see the school-leaving certificates of children registering for the first time?
  Mr. Assheton: As was promised in reply to my hon. Friend's Question on this subject on 6th February last, this matter was considered, and Employment Exchanges were authorised last March to revive the practice where this could usefully be done.

  TANK PRODUCTION.
  Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Minister for Tank Production with similar powers to those of the Minister for Aircraft Production?
  Mr. Attlee: While I fully appreciate the need for the supply as quickly as may be of the largest possible number of tanks, I think this object will best be secured by the improvements of the tank organisation in the Ministry of Supply, which are being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
  Mr. Cocks: Is not the production of tanks so important that it might very well absorb the whole attention of a single Minister?
  Mr. Attlee: I do not think so.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (EGGS).
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the rationing of eggs before the autumn?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): It is not intended to introduce a scheme for the rationing of eggs.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is that because there are too many, or because the public do not require them? Why this hesitation about the rationing of eggs in the present circumstances?
  Mr. Boothby: It is because it is almost impossible from the point of view of distribution and also from the point of view of supply.
  Mr. Buchanan: But were you not put into the Government to accomplish the impossible?
  Mr. Boothby: Perhaps I shall.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    SCRAP METAL.
    Mr. Marcus Samuelasked the Minister of Supply whether he will give orders to organise a house-to-house collection and requisition all scrap-metal, commandeering for this purpose the transport services of the local authorities or their contractors, without further delay?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Most local authorities, acting on recommendations from my Department, are already making house-to-house collections of salvage, including scrap

    159
    metals, using for this purpose their transport services. The Iron and Steel Control have launched a village dump scheme through the rural district councils to collect scrap metal in the country districts. The question of issuing an Order or Orders for the fuller organisation of house-to-house collections and the requisitioning of scrap metal, including the use of the services of local authorities and others, is now being considered in consultation with the Advisory Committee of Members of Parliament, and I hope to arrive at a decision thereon shortly.
    Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of local authorities being compelled to take this action in regard to scrap metal?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a point which is under consideration, and I expect to reach a conclusion upon it soon.
    Sir F. Fremantle: May I ask whether the demolition squads which exist throughout the country and which have the transport necessary, could not be used for this purpose while idle and doing nothing?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a matter upon which the views of the Civil Defence authorities will have to be considered, but I will see that the point is looked into.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are tons and tons of scrap iron and metal available but that local authorities are taking no steps whatever to collect it?
    Mr. Morrison: That is rather a sweeping statement.
    Sir W. Smithers: It is true.
    Mr. Morrison: It may be true of some authorities, but in any case I am giving the matter consideration.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask local authorities to organise a scrap-metal week in their areas?
    Mr. Morrison: I will consider that point.
    Mr. Naylorasked the Minister of Supply what offer of iron railings he has received from the London Inns of Court?
    Mr. Morrison: The London Inns of Court are already taking steps to release non-essential railings for scrap purposes,
    160
    and I am in communication with them as to the arrangements for disposal.
    Mr. Logan: Will the Minister take into consideration the question whether scrap railings should be kept for the purpose of hostilities?
    Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Supply whether he has received any information about the three-ton German gun that stands on Westerham Green, Kent; and whether the gun will be melted down for munitions?
    Mr. Morrison: No information has been received in respect of the German gun on Westerham Green, but local authorities have been invited to offer such guns for scrap purposes, and I have given instructions for the local authority to be approached with a view to the gun being removed.

    WASTE FOODSTUFFS (SALVAGE).
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that on the lines of the organisation of kitchen waste collection in the boroughs of Tottenham, East Ham and West Ham, about one ton of excellent animal feeding-stuffs per week is obtainable from the dwellings of every 6,000 of the urban population; and whether he will take steps to organise this source of supply on a national scale before effect is given to the proposal that two-thirds of the pig and poultry industries of this country should be destroyed?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the activities of the boroughs referred to in the collection of kitchen waste for stock feeding, and am in close touch with the arrangements proposed by a firm in Stratford, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and my Department, whereby such waste, together with collections from other districts within a radius of 10 to 15 miles, would be treated for the production of feeding meals. A conference on the subject with representatives of boroughs in the London area has been held, and I am giving consideration to the possibility of developing similar arrangements in other parts of the country so far as suitable plants are available.
    Sir P. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consultation the authorities in the rural areas?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; so far as they can function in the organisation they will be consulted.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on collectors' carts in West Ham there is a big basket at the end in which to collect all the tins and cans?
    Mr. R. Gibson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned "other parts of the country" in his reply. Has he Scotland it view?

    SHEET AND TINPLATE WORKS, SOUTH WALES.
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Supply whether he will have a survey made, in South Wales and elsewhere, of the buildings formerly used as tinplate and sheet-works with a view to their adaptation for use for production and storage?
    Mr. H. Morrison: An investigation is at present being made into the position of the sheet and tinplate works in South Wales which are not in operation and which are not likely to be required as such during the war. The investigation also covers a number of small plants working much below capacity. When the results of the investigation are available, consideration will be given to the question of the adaptation of these works for other production or for storage. A number of such buildings have already been inspected, and steps will be taken at an early date to obtain the use of such as are suitable and required for storage.

    PRODUCTION COUNCIL.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Supply what changes have been carried out in area organisation that will tend to secure the maximum production in the minimum of time?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) to which I cannot yet add anything.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that the spirit of determination of the people was never greater and that they are getting concerned because that spirit of determination is not being harnessed to secure the maximum results?
    Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend need not be apprehensive on that point. My spirit of determination is as great as that of anybody else.

    DELIVERIES.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Minister of Supply whether there is a national and local system of processing and fixing of delivery dates; is there a national and local check kept on the maintenance of delivery dates, or what machinery functions to deal with these problems; and is he satisfied with the efficiency of that machinery?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Progress on contracts is watched, both at headquarters in the several production branches, and locally through the area organisation and progress officers.

    NON-FERROUS METAL CONTROL.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply whether the fee of £221,400 payable to the British Metal Corporation for' managing the non-ferrous metal control was for the period ending 31st December, 1939; and the number of months' service rendered by that date?
    Mr. H. Morrison: The Non-Ferrous Metal Control was set up at the beginning of the war, and the annual fee of £220,750 is payable for the first year of the war, that is, from September, 1939, to September, 1940.

    TANKS.
    Commander Locker-Lampsonasked the Minister of Supply whether he will invite the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) to sit upon all committees under his Department investigating tanks or dive-bombing, in view of his experience in the last war?
    Mr. H. Morrison: There are no Ministry of Supply committees investigating dive-bombing. As regards committees on tanks, I am well aware of the experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) in the last war. I think, however, that it would be unreasonable to expect me to limit the exercise of my Ministerial discretion to the extent of giving a pledge that one person should be a member of all committees on one subject.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was only asking for the hon. and gallant

    163
    Member for Hertford to be on one of these committees? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting this eminent expert on some valuable work? Why is he excluded? Why not get the best man?
    Mr. Morrison: I am always ready to consider all suggestions, but the responsibility for selection must rest with me, and it is not a matter with which I can deal across the Floor of the House.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Has my right hon. Friend been in contact with the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford and asked for his views on the possibility of the contribution he could make in these difficult times?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I have been devoting all my attention to the reorganisation of tank production. That was the first thing to receive my attention. I have every respect for the knowledge and experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford, but I can assure the House that if I saw everybody who has great knowledge of tanks, I should do very little else.

    SIR ALEXANDER GIBB AND PARTNERS.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply on what grounds Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners have been appointed as consulting engineers and agents to his Ministry; and what are the conditions of their appointment and the fees to be paid them?
    Mr. H. Morrison: Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners were employed last autumn as consulting engineers in respect of three specific factories only. They were selected because they were regarded as being the most suitable firm for the work. Messrs. Gibb will receive an annual fee of £15,000 in addition to the approved expenditure incurred by them.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern in the engineering world on account of this appointment? With all respect to the competence of the firm, would it not be a good thing if the Minister would cause to be removed from their letter-heading the statement that they are appointed consulting engineers and agents for the Ministry of Supply?
    Mr. Morrison: In respect of these particular factories that would be true, but
    164
    if the letter-heading has a wider implication, I will certainly consider the point. The hon. Member will appreciate that the appointment was made some time ago. I have no reason to believe it was a wrong appointment, but I will give consideration to the point to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that the workpeople of this country have been asked, and are willing, to make very great sacrifices, will the Minister bear in mind that the publication of figures of the sort he has mentioned does cause grave concern?
    Mr. Morrison: I have published the figures because the hon. Member asked a Question on the matter. The Question being asked, I do not think I had any right to refuse to answer it. Certainly, the point which the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has mentioned is a relevant one. Of course, these are fees for highly specialised professional services, and I understand they are in the region of what is usually paid. I will keep in mind the point he has made.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister bear in mind that the working classes of this country, the miners, for example, are sacrificing customs that have been established for hundreds of years, and are dismayed when other people are paid such fees?
    Mr. Morrison: That is a fair point. This is an appointment which I did not make myself, but one must face the realities of the position all round. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that those other considerations are relevant.
    Mr. Kirkwood: It this a full-time job?
    Mr. Morrison: It is a very big job. It is the building of three very big factories that will run to a very high cost.

    SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the fact that the names of controllers of all departments have been published, he will give his reasons for not publishing the names of the chief scientific men employed in his Ministry, together with the names of their departments?
    Mr. H. Morrison: As I informed my hon. Friend on 12th June, the detailed

    165
    information for which he asks could not be published without giving an indication of the lines of the war-time research programme, but I am prepared to give him the information privately.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider how impossible it is for people to be able to appreciate with whom they should communicate on these points if they do not even know the people responsible for the various Departments concerned? There is nothing private about this.
    Mr. Morrison: Anybody knows that he can communicate with the Ministry of Supply, and the communication will be passed on. I must remind the hon. Member that the Question he asked me was a highly indiscreet one, in which he wanted information that would give the enemy knowledge of the general lines of our research. This research is exceedingly secret, and I, at any rate, must exercise a proper sense of responsibility.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister realise that I have no desire to ask for information that would give help to the enemy? Quite the contrary. What is desired is that the names should be known so that people would know that the departments are being managed by the most competent persons.
    Mr. Morrison: Certainly, I would not accuse the hon. Member of any such desire. I was only giving him advice.

    LINEN MANUFACTURE, NORTHERN IRELAND.
    Dr. Littleasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that in a firm of linen and damask manufacturers in Northern Ireland, having 600 looms and over 300 making-up machines, only 10 per cent. of the looms are being utilised by, and not a single making-up machine is doing work for, his Department; and whether, in view of the urgent need at present for such materials as this firm can supply, he will make use of their resources to the fullest possible extent?
    Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware of the identity of the firm in question. Speaking generally, however, it is not possible in existing circumstances, owing to the shortage of flax and the consequent necessity of using substitute materials, to keep linen manufacturers fully employed on Government orders.
    Dr. Little: Will the Minister take into consideration their position and give them as much work as possible?
    Mr. Morrison: I have very great sympathy with the hon. Member's point, but the position is that really there is no immediate use for this type of product to the extent indicated.

  NORWAY (OVERSEAS POSSESSIONS).
  Mr. Parkerasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Norwegian overseas possessions have been occupied by Allied Forces to prevent their use as German bases?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will appreciate that I must confine myself to saying that the importance of these overseas possessions has been gauged.

  ANTI-FASCIST PROPAGANDA.
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Information whether he has secured the services of Italian anti-Fascists in exile in this country for the purpose of propaganda among the Italian people; whether he has taken action to influence the Italian people in this country, the British Empire and neutral countries against Fascist theories and practice, and towards democratic principles of peace and social order; and whether he will secure the services to this end of prominent American citizens of Italian origin?
  The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answers to the first two parts of the Question are in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I understand that a number of United States citizens of Italian origin have already voiced their criticism of the action of the Italian Government, but I do not think it would be desirable to enlist the services of United States citizens in the manner suggested.
  Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether those American citizens of Italian origin who have voiced their criticism of the present Italian Government have had their remarks broadcast from this country to the Italian people?
  Mr. Cooper: I am not sure. I will look into the point.

  COLONIES (COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE).
  Captain Pluggeasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the names of those Colonies in which compulsory military training has been introduced; and whether he will recommend the adoption of this step in those Colonies where the system has not already been introduced?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Legislation providing for compulsory military service exists in the British Solomon Islands, Ceylon, the Falkland Islands, Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Hong Kong, Kenya, Uganda, Malaya, Tonga, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Proposals are now under consideration for the introduction of similar legislation in the four West African Colonies, namely, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria. It has not so far been found necessary to introduce legislation of this kind in other parts of the Colonial Empire.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is the Minister giving the suggestion to the various parts of the Colonial Empire, because he ought to institute a service of this kind at the earliest possible moment, in view of the present situation?
  Mr. Hall: I made reference to that point in the concluding part of my reply.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Will the extension to the West African Colonies include the Protectorates as well as the Colonies proper?
  Mr. Hall: I have given the names of Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast and Nigeria.
  Dr. Guest: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that in the case of Nigeria part of it is a Colony and part of it is a Protectorate. Will this apply to both parts?
  Mr. Hall: I will look into that and will let the hon. Member know.

  WEST AFRICA (NEWSPAPERS, PAPER SUPPLIES).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
  168
  he is aware that whilst paper for printing is available for journals issued for and published by British firms in West Africa, native printers and publishers cannot secure supplies; whether he will state the firms controlling the importation of paper into West Africa; and whether, to allay discontent, he will arrange that native printers and publishers should be able to secure a quota of paper?
  Mr. George Hall: The position is, as I informed my hon. Friend in reply to his Question on 22nd May, that newspaper proprietors in West Africa have so far been left to make their own arrangements for the supply of newsprint. None of them, so far as I am aware, has asked the Government for assistance in obtaining supplies, but the matter is at present under review: and the suggestion made by my hon. Friend will be considered.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can we have a reply at an early date as to whether they can obtain supplies?
  Mr. Hall: As is stated in the reply, we have had no complaints from any of the newspaper proprietors that they have been unable to receive supplies. I will certainly inquire on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Third Reading of the Finance Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[Mr. Attlee.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill, with Amendments.

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords].
THE CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS, pursuant to Standing Order 88, called the attention of the House to certain points in connection with the Bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FINANCE BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Special provisions as to mines, oil-wells, etc.)
    (1) Upon an application made with respect to any class of trades or businesses consisting in the getting of minerals or oil from any mine, oil-well, or similar natural source of a wasting nature, the Board of Referees may by Order direct that in relation to trades or businesses of that class the references in Section twenty-seven of this Act to 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. and the references in Sub-section (9) of Section thirteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, to 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. shall, where the person carrying on the particular trade or business so desires, be construed as if thy were references to 6, 8, or 10 per cent., as the case may be, increased to such extent as may be specified in the order:
    Provided that no order shall provide for increasing the said percentages by more than a further 4 per cent.
    (2) Where any such order has been made with respect to trades or businesses of any class, then, in the case of a trade or business part only of which falls within that class, the increased percentages shall be applicable to such extent as may be just, having regard to the extent to which the trade or business falls within that class.
    (3) The powers of the Commissioners and the Board of Referees under Section twenty-seven of this Act, as applied by the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall, in relation to any trade or business falling wholly or partly within any class with respect to which such an order as aforesaid has been made, include power to proceed as if the provisions of the said Fifth Schedule so applying the said Section twenty-seven were adapted and modified to such extent, if any, as they may think necessary in order to enable effect to be given to the provisions of this Section.
    (4) This Section shall apply to any subdivision of a class of trades or businesses based either on any special feature of the trades or businesses within that sub-division or on locality as it applies to a class of trades or businesses, in any case where the Board of Referees are of opinion that the sub-division can properly be dealt with separately.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.40 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause deals with certain aspects of excess profits taxation. The House will remember that when we discussed it on the Committee stage I gave an undertaking to take into consideration
    178
    a number of suggestions that were made then. I stated that I was impressed with the case that had been put in relation to companies working wasting assets. On further consideration of the matter, I had to admit that a case had been made out for allowing a higher percentage upon the capital of concerns engaged in obtaining minerals, oils, or similar natural wasting sources. In such cases the return on the capital must provide, over the life of the wasting source, for the amortisation of the capital expended on the undertaking. This is particularly necessary at the present time because the wastage of such assets during the war has been and will be accelerated by the demands made on industry for increased output, and this, of course, inevitably affects our natural resources. The Government have recently made many requests in cases of this kind which have been responded to by the concerns affected.
    This new Clause will affect two classes of percentages on capital. The first is the 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. laid down in Clause 27 of the Bill in relation to the application for a substituted standard where the profits of the standard period are very low. The second is the statutory percentages of 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. on capital prescribed in Section 13, Subsection (9) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, as amended by Clause 31 (2) of this Bill. I think it is right to weight the allowance for this particular factor and to provide for a ceiling of the ordinary rate plus a further rate of 4 per cent. It is true that under the provisions of the new Clause the Board of Referees might, in theory, grant the whole of the additional 4 per cent. in any case that comes before them. I suggest that it would be much more likely that, although the maximum addition to be made in the most extreme type of case might go to that extent, the Board will grant additions of 1, 2 or 3 per cent. in cases of this description. It is for the Board of Referees to decide whether an application is made by a body of persons who can claim to represent any sufficient part of a trade or business, and they will decide whether an application can be made in general terms or whether individual application will have to be made. On the last occasion the Committee agreed with me that this was a case that I should meet. I have considered the other cases, but this is the only one which is not met by other

    179
    provisions in the Bill. It is, I think, a fair and reasonable concession to make.
    3.46 p.m.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Those of us who have been connected with the mining industry are wary about this proposal. I well recall that at the end of the 1926 stoppage in the coal industry, when we made new wages agreements, we had to discuss a re-arrangement of the ascertainment of wages, and the question of what permissible costs apart from wages were to be set off came under consideration. The question raised by this new Clause was then brought forward, and the claim was made that, because the mining industry was engaged in obtaining a wasting asset, that coal was being worked and that some day it would be worked away and all the capital sunk in it lost, therefore the owners were entitled to claim an amortisation allowance. I would remind the Chancellor that that claim was closely argued. In the end it was withdrawn in some areas, the owners being convinced that a claim had not been made out, but where it was not withdrawn it was submitted to independent arbitration and turned down.
    I would ask the Chancellor to give further consideration to this question. Those of us who are connected with the mining industry want to see the owners given the same fair play as everybody else, but we do not want to see, and we shall not stand for, profits being made out of the mining industry in this war on the scale on which they were made in the last war. In company with my colleagues in South Wales, I attended a conference last Saturday at Cardiff at which the miners were asked, and willingly and enthusiastically gave, a pledge to do their utmost in the national interest at this time. They were asked to give up things which they valued very much. The South Wales miners were asked to work on a Sunday night, and that was asking them to do something against their religious instincts. They were asked to give up practices and customs, and they agreed to give them up willingly because they believed they were thereby doing a service to the nation. A personal appeal was made by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. We were asked, "If the miners respond to this appeal and put forward their best effort, are we sure that
    180
    that effort is being made for the nation and not for the profit of individuals?" We replied, what we all understood to be the case, that the profits of the coal mining industry would be subject to the same provisions as other industries, and that there would be 100 per cent. tax on all excess profits.
    What is the position in which the Chancellor is placing us to-day? Under this new Clause the mining industry may be able to get more favourable terms and extra profits. That is the meaning of it. They will be able to go to the tribunal and say, "We are working in the mining industry, engaged upon what is a wasting asset and therefore we are entitled to an increased rate of dividend, to something over and above what is going to other industries." It is not merely the coal that is a wasting asset; the life of the miner is a wasting asset, and when men are asked to speed up in the pits it means that they are being asked to take greater risks. We are not merely speeding up production but speeding up danger. I would speak frankly and say that this is not the time to give the mine owners greater profits.
    Mr. Spens: What does the hon. Member mean by mine owners? Does he mean royalty owners?
    Mr. Griffiths: I understand that this provision does not apply to royalty owners. We settled the royalty owners a long time ago, and they have no claim. I ask the Chancellor to consider the point of view I have put forward, because it is not a service to the nation but a disservice to give the owners of coal this augmentation of profits. We know what the position is now. We know that profits are being made, far too large profits. Why should the owners be allowed to make this appeal? It is an appeal which has been turned down before. It is something they have tried in wages ascertainment negotiations for many years past. As it has been turned down in that connection why should the Chancellor admit the claim now? The Chancellor said that representations had been made to him about the matter. In days like these, when we want national unity, it should have occurred to him that in a matter of this kind, having regard to the agreements existing in the mining industry, the men's representative should have been con-

    181
    stlted. In the wages ascertainment arrangements, first of all the prices realised for coal are ascertained and then there is set off against that sum wages costs and costs other than wages. Therefore, proposals of this kind vitally affect the wages of the men. Was any consideration given to the question of consulting the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was for years Secretary for Mines, and in considering this problem he must have had in the background of his mind his knowledge of the mining industry and its problems. Why should not the Mineworkers' Federation be consulted? It has quite as much right to be consulted as have the mine owners. Therefore, I ask the Chancellor to withdraw this Clause. In the interests of the nation we have asked the miners to give everything for the nation, and they will do so, but if it goes out from this House that we are giving the mine owners more profits, that will undermine anything that we are doing.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. Spens: I do hope that my hon. Friends opposite will not think that I am speaking on behalf of property or anything of that sort. I take an entirely different view from that which I was so very sorry to hear put forward by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I would remind him that during recent years the mining industry has been working under Government schemes. All bon. Members opposite know this. Those Government schemes have been introduced under the Coal Mines Act for the reason that the mining industry, and particularly the export section of it, has been a depressed industry. The mine owners, I mean the working owners, the lessees, have been controlled by sales schemes and all sorts of things, and in the depressed sections of the mining industry, as hon. Members opposite know very well, there has been a constant carrying forward of deficits on wages ascertainments, particularly in Durham and South Wales.
    Mr. Batey rose—
    Mr. Spens: No, let me put my point. I want to put it fairly. Hon. Members also know that as the war approached and since the war has started the mine owners of this country have been called upon by the Government to make superhuman efforts
    182
    to increase production in order to increase the export trade.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: So have the miners.
    Mr. Spens: Yes, and the miners. I want hon. Members to listen patiently. I am not trying to put a hostile case. Indeed, so different is the position that I wish the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), with whom I have talked this over, were here. I very much regret his absence from the House. What was the position? These mining companies, which had been struggling in these depressed areas, had little or no finance with which to open up and develop additional coal faces. They were in grave financial difficulties. But, answering the call of the Government, they set to work to raise additional finance and to get the mines back into production. There is not an hon. Member opposite who does not know that in Durham, in South Wales and elsewhere coal is being produced to-day which none of us could have hoped two years ago would have been produced.
    What was the position when the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Duty was introduced? It is not a standard of distributable profits. Hon. Members must realise that the standard profits are all that the owner of the business has to put aside for reserves, for capital improvements and for distribution of dividends—they are all he has to deal with as his. All the rest belongs to the Government. Therefore, when the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax was introduced owners said, "We are willing to do all we can to get our mines back into full production. We want to employ every miner we can. There are miners whom we can get back into production, but we must have money to do it. If we have only the ordinary standards of profit left to us we shall not have finance with which to do it." It is not only the mine owners who are affected, but hundreds of thousands of miners cannot be brought back into work unless some exception is made for this particular depressed industry.
    I make no apology to the House or to those who represent miners for saying that in the last three months I have been doing all I can to try to get out of my right hon. Friend an arrangement under which some special consideration shall be given to the mining industry in order that this great development of the mines of the

    183
    country may go on. I ask hon. Members who take the opposite view seriously to reconsider whether they are doing a wise thing, because, believe me, if this Clause does not go into the Bill, the extension of the mining industry which is so desperately necessary for our war effort, particularly in Durham and South Wales in respect of our export trade, is bound to be curtailed. Therefore, I beg my right hon. Friend to hold fast to the Clause, which I regard as one of the most essential in the Finance Bill.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Batey: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will withdraw the proposed new Clause. If he does not, some of us will be almost compelled to vote against it in the Lobby. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) began by stating that he did not intend to speak on behalf of the coalowners, but I thought he did extremely well for the coalowners. I do not know any hon. Member who could have delivered a better speech on behalf of the coalowners than that to which we have just listened. What were the reasons advanced by the hon. and learned Member? He argued that the coalowners had been hampered and had had put upon them conditions, such as those relating to sales associations and other things of that kind. In whose interests was that legislation passed? It gave power to the coal-owners to fix prices, to arrange production and to sell the coal. That legislation was passed in the interests of the coalowners and nobody else.
    Mr. Holdsworth: That was supported by the hon. Member and his colleagues.
    Mr. Batey: Yes, we supported it, because while it was in the interests of the coalowners, the miners also got some benefit. But our men would get no benefit whatever from the proposal in this new Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford argued that in order to develop the coal mines at the present time, it was essential that the coalowners should have money. If they want money, let them get it as other people have to get it. Why should the Government provide them with money? I submit that the development of the coal mines in order to employ more miners does not depend
    184
    upon the coalowners getting more money. During the past week-end I was looking at an ascertainment in the county of Durham covering the past 12 months. It showed that the profit of the coalowners had been 1s. 5d. per ton. That is not a bad profit. Nobody can sneer at it. It is, indeed, a handsome profit, and when the coalowners are getting profits of 1s. 5d. a ton there is no need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend any pity to them, or to say that because they are only getting 10 per cent. there should be power to bring that up to 14 per cent. That kind of thing we will not stand.
    We remember how coalowners and others in 1929 were relieved of three-quarters of the local rates. Although industry has been having a good time since then, while owners of property have had to bear the burden of local rates, there has been no proposal to rescind that legislation or to ask the coalowners and other owners engaged in production to pay what they had been paying prior to 1929. That was one of the actions of the late Prime Minister when he was Minister of Health and when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. They relieved the employers of three-quarters of the local rates, while poor people occupying houses and shopkeepers and others had to bear the burden of local rates. There is no proposal to put these employers of labour back where they were in 1929 in relation to local rates. We have also to remember that coalowners and others have had advantages in regard to reliefs for wastage of machinery and in other respects.
    Now when we expected that the Government really intended to do something and to make coalowners and others pay 100 per cent. of their extra profits during the war, when we felt that, at last, a really important step was about to be taken in this direction, we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming forward with a proposal to make up the profits of coal-owners and others. This proposal applies not only to those engaged in coal-mining but also to those engaged in the extraction of oil. There cannot, however, be very many oil mines in this country, while we have an enormous number of coal mines. It is not right that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at this time bring for-

    185
    ward a proposal to increase the profits of coalowners up to 14 per cent., and if he in tends to go on with it, we shall be compelled to go into the Lobby and vote against the Clause.
    4.5 P.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I think there is some misapprehension about the meaning of the proposed new Clause. I hardly think that anyone who has followed the discussions on the technical parts of the Finance Bill, and especially those who took part in the Committee discussions, would easily reconcile the speeches of the two hon. Members opposite with the actual proposal in the Clause. All we are doing in this Clause is to make an equitable arrangement in connection not only with coal mines, but with other concerns which have wasting assets. The Clause, I would emphasise, applies not to coal mining only, but to all mines and in particular to copper mines which are being called upon to produce, in one year, a copper output which normally would not appear for several years. It is very largely to assist concerns of that kind in the special circumstances existing to-day, that this concession is being made, and I do not think the fact has been sufficiently appreciated by hon. Members opposite that apart from new businesses and new capital it applies only in relation to the provisions of Clause 27 (2) of the Finance Bill. Those provisions relate to cases where there have been no profits in the standard period or where the profits of that period were
    "so low that it would not be just to ascertain the standard profits of the trade or business by reference to the actual profits of the standard period."
    Therefore, this is not a proposal having results such as those to which hon. Members opposite have referred. It relates mainly to the particular cases which I have indicated, and the main purpose of the new Clause is to provide a fair standard for those concerns—not only coal-mining concerns, but many others—which may have had losses or which have had practically no profits at all in the standard period. Under Clause 27 provision is made for fixing a figure of 6 per cent. on the amount of the capital employed as a maximum in ascertaining the standard. The main object of what I propose to do in this Clause—and I have rejected all the other proposals which were suggested to me—is to provide that
    186
    in cases where there have been no profits in the standard period or where those profits were so low that it would not be just to ascertain the standard profits of the trade or business by reference to them, the Board of Referees shall have the right, on a case being made out to them, to increase the percentage by 4 per cent.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously gone into this matter very carefully. He must be aware that of the cases which will be submitted, the great bulk will be cases of coalowners. It is plain that the coalowners are chiefly concerned, and the speech which we heard from the hon. and learned Member opposite was on behalf of the coal-owners. May I, then, ask the right hon. Gentleman who has been considering this matter very closely, what is the tonnage profit rate which he has in mind as being low enough to justify this new ascertainment?
    Sir K. Wood: It is not a matter of a tonnage rate at all. It applies, as I have said, to cases in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or the Board of Referees are satisfied, in the words of Clause 27 (2):
    "(a) that there were no profits in the standard period; or
    (b) that the profits of that period were so low that it would not be just to ascertain the standard profits of the trade or business by reference to the actual profits of the standard period."
    Mr. Griffiths: What is to be the basis of deciding whether profits are low or not? How is the referee to decide that in a given period the profits were low?
    Sir K. Wood: The words are:
    "so low that it would not be just to ascertain the standard profits …"
    Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman, in making up his mind about this Clause, must have had before him evidence that there were concerns in the coal-mining industry whose profits were low. Did he fix in his mind a figure of what he considered to be a low profit?
    Sir K. Wood: That will be a matter for the Commissioners or the Board of Referees themselves to decide, and they are an independent body. If no profits at all were made, that is easily ascertainable, and it would then be possible to operate the new Clause.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the referee be entitled to take into account profits made by subsidiary concerns?
    Sir K. Wood: I take it that it would be a matter of the general profits of the concern, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to deal now with the point put by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I want to satisfy the hon. Member that there is a misapprehension of the purpose of the Clause. It applies mainly in the two cases which I have mentioned. Where there are no profits, there will be no doubt or difficulty. I should imagine that no one would argue that where there are no profits at all in the standard period, the Referees should not be able to put this extra percentage into operation. Then the hon. Member asks what is meant by profits which are so low as not to represent a fair standard. The Commissioners or the Referees themselves will have to be satisfied on the case presented to them, that it would not be just to ascertain the standard profits of a concern by reference to the actual profits of the standard period. They will have to determine, having taken into account all considerations whether or not it would be just in the special circumstances of the particular case to fix the standard profits by reference to the actual profits in the period.
    The primary purpose of the new Clause is to give a fair standard to all those companies which have either losses or have made practically no profits at all in the standard year. I do not think the hon. Members opposite have appreciated the fact that for all ordinary trading concerns under Clause 27 six per cent. on the capital employed is the maximum nor do I think they have sufficiently appreciated the fact that the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax applies in these cases. This new Clause is an effort which is being made, I think justly and rightly, to give a reasonable standard to concerns which are in such a condition that the profits for the standard period would not be a fair or proper basis. Unless you do this, you are taking away from them not only the 100 per cent. excess profits, but probably the possibility of any profits at all, which would not, I think, be in the interests of anybody concerned. There is no attempt to give an extra 4 per cent. profit to the mining industry generally. It is merely an attempt to meet fairly a
    188
    very difficult situation in cases where it can be shown that the profits are so low that a standard calculated on them would not be just. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with that explanation. I would examine the matter further in order to see whether there are any additional safeguards which I can suggest to meet the points put by hon. Members, but I think they will find that it will be in the interests of everybody concerned that this proposal should be adopted.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As this has some relationship to the question of wages ascertainment, may I ask, Was it thought desirable or will it be thought desirable to consult the Miners Federation of Great Britain?
    Sir K. Wood: I must say I did not think it was an appropriate case for such consultation. It is entirely a matter of the considerations which I have already outlined, and I did not think there would be any objection to the proposal from anybody concerned in the industry.
    Mr. Graham White: Nobody has mentioned the matter, but I presume that the maximum of 14 per cent. will still be subject to Income Tax at 7s. 6d. in the £. It would be most surprising if the result of this proposal were to allow any company to make anything more than a most modest return on its capital.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: As I understand the proposal, it is put forward to give to certain mines an opportunity of making a profit because they may have had a bad period, and also because the profit which it is intended by this Clause that they should have is dependent upon a wasting asset. I do not understand how coal, oil or any mining business is a wasting asset. It is a diminishing, but not a wasting, asset. The point which was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) was a very good one, but was entirely beside the point of the proposed new Clause. The points put forward by the other side have also been very good, but I cannot see that to regard the use of minerals as a wasting asset, and as a basis for further provision for profit for the owners and operators of those mines, is the right course to adopt. If this course is accepted, it means the acceptance of a

    189
    very vicious principle. The basis upon which it is intended to make a reserve fund for the purpose of meeting losses suffered from time to time by mines—like every other industry—is wrong in principle, and I should like to see the proposed new Clause withdrawn.
    Mr. Jennings: How does the hon. Gentleman differentiate between ordinary plant, machinery and assets in a company which are allowed depreciation and, on the other hand, the assets of a mine or mineral concern which are not?
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: There is no relation whatever between the machinery or plant which is operating in a mine and that in any other factory. That machinery is justifiably carrying depreciation and maintenance allowances; that is a vastly different matter from the mineral itself.
    Mr. Jennings: They are both assets.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Yes, but after careful calculation as to the value of the asset underground and taking a proportion of it in each ton sold throughout the period of operation of the mine, the value of the asset should have been disposed of.
    4.18 p.m.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is talking the matter over, because I can appeal to him more easily for reconsideration of the declaration which he has made. I do not think that he quite appreciates one point about the Excess Profits Tax. The argument about this tax has been used by every hon. Member on this side to convince the workers that, in this war, we are to get a fair deal, and that Parliament is calling upon the wealthy classes of this country. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to forget that the miners have an organisation; he seems to have forgotten its existence altogether. He says he does not think the organisation ought to be consulted. May I remind him that this proposal affects adversely or otherwise every miner in the country? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has yet appreciated that wages in the mining industry are settled in relation to the whole proceeds of the industry.
    We have no desire to divide the House on this matter, but the proposal will not get approval from hon. Members on this
    190
    side, especially from the mining Members, in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has brought the proposal forward only because he was afraid that the mining industry might suffer an injustice. Very few mines are in operation which were not operating on 3rd September last year. There may be some colliery companies which were not making excess profits on 3rd September; the profits in the quarter at the end of July were not as good as their owners desired them to be. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we are not impressed by his arguments. He does not appear to know—I say it in all humility—as much about this Clause as does the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), who was very honest. He told us that he had been working for weeks and weeks to get this Clause, and, having got it, he hopes that this side of the House, whom he never consulted, will be convinced by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said.
    Mr. Spens: Why did the hon. Gentleman say that I did not consult that side of the House?
    Mr. Macdonald: I said that the hon. and learned Member did not consult the section of this House which knows most about the mining industry.
    Mr. Spens: Which section?
    Mr. Macdonald: We know the hon. and learned Member for Ashford. We remember where he stood during the discussions on the nationalisation of royalties. We know that he is not the champion of the miners, but the champion of the coalowners every time, when he speaks in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must give serious reconsideration to this suggestion. During the last war, the coalowners of this country took every advantage to fill their pits with new machinery, paid for by the State. Let me warn the right hon. Gentleman that a similar thing is not happening now in the mining industry. The Secretary for Mines could tell him, as we have told him, that the coalowners of this country are taking great care of their own interests. They always do. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this question. He has a consultative committee, consisting of representatives of owners and men in the mining industry, national leaders on each

    191
    side. Surely this important question should be sent to that committee for consideration. The committee should be asked to consider it. The right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid that the national leaders of the miners will not consider every fair proposal. They do not want the coalowners to be treated worse than other concerns, but they do not want proposals brought forward in this House which would give the coal-owners preferential treatment.
    At the moment I do not like talking in this House, because my mind is occupied with the serious crisis in which we are placed. I have a job to talk at any time, but when I find an issue brought here which I know will endanger the supreme effort of the miners, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, if it gets about in this country to-day that he is championing a proposal which will defeat the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, he will undermine the confidence and the effort of the miners, without which this war, and any other war, cannot be won. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the proposal. Before the Bill gets to another place will he consult both sides of the industry? We have no desire to divide the House to-day, and there will be no Division so far as I am concerned. I want the Chancellor to say, in return, that, between now and the Bill getting to another place, he will consult both sides of the industry.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. Collindridge: I should like to add a word or two to the discussion. I think we should congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) upon the point of view he has put. If the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out, our people in the mining industry might share what could be veritably called the loot, but we are not wishful to do it, from any point of view. We realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has said, that, in the immediate winning of new coal, old mines are not likely to be opened. It is largely going to be done by further development of existing mines. Not only in the producing, but in the coal-consuming regions there will be great dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I heard the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) talk
    192
    about wasting assets, the implication being that the coal was a wasting asset. We do not object to the idea that the machinery which is used to get the coal is a wasting asset, but to talk about the coal being a wasting asset is like a shopkeeper who sells bacon over the counter saying that he is selling a wasting asset.
    We are definitely against the proposal. I contrast the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and the terms which are brought forward with those meted out by the Government to the human material that they take to fight in the winning of this war. I remember that we discussed to what extent we should have regard to the standard of living in the households from which young men have been taken to fight the country's battles. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, I loathe getting up and striking a discordant note, or anything which might tend to lower the morale of the fighting men of the country in these serious times, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a volume of protest in the country against this proposal, and, in view of the difficulties to which it may give rise, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the proposal forthwith.

    AIR RAID REHEARSAL.
    At this point in the proceedings Mr. SPEAKER suspended the Sitting for 20 minutes in order to test the efficiency of the air-raid precautions arrangements in the Palace of Westminster. Members, officials and occupants of the Press and other Galleries thereupon Proceeded to their respective refuges.
    On resuming—
    4.49 P.m.
    Mr. George Griffiths: I ask the Chancellor, in the interests of the country, to withdraw this Clause entirely. We miners' representatives desire that the output shall be maintained, and, in fact, increased. I cannot see in this Clause anything but a severe blow at the loyalty and enthusiasm of the miners of this country. I was in my division attending a church parade on Sunday; and at three of the pits there they were finding coal, although they had never before done anything of the kind on a Sunday since the pits were sunk. There were 800 or 900 men working in the pits that day. They were doing that in order to pull their

    193
    weight in defeating the enemy. This is not a case of working on Sunday nights, as in South Wales, where a cherished religious principle has been given away in order to allow of coal being mined on Sunday nights. In Yorkshire, they have worked on Sunday nights during the whole time that I have been in the county, which is over 40 years.
    On Sunday I presented medals to two men of the British Legion. There had been a big march to church, and the men were full of loyalty to the country. At the ceremony I impressed upon them the need for every man to throw his full weight into the job, so that we might win. If I go back next Sunday the men will say, "George, what are they doing down yonder?" That is the way we talk there. I say to the Lord Privy Seal and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, instead of increasing output in the mining industry, this will make our fellows feel that their efforts are for the profit of the coalowners, and for nothing else. I am amazed at the profits that have been made in my coalfield during the last five months. In that time, the Yorkshire coalfield has made profits of £2,250,000. That is "shown profit," as one of my colleagues says. Even for last month, the profits are shown by the ascertainments to have been £495,000. The Clause says:
    "Provided that no order shall provide for increasing the said percentages by more than a further 4 per cent."
    It does not say, "more than 4 per cent.," but "more than a further 4 per cent." My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked the Chancellor what is the basis of the minimum profit upon which he is prepared to put this percentage; and the Chancellor said that he did not know. They have no basis. They do not start from the minimum of no profit at all. If they did that, and said, "These pits that have had no profit can have 4 per cent.," we could understand that. But they are to be allowed an additional 4 per cent. over the profits that they have made already. We have supported this Government, almost to the detriment of some of our own political beliefs. We feel that the country is in a difficulty, and that it is up to every man in the pits to pull his full weight; and the men have agreed to do so. I said to my men the other day, "You are under conscription now." They
    194
    will say, "If we are under conscription, the coalowners must be as well." I have a great feeling in my own soul that this will help to reduce the output. I was talking the other day to a man who had only just come off work at the pit. He said, "I went to the pit the other day, feeling dead beat before I started, but I carried on because the Minister of Mines made an appeal to us over the wireless. I had to work, although I did not feel fit to do so." There are thousands of men doing that sort of thing, and this Clause will not encourage them to go on.
    4.55 P.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): This is a lesson to Law Officers not to come in and listen to the discussion on parts of the Finance Bill which in no way concern them. Since I have offended against the rule, and am here, I had better say something about it. I think, first, that there has been a good deal of misapprehension about what this Clause does, and, secondly, that it is enormously important that we should carry everybody with us, because the unity which we have at present is vital. If we endanger that in any way, we endanger our whole existence. Before I say what I have in mind—which I hope and believe will give some satisfaction to hon. Members opposite—let me examine quite simply what this Clause does. It is a great mistake to think that this is any departure from the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax. Any Excess Profits Tax presupposes a standard. It is on profits over that standard that 100 per cent. is to be levied. There are obviously certain cases in which it is difficult to ascertain what the standard should be. Take, for instance, the simple case of a company beginning with a loss. It starts off with a loss; then, it may, for a few years, break even. It does not follow that the company has not a very good prospect for the future. In cases like that, what are you to do about fixing your standard? Clause 27 provides for that. It provides, broadly, that where you have no profits in the standard year, or where the profits in that year are so low that it would not be just to compute a standard by reference to those profits, you may apply to the Commissioners, and make out your case—you are not automatically granted this concession—and they may then give you a standard, the amount of which is not

    195
    fixed, except that the maximum may not be more than 6 per cent., or sometimes 8 per cent.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Or 10 per cent.
    The Solicitor-General: Or, in certain cases, more. Clause 27 provides that it shall not exceed
    "six per cent., or, in the case of a company the directors whereof had a controlling interest therein, eight per cent., per annum."
    That is in the Bill, as drafted.
    Mr. G. Griffiths: Could I put a question?
    Sir W. Jowitt: Let me just finish. It was pointed out to the Chancellor that even this standard in certain cases would create very great hardship. The matter arose, in the first instance, not in relation to coal mines, but in relation to other concerns; but if we are to make a concession for which an overwhelming case has been made, an obvious industry to be assisted is the coal industry. When you are dealing with a mine you are dealing with what may be fairly called a wasting asset. It was obviously necessary to give the Commissioners power to fix a standard for a company whose standard year would show no profit at all, or a very low profit. Faced with the present emergency, we may want mineowners to open up a new section of a coal mine which involves considerable capital expenditure. As a matter of common sense, they would have to provide for writing off so much of that capital every year. If you only allowed them to have the 6 or the 8 per cent. provided in Clause 27, it would not be possible for them to write off any part of the capital expenditure which they have to make.
    I am satisfied that there is no risk of injustice to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I know that if I could make out this case to them, they would agree. If only time is given to consider this matter, they will see the justice of this case, and I would far rather carry this by consent than try to force it through the House by putting on the Whips and having a Division, and so would the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter, has authorised me to say this. It is inevitable that in a very few months' time
    196
    he will be introducing another Finance Bill. He is quite prepared not to press this Clause in order to allow ample time for discussion, and if I may, I will place myself at the disposal of hon. Members opposite and assist in any way I can. While we do not weaken in our view that this Clause is right, fair and proper, yet we would very much rather carry it with the consent of hon. Members opposite than against their wishes. Therefore, the Chancellor authorises me to say to the House that we will not press this Clause at the present time, but hon. Members must not understand this as a weakening or faltering in our desire to have this Clause carried. Indeed, I have already said that we are, in substance, committed to it, but in order that it may be carried, as I am confident it will be, with the assent of hon. Members opposite, we will not press it now, it being understood that we reserve to ourselves the full right, after the fullest consultation with hon. Members opposite, to put it in the next Finance Bill.
    5.3 P.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I rise to thank the Solicitor-General, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has authorised this statement, for the concession which the Solicitor-General has just announced. I wish to say, speaking not only for myself but for all my hon. Friends who are associated with me, that it would have been a very great regret to us if any matter such as this had led to differences and a Division in this House. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General will share our view that, even if the new Clause had been forced through by means of a Division, it would not in any way have mitigated the very serious result which would have ensued. Clearly we are looking to the miners of this country to do heroic work at great strain, and, as it has been pointed out by one of my hon. Friends, at risk to their own bodily health and safety, and it would be a very great misfortune if in their opinion, rightly or wrongly, a concession was being made which was unjustifiable. Had this been part of the original Bill, or had it been brought in on the Committee stage, there would have been plenty of time for everyone to consider the matter. If it had been brought in on the Report stage in ordinary times, no doubt my hon. Friends and I would have

    197
    examined meticulously every line of the proposal, and we could have fought it out with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On this occasion the circumstances, as we all know, are very exceptional, and there has not been time or opportunity for this matter to be fully considered. Therefore, in view of the fact that this could not be altered at any stage in this Bill, as we propose to take the Third Reading to-day, and, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know, no Amendments can be made in the Finance Bill in another place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown wisdom and courtesy—and we thank him—in coming to the only solution which meets the case. If, as the Solicitor-General hopes and believes, this Clause can be demonstrated in discussions to be thoroughly sound, I am sure that no one will be more willing to be convinced than my hon. Friends if that meets the justice of the case. It will not prejudice the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any way because the Excess Profits Tax will take a considerable time, and we are promised this in a Finance Bill at an early date. Therefore I hope that the trouble which has arisen is now fully ended.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Excise licences for vehicles belonging to members of forces on leave.)
    5.8 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out "is," and to insert "was."
    In moving this Amendment, which also stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), I should like to deal at the same time with the following Amendment on the Paper—in page 5, line 38, leave out from "1920," to "or," in line 41, and insert:
    "during some period during which a licence under the said Section thirteen was in force in respect of the vehicle."
    The object of these Amendments is to provide officers and men returning on leave from outside this country with greater facilities for using motor transport than they have under the Clause as
    198
    it stands. I need not go in detail into this matter. It was fully discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, but unfortunately, through no fault of my own, I was unable to be here at that time. I have read all the speeches which were made and the arguments which were put forward in opposition to the Amendment which was then put upon the Paper, and which went a good deal further than the Amendments on the Paper to-day. I realise that there are other arguments in addition to that of opening the door too widely. To open the door widely would be to the benefit of the Chanceller of the Exchequer because every additional licence that is taken out brings additional revenue to the Exchequer, but I realise that there are other considerations. Circumstances have changed materially in the last few weeks, and in the last few days.
    This Amendment will give an officer or man the opportunity of getting a permit for a car which has at any time been registered in his name, notwithstanding the fact that he may have transferred the car to a member of his family or a friend or even sold it. But if such a car has at any time been registered in his name, he will be able under the Amendment to obtain a permit for the use of the car. That opens the door a little but nothing like as much as I would like to see it opened. The House is agreed on the principle that serving men who come home on leave from overseas should have as much opportunity as possible of making full use of the short time at their disposal, and motor transport is very necessary for them to get about to see their friends and enjoy themselves. We cannot do too much for them, and my Amendment would give them more facilities than they can obtain under the Clause as it stands. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sympathetic in this matter and that all Members of the House will wish to do everything possible on behalf of these men. I hope that in the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not consider that I am trying to open the door too much, and that he will agree to accept the Amendment.
    5.12 p.m.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not propose to reiterate what I said during

    199
    the Committee stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very generous when he listened to a number of Members at a private meeting, but on that occasion he made it quite clear that he could not accept the Amendment which was originally put down by us. I hope and firmly believe, however, that we have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he will see his way to accept this very moderate Amendment.
    5.13 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. and gallant Friends have put their case as they always do with strength, sincerity and persistence, and, as far as this Amendment is concerned, I recognise that they have attempted to meet the position. I felt some difficulty about the original proposition which they made, but I am pleased and prepared to accept the present Amendment, and I hope that many will have an opportunity of availing themselves of its provisions.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I wish to express my gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having accepted the Amendment, and I very much appreciate the courtesy he has extended to me throughout the discussion of this matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, leave out from "1920," to "or," in line 41, and insert
    "during some period during which a licence under the said Section thirteen was in force in respect of the vehicle."—[Vice-Admiral Taylor.]
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "said."
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 4, after "licence," insert
    "in respect of the vehicle under the said Section thirteen."—[Vice-Admiral Taylor.]

    CLAUSE 14.—(Modification of relief from Schedule A in case of unoccupied houses.)
    5.14 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, at the end, to insert
    200
    "or
    (b) of any tax in respect of any period in the year in question unless rent for that period was payable under a short lease."
    Those who have read this Amendment may have been a little puzzled to find that there is a paragraph (b) but not a paragraph (a). The authorities of the House will put in the (a), which obviously comes after "person," in line 18.
    The effect of this Amendment is to carry out a promise given during the Committee stage to make it plain that the second part of the Clause, like the first part, is to apply only to short leases.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Taxation of excess rents of immediate lessors arising under certain short leases.)
    5.16 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, to leave out "himself occupying or entitled to occupy," and to insert "occupying."
    For this Amendment and the following Amendment on the Paper we are indebted to the hon. Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe), who pointed out the possible danger of using the words in Sub-section (2) of Clause 15 "or entitled to occupy." The point of the Clause is this: If a man having, for instance, a block of flats uses some part of that block of flats for his own purpose, in order to arrive at Schedule A valuation you have not only to consider the rents he receives in respect of the parts he has let out but also what figure is appropriate to the occupation which he himself has, and you have to gross the figure up to that extent. If we use the words "himself occupying or entitled to occupy," it might bring in the case of a flat which is unoccupied, and which he is doing his best to let, but has not succeeded in letting. Therefore, in law, he is entitled to occupy that flat, but that is not what we mean; we mean that part of the premises which he is occupying. I think the words of the Amendment will give the effect which we and the House intended.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 8, leave out "or entitled to occupy."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    CLAUSE 31.—(Miscellaneous amendments as to standard profits.)
    5.18 p.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 33, line 1, to leave out "the purpose of."
    The House may remember that on the Committee stage in dealing with the Excess Profits Tax I indicated that there was need for further amendment of what I might call the personal standard which exists as an alternative to actual profits in the cases of individuals, partnerships, and director-controlled companies. As the law now stands, the personal standard consists of £750 per person, with a maximum of £3,000 when there are four or more partners or controlling directors. There are, of course, many businesses which have low profits in standard years where it would be unfair to allow only £750 per head for the services of those running the business and to take the rest in taxes. There were a number of representations made by nearly everybody about this matter when the tax was less than 100 per cent., and now the Excess Profits Tax is 100 per cent. it makes the difficulty and injustice all the more. As no deduction is allowed in computing profits for E.P.T. purposes in respect of the remuneration of proprietors who are individuals or partners, it follows that where such partners or directors are actively employed in the business the figure of £1,000 or £750 per working proprietor represents remuneration for the services of the working proprietors and return for capital employed in the business.
    I will give an example. Say you have a partnership which has £20,000 capital employed in the business. The minimum standard which at present obtains is £1,500. I think everybody will agree that that is clearly inadequate for the remuneration of two partners and a return on £20,000 capital. Accordingly, I am proposing that the figure of £750 per working proprietor should be increased to £1,500. The minimum standard where a business is carried on by a body corporate will remain at £1,000 as before, but where a business is carried on by an individual or partners or a director-controlled company, then it is suggested that there
    202
    should be such sum not exceeding £6,000, which is arrived at by taking £1,500 each per working proprietor, subject to a possible further addition not exceeding £4,000 or £1,000 for each working proprietor in certain cases. In cases where the minimum standard will remain at £1,000 these will cover all the companies not director-controlled and will also cover individual proprietors who take no active part in business but employ a manager to run the business on their behalf. In such cases a company is allowed to deduct directors' remuneration, and an individual proprietor is similarly allowed to deduct the salary of his manager so that the minimum standard is not intended to cover any element in respect of remuneration.
    As regards other cases, the new figure of £1,500 for each working proprietor, with a maximum of £6,000, will be allowed in all ordinary cases where the business is carried on by an individual, a partnership, or a director-controlled company. There is also the provision which permits the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, where they are satisfied that the standard of £1,500 is inadequate, to increase by an additional sum not exceeding £1,000 for each working proprietor, or £4,000 in all. The proviso I have inserted is to meet cases of hardship, which are of two particular types. The first is where the ordinary minimum standard would be inadequate in view of the nature of the business. You may have a business where it is essential that they should employ a highly qualified technical expert whose remuneration in the ordinary way would be £2,500, and if he is a director and holds more than 5 per cent. of the share capital, his remuneration will not be deducted in computing profits, and unless this proviso is inserted the standard will be only £1,500. In such circumstances the Commissioners, if satisfied, will be able to allow an additional £1,000.
    The second type of case is where the normal minimum standard will he inadequate having regard to the size of business as shown by its assets. For example, there may be three partners, working proprietors, and the capital employed is, say, £50,000. In such circumstances the minimum standard, apart from the proviso I have mentioned, would be £4,500 when the standard is supposed to

    203
    represent a reasonable remuneration for partners and something by way of return on capital. The figure of £4,500 cannot be fairly regarded as adequate remuneration for partners and return on capital. Again, in that case the Commissioners, if satisfied, could direct the standard to be increased by an extra £1,000 for each working proprietor, or £3,000 in all. I hope that adequately explains the meaning of the Amendment and that it will be generally acceptable to the House.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The Chancellor has explained this Clause with considerable lucidity and I think the House is in possession of the situation. With a great deal of what he says I find myself in agreement. The object of this Amendment is to rectify certain cases of hardship, and in so far as it confines itself to that I am prepared to support it. Further than that, taking the two Amendments together, I am glad to see he has put in a definition of the working proprietor, because without that definition a good many people calling themselves working proprietors might go to their offices for one hour each week and claim large remuneration for doing so. I am perfectly satisfied that the Inland Revenue ought to have a certain amount of latitude to go beyond the standard proposed in the earlier part of the Amendment where special cases demand it. But what I am not quite satisfied about—and the Chancellor has not altogether allayed my misgivings—is in regard to the paragraph beginning:
    "(2) The minimum amount referred to.…"
    I am not quite satisfied why that should apply in all cases and why there should not be some discretion, not to allow this addition, left to the Inland Revenue. The Chancellor gave us, breezily, an example of a business with a capital of £20,000 and four working partners, and called attention to the fact that it might not earn more than £2,000. That may be the case, but suppose you take a weaker case—a business with a small amount of capital, partners, earning small salaries, who have limited ideas, but owing to the war suddenly come into increased business without any particular exertion on their part. I do not quite see why a business which is now able to earn
    204
    double or treble the remuneration in years gone by should not be subject to this Excess Profits Tax. I hope it may be possible to make some addition to that first paragraph, so that the Inland Revenue should be satisfied and that there should not be universal application to all cases, whether it was wanted or whether it was not. I would be glad if someone on the Government Benches could explain why such a provision was made. I fear there will be some cases where there will be quite needless expansions as a result of which the Inland Revenue will lose money.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The answer is that owing to the raising of the basic rate of the Excess Profits Tax to 100 per cent. and the effect of that increase upon this class of case, it has been thought necessary to make this concession. It is a matter which will obviously have to be watched in the course of administration, and, if it is found to be too generous, steps will be taken to deal with it. However, I do not think that is likely to happen.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 33, line 2, leave out from "1939," to the end of line 16, and insert:
    "there shall be substituted the following Sub-section—
    '(2) The minimum amount referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section is one thousand pounds, or, in the case of a trade or business carried on by a single individual, or by a partnership, or by a company the directors whereof have a controlling interest therein, such greater sum, not exceeding six thousand pounds, as is arrived at by allowing one thousand five hundred pounds for each working proprietor in the trade or business:
    Provided that if, in the case of a trade or business carried on by a single individual, a partnership or such a company as aforesaid, the Commissioners, having regard to the nature of the business and the size of the business as shown by the value of the assets employed therein, are satisfied that the said greater sum is inadequate, they may, if they think fit, direct that there shall be allowed in respect of not more than four working proprietors such additional sum, not exceeding one thousand pounds for each individual working proprietor or four thousand pounds in the aggregate, as may be specified in the direction.
    In this Sub-section—

    (a) the expression "working proprietor" means a proprietor who has, during more

    205
    than one half of the chargeable accounting period in question, worked full time in the actual management or conduct of the trade or business;

    (b) the expression "proprietor" means, in the case of a trade or business carried on by a partnership, a partner therein, and, in the case of a company, any director thereof owning more than one-twentieth of the share capital of the company."—[Sir K. Wood.]

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Excess Profits Tax and National Defence Contribution in the case of interconnected companies.)
    Amendment made, in page 84, line 8, leave out from "sum" to the end of line 11, and insert:
    "as might be allowed in relation to the principal company under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section thirteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    5.33 P.m.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think we can, even in these days, allow the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of the year to pass sub silentio. I do not propose to take up a great amount of time in dealing with it. There is no doubt that the provisions of the Bill make very considerable inroads upon the resources of our people. When the Budget was introduced, and when the Second Reading of the Bill was being discussed in this House, the House showed unmistakably that, heavy as the burdens w ere which the Bill was imposing, they would be accepted, and so far from being considered too heavy the House realised that in their aggregate they were inadequate. If the House thought them to be inadequate at a time when the war was still in its quiescent stage and when our gallant Allies across the Channel were still in the full vigour of their military preparations, how much more are we forced to realise that they are inadequate to-day after the events of the last two months. Quite clearly, great as are the burdens which the Bill imposes on our people, it cannot be the last word with regard to the financial provisions of 1940–41. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that that is the case. There must be grave sacrifices of a financial character made by the country. They are grave as imposed by the Bill,
    206
    and they will be graver still we fear when the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us his whole mind with regard to the finances of the year. But, viewed from the point of view of the whole burden which the country is bearing, these financial sacrifices are tiny and almost insignificant. The country will bear them gladly, almost willingly, knowing that they are absolutely necessary for the tremendous task which is in front of us.
    In the larger perspective of the immense sacrifices which have to be borne in all fields, there will be little opposition in this House or in the country to the financial sacrifices which must be imposed not on one but on all sections of the community; with this one exception, that additional burdens placed on the very poor, those who are already below the standard set by Sir John Orr, are burdens which will not benefit the country in any way. On the contrary, they would be injurious to the country, because they would lower the morale of our people. With that exception I believe it is the general feeling of the House that all sections of the community will bear these burdens in order to face the tremendous problem in front of us. The regard for which these sacrifices are being made is one which cannot be over-estimated. In the days gone by our forefathers secured for us a "pearl of great price," the freedom of our people and the liberty to act, to work, and even to think, in the way that they desired. That pearl of great price is in jeopardy to-day. We dare not allow it to be filched from us. It is not merely our own democratic institutions, not merely the lives of individuals who sit in this Chamber or who are our comrades and friends in the country; we stand for the integrity of this country, and the sacrifices we have to make are for that integrity and for the fundamental basis of human civilisation.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. Graham White: If the importance of this Bill was measured by the length of time of the discussions in this House, it might be judged to be a Bill of small consequence. That is not the case. It imposes imposts of an irksome character and, in fact, is the most formidable instrument for the transfer of private means to the public Exchequer that has ever been passed in this House. The right hon. Member for

    207
    East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has just said that when the Budget was introduced it was criticised, and justly criticised, as being a most inadequate measure of the nation's will to carry on the war and mobilise all our resources for the prosecution of the war. We know now that this Finance Bill is an interim Measure and must be followed by supplementary financial measures in the near future which will be related to the maximum effort the country or the Government is determined to make. There is one lesson which stands out from the way in which the Bill has been received in the House and in the country. It is this: that the most revolutionary financial proposals can now be accepted by the whole country, not only without opposition but even in a spirit of willing co-operation. It is now quite clear that the Government are not under the necessity in future of entering into any elaborate process of bargaining with regard to interest rates or the duration of loans. The duty of the Government now is to make up their minds what they think is necessary for the prosecution of the war and the satisfaction of the nation's needs and to come down to the House and explain them. On these terms, whatever may be the proposal, it will be accepted. I agree with the exception made by the right hon. Member. It would be futile to try and place burdens on those who are not able to face them, and we do not expect the Government to make any attempt of that kind.
    I do not know whether there are any people who are under the belief that the march of events in recent weeks and the changes in the character of the war lead to any less vigorous need for watching the finances of the country. The changes in the character of the war and the locality in which it is to be fought may lead not to a diminution in the national expenditure and financial effort, but to a change in the direction of that effort and the way in which some of the money may have to be expended. If we have to remain, possibly for years, as a beleaguered fortress, we shall have to adapt our finances to that situation. We have not yet reached our maximum production or anything like it. If our national expenditure is running below what we anticipated, if it is running at a level which is less than our maximum effort and much
    208
    less than we are determined to make it, it is, nevertheless, a very heavy expenditure indeed in relation to the amount of consumable goods in this country which remain for the civil population. It is clear that there is now every need for every citizen to regard his own consumption in the most minute detail. Those who live in a beleaguered fortress cannot allow themselves any latitude in expenditure. I should not regard the provisions of the Bill as representing what is necessary to reduce individual consumption.
    A question has been raised recently in the House with regard to joy riding, excursions, dog racing and the like. These are not matters which are to be decided entirely within the Clauses of this or any other Finance Bill. They are matters on which the conscience of each citizen should be brought into play, and each citizen should examine them in the light of what he considers to be his duty. There are at the present time some signs of a revolutionary nature in the financial make-up of the country. Some of those signs are very encouraging. I do not remember any Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past having been called upon to state clearly, for the convenience of prospective lenders, the terms on which they could lend money to the Government free of interest. I do not remember there having been any pronounced demand for facilities of that kind in connection with any other Budget. The right hon. Gentleman explained that the process by which such loans could be made was simple and easy and open to anybody who found himself in a position to enter into a transaction of that kind.
    This leads me to say that I have observed that the voluntary savings method, as apart from the interest-free loans method, is making satisfactory progress; but from the point of view of avoiding the process of inflation which must follow inevitably from a reduction in the amount of consumable goods and from the great transfer of spending power which has taken place between some members of the community and others—the immense spending power, for example, which has been conferred upon members of the engineering industry—which, if it were to be let loose on the reduced volume of consumable goods, would speedily lead to an increasingly awkward situation, there is still scope for increased momentum and volume in the voluntary savings cam-

    209
    paign. That is one safeguard against inflation, but clearly, the situation is one that calls for the strictest personal discipline in expenditure and consumption by all those who have any money which they are free to spend above that necessary for the preservation of health and a normal standard of life.
    I do not wish to trespass further on the time of the House, but those who can help the day-to-day finances of the country in the ways I have endeavoured to indicate will certainly be doing something to sustain the State and shorten the war. This island of ours is now an outpost of civilisation. Probably it is the remaining key in Europe which still maintains the possibility of the survival in Europe of any reasonable standard of good life. That is being realised not only throughout Europe, but the world over; and in these matters of finance, we must not fall short of our full duty at the present time.
    5.49 P.m.
    Colonel Sir George Courthope: There is one matter, which may seem a small one after the very lofty attitude of the speeches to which we have just listened, to which I must refer in order to put myself, and if I may say so, also my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, right with the Forestry Commission, which I represent in the House, and with the representatives outside of the woodland owners of Great Britain. During the Second Reading Debate, I referred to the curious anomaly which had arisen with regard to the taxation of woodlands, and I pointed out that this was standing in the way of the easy and ready acquisition of standing timber in Great Britain for purposes of the war. From that point of view, I asked the Chancellor to consider the matter very carefully in order, not to remove a burden or relieve a hardship, but to clear away an obstacle to one item of the war effort. I will explain the nature of that anomaly.
    As the law is at present, it happens that standing woodlands are capital for purposes of Death Duties and become liable to payment of those Duties when they are felled, and not when they pass at death. The timber that is felled is also liable to the Excess Profits Tax. It may well be that on an estate which would not normally sell any timber, but
    210
    which is now, for war purposes, asked to sell a great deal, the whole of the timber felled might appear to be liable to Excess Profits Tax as income and also liable to deferred Death Duties as capital. There is a number of cases where there is no doubt whatever that the liability to the Crown for taxation would be in excess of the total price which would be paid for the timber if it were acquired, either voluntarily or compulsorily, for purposes of the war. Obviously, that is a ludicrous position which has to be dealt with.
    At the time of the Second Reading of this Bill, it appeared to the organisations representing woodland owners and to the Forestry Commission that this obstacle could not be removed without an Amendment being made to the Finance Bill. My object in speaking to-day is to say that this matter has been very carefully studied. The subject of the treatment of woodlands for purposes of the Excess Profits Tax is under careful examination by the Board of Inland Revenue, and I am absolutely satisfied that the matter is one that can be adequately dealt with by administration and without its being necessary to amend the law. Therefore, I want my friends outside to feel satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Board of Inland Revenue and I have not in any way neglected their interests by reason of the fact that the Finance Bill is being given a Third Reading today without having been amended in this respect.
    5.53 P.m.
    Sir K. Wood: I should like to make a few remarks before the Bill is given a Third Reading. I confess that when I approached the Bill in the first instance, I was in doubt as to whether I ought to proceed with the whole of its Clauses, and I was also confronted with the fact that the situation had fundamentally changed between the Budget Statement of 23rd April and the date at the end of May when the Finance Bill was ready. However, I felt that a good deal of hard work had been involved in the Bill and that to jettison at any rate a considerable portion of the Bill would have meant the loss of a good deal of that careful and most useful work. In those circumstances, after consulting right hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members in other parts of the House, I decided to proceed, because I was assured that facilities would

    211
    be given to expedite the passage of the Bill which would otherwise have been an onerous, long and difficult undertaking.
    The Bill has now reached its Third Reading, and the only matters on which I desire to comment are those which relate to the Excess Profits Tax, which has received the greatest consideration from the Committee and the House. It is right to emphasise that it was proper that that examination should have been given, because with a tax of this kind, which nobody can claim to be scientific in its application, it is essential that the basis for the charge should be as equitable as the exigencies of the Revenue permit. Undoubtedly, with the very important change which we have made during the course of the progress of the Bill involving Excess Profits Tax at 100 per cent., it is obvious that hard and difficult cases cannot be avoided, and I am afraid they will be bound to occur, but I think that, with the assistance of hon. Members in all parts of the House, we have gone a long way to meet the representations that were made, both inside and outside the House, at any rate with regard to the hardest cases. I want to assure all those who are naturally interested in this tax, whether they be great concerns and industries or small ones, that we shall continue to watch the operation of the tax, and of course, there will be opportunities for amendment and discussion in subsequent Finance Bills.
    I should like also to add a word to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General this afternoon with regard to the Amendment which I withdrew, having regard to the representations that were made to me by hon. Members opposite. I must say that I feel there was a complete misapprehension of the whole position. The chief reason which actuated me in withdrawing the Amendment was the desire to maintain agreement and the belief that there was a misapprehension of the position. I have no doubt that, with the help of the Solicitor-General, we shall be able to explain matters sufficiently to hon. Members opposite, so that we shall be able to proceed, as I intended to proceed, in the next Finance Bill, to meet the very critical situation that arises as far as certain companies are concerned. If I had been aware that there was any misapprehension on this matter, I should
    212
    have been only too willing to meet hon. Members who were so concerned about this during this afternoon. The last thing I want to see at this hour is a division of opinion or any statements in the country concerning the provisions of this Bill which would be quite erroneous. It is only fair to say to the House that, in the case of those concerns, such as copper and coal, which are making great efforts at this time in the national interest, it is my intention to proceed.
    I should like to make one or two remarks, as other hon. Members have done, about the future and about our taxation generally. There is only one thing on which I disagree with the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). He referred to the present burdens of taxation as tiny. That is not how I would describe them.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Perhaps I may correct the right hon. Gentleman as to what I said. I said that great as those burdens are and still heavier as they are expected to become, they are tiny in comparison with the terrific sacrifices that are being made in other directions.
    Sir K. Wood: I entirely agree in that respect with the right hon. Gentleman. It is a fact that at this time taxation does weigh very heavily upon great masses of the community. That is why I indicated to the House, in the Second Reading Debate, that I felt there must be some time for a measure of adjustment before other taxation has to be faced. I wish to elaborate the matter further this evening by simply adding that a second Budget and a second Finance Bill must be regarded by this House and the country as inevitable. We have to face it together, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and, so far as I am concerned, we must see that all sections of the community shall bear their fair share of responsibility for the burdens which face us, without which, of course, victory cannot be achieved.
    I was grateful to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) for what he said in regard to the necessity which still exists, notwithstanding our very heavy commitments, for careful finance and watching, so far as we can, its operations. That should not be lost sight of, because, in the end, we may have to fall back on the weapon of finance much more than

    213
    people imagine at the present time. This is certainly not a moment to give up any methods of supervision which do not impose vexatious restrictions, or delay, or anything of that kind. I desire to thank the House for what has been said about my appeal, yesterday, for loans without interest. Already there has been considerable response in that connection, and I have received some of the most touching letters, during the last few days, from rich and poor alike, who have sent gifts at a time of crisis. Many organisations, as the hon. Member said, are also responding.
    In asking the House to pass the Third Reading of this Bill, I would say that in this momentous struggle the chief function of finance is to serve the State. I feel that what is required must be, and will be, provided to the utmost limit of our resources, and that at the present time we must throw those resources into the scale against the enemy whatever the additional burdens involved may be. I agree with what has been said to-day, and I am sure it is weighing on the minds of everyone, that, after all, the sacrifice of money and property must be regarded as trifling compared with the sacrifice of life and limb which so many of our countrymen have been making and will have to be called upon to make.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  REMISSION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in th Chair.]

  REMISSION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension to London of power to reduce or remit rates.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the names of Sir H. WILLIAMS and other hon. Members:
    In page 1 line 14, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Section seven of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, is hereby repealed so far as it relates to the Administrative County of London."
    The Chairman: I do not propose to call this, the only Amendment which is on the Order Paper, because it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Grimston.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Six o'Clock

  LAND ACQUISITION (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE).
  LAND ACQUISITION (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE).
  INDIA (BUDGET RETURN).
  INDIA (BUDGET RETURN).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM).
  RUSSIA (BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM).
  UNITED STATES (GERMAN IMMIGRANTS).
  UNITED STATES (GERMAN IMMIGRANTS).
  ARMAMENT PURCHASES.
  ARMAMENT PURCHASES.
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  WASTE PAPER (PRICES).
  WASTE PAPER (PRICES).
  PRODUCTION (ADVISORY PANELS).
  PRODUCTION (ADVISORY PANELS).
  HAND-GRENADES.
  HAND-GRENADES.
  PRISON OFFICERS (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).
  PRISON OFFICERS (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).
BRITISH ARMY.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (CORRESPONDENCE).
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (CORRESPONDENCE).
  FOOD PRICES CONTROL.
  FOOD PRICES CONTROL.
  INTERNATIONAL TIN CONTROL.
  INTERNATIONAL TIN CONTROL.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE (APPOINTMENTS).
  DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE (APPOINTMENTS).
  ACTING RANK.
  ACTING RANK.
  ROYAL MINT (PENNIES).
  ROYAL MINT (PENNIES).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (THIRSK DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LITTLESTONEON-SEA AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NORWICH) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

FOOD SITUATION.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to call attention to the food situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Motion on the food situation appeared on the Order Paper as long ago as May 8. At that moment the attention of the nation was absorbed by very grave military events and soon after there was a change of Government and it was thought inadvisable to discuss the

601
subject at that time. We are still of course in a moment of intense and continuing crisis, but nevertheless there is a feeling I think among many members of this House, which is shared, I believe, by His Majesty's Government, that it would be advisable without further delay that the whole food situation of this country should be discussed in Parliament. It is a matter, of course, which is momentous and urgent. The new Minister of Food has a seat, we are glad to see, in this House. We welcome him here. The broadcasts that he has given to the nation, the action that he has taken in various directions inspire a very large measure of confidence, and we shall welcome the Ministerial statement that he will make to-day.
In putting down my Motion last May, and again in moving it to-day, I have had no thought of engaging in any censure of His Majesty's Government or indeed in any criticisms. Others in this House who are experts in agricultural matters will no doubt have criticisms to make, but for my own part I propose mainly to put to the Minister a series of interrogations about matters on which I think the public at large, both the town community and the agricultural community, are greatly concerned, and a little while ago I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and to the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture an outline of the questions that I desired to address to them.
In the first place what are the nation's needs in the matter of food? Approach the question first from the side of consumption. Have the requirements of the population as a whole, based on a proper standard of nutrition, been calculated as closely as the circumstances allow. We have of course at the present time a much greater knowledge of matters of nutrition than a generation ago, during the last war. The science of nutrition has made great strides. The discovery of the vitamins and the deeply important part that they play in diet was a great step forward. There have been various inquiries into nutrition. The League of Nations issued an exceedingly important report. There was a conference held in this country last year under the auspices of the British Medical Association on problems of nutrition.
Have the Government taken full advantage of the scientific advice which has
602
been at their disposal? The Select Committee of the House of Commons on National Expenditure, in one of its Reports a month ago, indicated that they thought that they had not and that there had not been that thorough inquiry into the needs of the nation which should have taken place—and indeed it ought properly to have taken place two or three years ago when we were contemplating the possibility of future war. The Royal Society, the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council—these bodies have accumulated a great deal of knowledge and have arrived, so it is said, at various conclusions. The Government quite recently have declared that a Committee was being appointed precisely for these purposes. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell us how it was that such a Committee was not appointed long ago, whether the Committee is now meeting and actively at work, and (not least important) if its members disagree—for it is known that from time to time scientific experts do disagree among themselves—what authority there is to resolve the difference. That is the basis of all the rest in considering the food situation.
What, within the limits of the obtainable, is it that we need in foodstuffs for our great population? Having ascertained that then the subsequent question is, how can we secure those requirements? The farmers should be told just what it is that they are required to produce, not to be left to guess what is wanted, and they cannot now, as in normal times, be guided by price. When price is high that is a proof of public demand, and it is an inducement to produce the particular article; when price is low vice versa. But in war times such conditions do not apply, and there is no ordinary, more or less automatic, economic guidance of that kind for agriculture to follow. Now the farmer already is required to be a man of very many capacities. He has to be an expert in tillage, an expert as a rule in animal husbandry; he has to be something of an agricultural chemist, he needs to be a motor mechanic, and unless he is to lose his money he has to be a market salesman and nowadays must have a certain knowledge of accountancy. But it cannot be expected that he should, in addition to all these various professional acquirements, be an expert also on national nutrition. Consequently it is for the authorities to give the agricultural

603
guidance as to the requirements of the nation, and not only guidance but inducements, proper financial and other inducements, to lead them to produce the things that are declared to be required.
Sir Daniel Hall, whose name is known to most of us as one of the principal authorities on these questions, wrote a couple of months ago these sentences:
"The county war agricultural committees complain that they are not told what farmers should be set to produce. The food campaign, not the least vital section of the war, is being waged without a plan of action."
Perhaps the Minister of Food will tell us how far that difficulty has since been overcome.
Consumption can, of course, also be directed into the channels which production makes desirable. Consumption can be directed compulsorily by rationing, or it can be directed by voluntary methods. The whole nation is only anxious to do what it can to help, and is willing to follow guidance on any subject if it is told by the Government that this or that action will conduce to success in the war. Provided only that what they are told is clear and definite, consumers will voluntarily adapt themselves in a very large degree to the needs of the situation. In the third place, consumption can be influenced by price. Those articles which are not of prime necessity can be allowed to rise, those which are of prime necessity may be controlled in price and, if necessary, may be kept cheap by means of subsidies. But there is a limit to the capacity of the country to provide subsidies. In normal times the annual expenditure on food in this country is over £1,000,000,000, and you cannot afford to subsidise the whole of that to any large degree. By the combination of these three methods—the compulsory method of rationing, the voluntary method of propaganda, and the economic method of price control—you may be able to guide your consumption in the direction which the conditions make necessary. Further, of course, there is the obvious desirability of securing economy in consumption by means of proper cooking and utilisation of materials, and also by the avoidance of waste and the utilisation of waste products where waste is unavoidable.
I should like to ask the Minister how far these methods are now being pursued and, furthermore, whether he is satisfied—if he can tell us without disadvantage—with the stocks of food now existing in this country and in prospect. I feel sure the public welcomed his declaration not long ago that he was decentralising stocks, that he was not only using the regional organisation but had also created some hundreds of local centres in which stocks were available and each of which could act independently. Perhaps he could tell us more about that today. Further, could he say whether he is receiving full co-operation from the distributing trades concerned. There may be a temptation in Government Departments sometimes to create a new organisation for each purpose that arises and to centralize and officialize many things. You have a highly developed and efficient trading system in this country, and perhaps the Minister of Food will say what have been his relations with that organisation.
Turning to the second branch—production—how far has the campaign to increase the home production of foodstuffs been successful? Most attention has been devoted to the ploughing up of 2,000,000 acres of grassland, which appears to have been accomplished, and it is interesting to know that there has been among the agricultural community much less opposition to this measure than was experienced during the last war. Great public attention has also been directed to the "Dig for victory" campaign. I believe it is the case that out of 10,000,000 households in this country, about 4,500,000 have gardens or allotments, and an effort has been made to increase that number by another half million. How far is that proving successful? All these gardens and allotments, unfortunately, will probably not go far to fill the gap caused by the stoppage of supplies from Denmark, Holland and Belgium. In the main, it must of course be from the farms that the bulk of our production must come. There, many suggestions must be made for increasing production. A member of this House, Lord McGowan, has emphasized the importance of the increased use of fertilisers. Sir Frederick Keeble, another expert in these matters, sent a memorandum to the late Government which I had an opportunity of seeing, in the course of which he pointed out that there are,

605
in this country, 18,000,000 acres, of permanent pasture and 6,000,000 acres of temporary pasture. He wrote this with regard to them:
"It is known beyond all cavil that the yield of permanent and temporary grass can be increased by 50 per cent. by fertilisers, together with suitable and inexpensive cultivation."
The fertiliser campaign is actively proceeding. Is it proceeding adequately and with success?
With regard to potatoes, I have heard much criticism that the Government have not taken adequate action with regard to supplying large quantities of virus-free seed potatoes. If that were done—so I am informed by those who are, perhaps, the best qualified to speak in this country—there would be a very large increase in our potato crop without any additional expenditure of labour. Further, can the country afford the luxury of eating immature potatoes? We are now in the new potato season. Is it right that potatoes should be consumed before they have reached their full development even if, in that form, they are more profitable to the growers? With respect again to labour supply—obviously vital in this connection—we have been impressed for many years by the formidable decrease in the number of workers on the land; but there is one consoling factor that is not often remembered. It is not only the attraction of the towns and the opportunity of earning higher wages that draw the workers away, but the labour force that is required, through the mechanisation of agriculture, is much less than it was for the same production. That Nutrition Conference held last year in this country mentioned in its report that in the last fifteen years—this is a most remarkable and, to me, surprising fact—the output per person employed in farming in this country increased by 40 per cent. Consequently, there is less need for labour on the land in order to get equal production. It does not follow that this great decrease which has taken place in labour supply has been accompanied by a corresponding decrease in output. Furthermore, more highly efficient methods have been able to secure larger yields both in the milk and the poultry industry from an equal number of heads of stock. The milk yield per cow—I quote from the same authority—between 1914 and 1935, has increased by 40 per
606
Cent. and the egg yield per hen has increased by 80 per cent. That is very creditable both to the cows and to the hens, and has greatly relieved our situation with regard to these supplies.
As to the labour force which, nevertheless, is necessary in spite of the counterbalancing factors, agriculture is of course a reserved occupation, but are the increased needs of a greater production being met? The Women's Land Army has been formed, but the published figures of the numbers engaged in it are comparatively small, if one compares with France or Germany, where, it appears, hundreds of thousands of women are engaged on agriculture. Lord Derby and Sir Ralph Glyn have proposed the formation of a boys' land army. We know that the great public schools and also the universities are doing much in the way of releasing boys and students for agricultural and forestry work this year. The road workers also are now being turned to the farms. It is absurd in time of war that we should have tens of thousands of able-bodied and skilled men engaged in maintaining our road system in a state of immaculate perfection when there is such urgent need for labour on the land. I am sure there will be general approval of the action taken by the Government in diverting that labour force to agricultural purposes. How far is the demand for tractors being adequately met? America is providing us now with munitions of war. The agricultural tractor is also, in effect, a munition of war, and if the output of this country is not adequate for the needs, are steps being taken to secure some of the vast output of the United States?
These are a number of various matters which must demand the attention of the Government, and the question which I would address to them and to this House is whether the Ministry of Agriculture itself is able to cope simultaneously with all these problems. In the last war there was created a Food Production Department, whose specific duty it was to study each problem one by one. It had a large measure of independence, it was characterised by a great deal of initiative and drive, and it carried out a number of separate and highly important schemes. The consequence was that the food situation was met, and one learns from an admirable little booklet, which many of your Lordships will have read, by Sir

607
John Orr and Mr. David Lubbock, entitled Feeding the Population in War Time, that in 1918 the food supply produced in this country per head of the population was not less but even higher than it had been in 1914, at the beginning of the last war. The Ministry of Food is not, of course, a Ministry of Food Production. It deals only with consumption and distribution, and I would specially ask for a reply to this question: whether His Majesty's Government are proposing to establish a Food Production Department as in the last war, and if not, why not? I earnestly trust that they will not hastily give a negative reply.
Let them be guided by the experience of the previous Government in the matter of the Ministry of Supply. It is within the memory of all your Lordships how again and again, month after month, in this House not less than in the other House, appeals were made to the Government backed by men of the greatest authority and experience in this Assembly, to establish forthwith a Ministry of Supply for all kinds of munitions, including what was undoubtedly the most necessary of all forms of Government supply, the production of aeroplanes. Repeatedly that appeal was deliberately rejected by the Government—a fatal error. Let His Majesty's Government be warned by that and not find various specious excuses for refusing to take a measure which appears to the layman to be one that is obviously desirable. I sincerely trust no question of the prestige of the Ministry of Agriculture will be allowed to enter into a matter of this sort.
My last questions relate to the organisation of the Government for dealing with these great and urgent problems of consumption and production. There are no fewer than seven Departments concerned—the Food Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Shipping, the Ministry of Economic Warfare, the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Office, and, of course, the Treasury. Whose task is it to coordinate the work of all these Departments? Is that the function of the Cabinet Committee presided over by Mr. Greenwood? Is that Committee functioning day by day and is it performing its work with success? Most important of all, what are the relations between the
608
Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture? That is the crucial point in the whole matter. Here you have these two Departments, the one dealing with consumption and the other with production, the one with demand and the other with supply, and the harmonious interaction of the two is the vital question. Is that being achieved, because on that depends the full mobilisation of British agriculture as well as of British industry for purposes of war? I beg to move.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome very warmly the opportunity provided by my noble friend Viscount Samuel for a debate on the vital subject of our food supplies, more especially because we are so fortunate as to have the Minister of Food here in person to outline the policy of the Government and to reply to questions that will be addressed to him by different members of your Lordships' House who have had experience in the field of agriculture and in many other fields. We owe his presence here, I imagine, to the practice, begun I believe during the last war by Mr. Lloyd George, of seeking men for high offices outside politics, among those who have made a name for themselves in professional or business circles. It is certainly right and proper in war-time that key administrative positions should not be, as it were, reserved for a chosen few who have served their political and Parliamentary apprenticeship.
I agree entirely with my noble friend who has just spoken that the importance of the Home Front can scarcely be exaggerated. The aim of modern warfare, we all realise, is to undermine the will to resist of the civilian population as well as to destroy the forces of the enemy. That is why an abundant supply of essential foodstuffs will weigh as heavily as military successes in deciding the final outcome of a protracted war. Indeed, I think we learned that lesson twenty-four years ago. This conclusion was reached by Mr. Lloyd George and recorded in what I think is a memorable passage in his War Memoirs. He writes there:
"The second half of the war brought home to all the belligerents the fact, which ought to have been obvious before, that an adequate supply of food, not only for the troops but for the civilian population, was an essential condition of their continuance in the war. The final event depended more on food than on fighting."

609
If further evidence were required, although I do not wish to labour the point, I could supply some of it from personal experience. I was in Barcelona a few weeks before the final collapse of the Spanish Republic, and I saw with my own eyes the wan, pinched faces of the children in the streets and in the classrooms of the schools. It was indeed the starvation of their families at home by land and sea blockade that ensured the defeat of the Republican Army. Our objective is therefore precisely the same as that of the Government. We want, as they do, a plentiful supply of essential foodstuffs at a price which the lowest paid wage-earners can afford and for the duration of what still may be a long war.
We would like to congratulate the Government on getting well off the mark. A Minister of Food with wide powers has already been appointed for some months. In the last war, it may be remembered, we had to wait no less than two years before the second Coalition Government went even thus far. We rejoice that the machinery of food control is ready for action. What the country needs is a definite and clear-cut long-term plan of campaign covering both a suitable war diet and the provision of its constituents. I should like for a moment to refer in this connection to a recommendation of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Those who drew up that Report make this recommendation among others, and I think it is an important one:
"It is suggested that what is needed here is to set up an authoritative body of scientists and practical men to work out a basic plan."
Such a scheme should only be drawn up on the advice of nutrition experts and of course after consultation between a number of different Government Departments, including the Ministry of Food and several others which were mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Advisory Committee on Nutrition, or the more recent Committee he appointed, or other scientific advisers are being consulted with a view to framing such a comprehensive plan; and further, whether any machinery exists for frequent—I had almost said continuous—consultation between the numerous Departments affected by food questions. Both the questions were addressed to the noble Lord by the last speaker, but I do not
610
apologise for repeating them because I believe their importance merits emphasis.
What is causing considerable anxiety in many quarters is the conclusion based on recent social surveys that one-third of our total population is still undernourished. I am referring to the excellent little work by Sir John Orr and Mr. Lubbock, which the noble Viscount has already mentioned. The most gravely disturbing aspect of this widespread malnutrition is the fact that one-quarter of our children under fourteen is included in the most ill-nourished section of the community, a section which lacks all the essentials of a normal healthy life. This may not be surprising as a social phenomenon when one recalls that prolonged unemployment and large families are mainly responsible for acute poverty; but it does show, I think, quite conclusively that even if after a time the war does away with poverty due to unemployment, the Government must find another remedy if thousands of children are not to be driven by rising prices below subsistence level and if the conditions of those mentioned is not seriously to deteriorate.
I should like in this connection to refer to a passage in the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. They draw attention to the fact that the tendency of a Government-controlled price level is to penalise the poorest consumers, because when competition is eliminated it is the small retailer, who sells the cheapest products, who has either to raise his prices or go out of business. With your Lordships' permission, I would quote one passage:
"In fact it seems true to say that, where as a result of war conditions and Government control there is a tendency towards 'pool' prices and qualities or towards a levelling out of the power of traders to offer competitive price variations, the chief weight of the increase falls on the classes whose purchasing power is such as to force them to seek the cheapest qualities and markets."
The illustrations that are given are butter and tea, because the cheapest brand of butter and the cheapest blend of tea have, of course, been eliminated by the controlled prices at which these products are now sold. I am not here to propose remedies; I am merely anxious to draw the attention of the Government to these serious social facts in order that they may take the necessary steps. On the general question of war-time diets, I think there

611
would be agreement about the list of foodstuffs that would provide a minimum diet for everyone. Let us start with bread. The Government are spending, I think, £36,000,000 a year on pegging down the price of the loaf. As most of our wheat comes from abroad, this subsidy, regrettable as subsidies may be unless they are inevitable, seems clearly to be warranted, and we hope that whatever may happen in the future the Government will persist in their present endeavour to stabilise the price of bread.
The position of the foodstuff which I next wish to mention is not satisfactory. The cheapest of the most widely-used energy-giving foodstuffs is sugar; yet the retail price of sugar has been allowed to shoot up 50 per cent. since the outbreak of war and the Government have apparently been able to do nothing to check this meteoric rise. The price of sugar substitutes, such as jam, syrup and confectionery, is not controlled, so that the average working-class household has already experienced definite hardships in this direction. The cheaper brands of butter have risen 23 per cent. since last September, and the majority of wage-earners must therefore, except for the exceedingly well-paid artisans, content themselves with bread and margarine whatever the butter ration may be. I do not think that anyone would maintain that the system of rationing, so far as butter is concerned, has produced an equitable distribution of that product. The nutritive value of good-quality margarine is admittedly high, but it seems regrettable that the gulf between the diet of the rich and that of the poor should be widened in war-time. Potatoes and fresh vegetables would be consumed in far larger quantities by a working-class household if only they were less expensive. I hope the Minister will do all he can, especially as winter approaches, to reduce their price without giving a subsidy. Inquiry should be made into the allegation—whether it is true or not, I am not in a position to say—that the retail distribution of vegetables is wasteful and adds unnecessarily to their cost. I am delighted to hear that I have the support in that view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the opposite Bench.
There is a recommendation, which I will not read, because I do not wish to take up unnecessary time, of the Com-
612
mittee on National Expenditure, the sense of which is that a Committee should be appointed to examine into the whole process of food manufacture and distribution. Indeed, it may well be said that the terms of reference that have been proposed for this Committee are far too wide. I wish, however, to ask the noble Lord whether, as he set an excellent precedent by his Committee of Inquiry into the cost of milk distribution, he might not also set up a Committee of Inquiry into the mechanism for the distribution of that essential article of diet, fresh vegetables.
But what is perhaps the most important aspect of the Government's food policy has been their handling of the nation's supply of fresh liquid milk. It was gratifying to hear that the price of milk was being pinned down during the winter by a Treasury subsidy, which amounted, I think, to £8,000,000 a year. The noble Lord has just told us that this subsidy has been removed and that the price of milk for the general public will rise on July 1 by the large figure of 4d. a gallon. Now we are exceedingly glad to observe that the Minister desires to mitigate the effect of the increased price on the poorer consumer by various measures which he described briefly last week. He is providing cheap milk at 2d. a pint for pregnant and nursing mothers and for children under school age, and we are glad to observe that the scheme is to be administered and presumably financed by the Ministry through its local officers. But the Minister, I am sure, has not forgotten that a similar scheme was prepared by the Ministry of Health which, it is hardly an exaggeration to say, was a complete failure. Perhaps he will quarrel with me.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): No, no.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am delighted to hear that I have the agreement of the Minister on that perhaps sweeping but not, I think, exaggerated statement. I should like to ask the Minister what steps he is taking to make perfectly certain that his scheme also does not turn out to be a paper scheme; and how he can more or less guarantee that the infants and mothers will actually benefit by its operation. From what I have heard, I have a great deal of hope in the scheme that the Minister has announced, but I think that I and large

613
sections of the public would be even more confident if we might have further details about the actual steps which the Minister intends to take. He, I know, would agree that 2d. a pint, even though this is very much below the price charged to the general public, is far more than many working-class families can afford. Indeed, it is a halfpenny more than the price of cheap milk in the schools, which has, of course, been provided at a halfpenny for a third of a pint. I hope that the Minister will not be ungenerous when he scrutinises the family income with a view to deciding whether free milk should be supplied in cases where the person who needs this article of consumption is unable to afford it. In fact, in my view the whole value of this scheme, from the point of view of getting to the wives of the poorly-paid wage-earners, depends on how generous the Government will be in their interpretation of "inadequate means."
I am not absolutely certain, and I should be glad if the Minister would remove any doubt there may be in my mind, whether the old price of 1½d. per pint for cheap milk will still be charged in the schools. I rather gathered from his statement last week that the arrangement in the schools will not be altered. I think, however, that the local authorities would probably be obliged if they could be given a definite statement to cover that point. I think it should be pointed out that even the present price of 1½d. per pint is beyond the means of the lower-paid wage-earners with large families, and that many children are not benefiting for that reason. It is true of course, that free milk also is provided in the schools, but then only if after medical examination it can be shown that the child has suffered in health owing to under-nourishment. That, I must confess, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. What we want is to prevent under-nourishment, and not only to cure it after it has been caused. I should like to see in the schools some system of inquiry into the means of the household from which the child comes—which is apparently what will be done in the clinics—and the same system wherever the new scheme is administered for mothers and infants, rather than the present method of waiting until children have definitely suffered in health before they can receive a free supply of milk.
614
We welcome whole-heartedly the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the cost of the distribution of milk and into the whole distributive side of the milk industry. We hope that its findings may enable the Minister to reduce the retail price when he reviews the situation in three months' time. The high cost of milk distribution in this country has caused grave concern and serious misgiving for a long time past among all those who have urged the need for increased consumption of liquid milk. It is an alarming fact that fresh milk is more expensive in England than in any other European country; and there is at least a strong presumption that the element of excessive and unnecessary cost is added to this vital product after it has left the dairy farmer. While we are just as anxious as the noble Viscount who spoke before me that producers and distributors alike in the whole agricultural and food industry should cover their essential costs and earn a reasonable profit, we cannot in war-time allow the extravagant methods or excessive rewards of any private business to deprive the public of necessities.
I should like to say a word—and only a word—on the subject of education in the right use of food. Everyone agrees that in these days people should be shown how to buy the most nourishing foodstuffs and those that add as little as possible to the tremendous strain upon our merchant navy and upon our resources in foreign exchange. The London County Council is running cookery classes on these lines at its technical and evening institutes all over London, but these classes would be better attended if more money were available for local publicity. I believe that the Ministry of Food is interested only in national publicity; yet what induces the average housewife to learn something about food values is not the large poster exhorting her to eat more fresh vegetables or to eat less tinned food, but the tiny leaflet dropped in her letter-box and describing the bill of fare of the cookery class just round the corner. I cannot avoid the conclusion that if the Ministry would help local authorities with their local publicity, even if it meant sacrificing some national publicity, there would be a more widespread demand for food education. I should like to ask the Minister how far the scheme has been taken up by local authorities in other

615
parts of the country. I myself have knowledge of how it is being worked only in the London area. I have been as brief as possible because I am sure that our common desire is to hear at the greatest possible length, and with the maximum amount of detail that he can confide to us, the noble Lord who will speak for the Government. I should like to conclude by wishing the Minister the utmost success in his vital task. I also venture to express the hope that he will override all private interests and routine business methods that may stand in the way of an impregnable food position.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount who initiated this debate reminded us that there were two totally different aspects of food policy: production and distribution. He reminded us also that his Motion had been postponed two or three times, and consequently we are discussing it to-day in a totally different atmosphere from the atmosphere which would have existed had the debate taken place two months ago, or whenever it was that he first put down this Motion. The food-production policy of the then Government had been very much criticised during the winter, and criticised mainly by people who had had experience of food production in the last war, so that their comments, suggestions and criticisms could not be lightly ignored. We are very fortunate now in having a Minister of Agriculture who is unfettered by any past and who, I am convinced, is strong enough to impose his own policy on the Department should it be necessary to do so. He is fortunate also in his two assistants, the noble Lord who sits in this House, Lord Moyne, who himself has had experience at the Ministry of Agriculture, and in another place, as Parliamentary Secretary, a Member of Parliament who, I think, as far back as 1924 was associated with the Ministry of Agriculture, and who has always taken a keen interest in farming and agriculture. We are very fortunate, therefore, in having a good team.
When one has taken part in criticism it is always satisfactory to know by subsequent action of the Department concerned that events have shown that one was justified in that criticism. I will give only one very brief quotation, a quotation
616
from a newspaper which certainly never criticised the late Administration regarding food production, The Times. In a leading article, The Times said:
"The best feature is that Mr. Hudson displayed a welcome sense of urgency and drive in the general scheme of his policy. The country should have been told to leap into its full war stride at once. This order has now been issued to agriculture."
That shows that the comments and criticisms made by some of us during the past winter were entirely justified. Here you have one of the leading newspapers, which was not a critic of the late Administration, now supporting the increased pace and volume of production.
It is also very satisfactory to know that almost all the suggestions which were made in the past have been adopted. First of all, there is the obvious need of having a survey of the nutritional needs of the population. I do not see how it was possible to devise an agricultural policy until it was known what the nutritional needs of the population were; and it is very satisfactory to know that a strong Committee, presided over by Sir William Bragg, has now been set up, with the terms of reference that it is to consider and advise upon problems of national food requirements and of home food production. That is to say, this important Committee, consisting of experts, is to advise both upon the needs and also upon production. It should surely have been obvious a year ago, after the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia and with the imminence of war, that the first thing that the Government should do was to make a food survey of the requirements of the population in case war broke out, so that on the declaration of war we should have been in a position to go straight ahead. It is lamentable that that has been postponed for a year, because it really means that up to now the Ministry of Agriculture have been drifting in the darkness.
Another criticism which was made but which I am glad to say is no longer valid, was that the Government were not using the technical agricultural experts nearly enough. I am glad to say that that is being done now. I do not know whether one or two Ministers are going to reply to-day, but it would be a help if we could be told exactly what the functions of the liaison officers are to be. I understand that a certain number of

617
gentlemen have been appointed liaison officers over regions and that their function is somehow or other a communication between the Minister in London and the counties. I do not know to what extent they are given authority and responsibility to deal with questions of policy. So much time has been lost that it seems to me that if we are to be in the position to get the maximum production of food in the early autumn it may be necessary to delegate considerable power and authority to what in other Departments are called Regional Commissioners. The point I want to know is whether these so-called liaison officers are in any way Regional Commissioners. Some of them are obviously qualified by their technical knowledge and experience to be entrusted with authority and power.
It has been suggested that the Minister ought to have a Director of Food Production—I myself in the past made that suggestion—but conditions are now entirely different, and I hope that the Minister will be his own Director of Food Production. But I am convinced of one thing, and that is that if he is to accomplish as much as was done in the last war, when the then Minister had the assistance of the then Sir Arthur Lee, the present Viscount Lee of Fareham, it may be necessary for him to strengthen the personnel of his Department by bringing in business men, or whoever it may be, to increase his staff. The Food Production Department in the last war had at the heads of sections persons who in many cases had had no previous knowledge of agriculture, but they had drive and initiative. One of the most successful had, I believe, been an architect in private life. And undoubtedly a great deal was done to stimulate and increase the production of food in the last war by adding to the personnel of those engaged in food production. I hope very much that the Minister may be ready—indeed I am sure he will be ready should he consider it necessary—to take this step.
May I just ask one or two questions, first of all about labour? The policy as regards adding to agricultural labour was terribly slow a year ago. My recollection is that eventually something like 16,000 women were enrolled. It takes some time to train them so that they may
618
be useful. I know because I had some both in the last war and in this war. But, as I understand, out of the 16,000 who were enrolled only 7,400 were used. As a result of that there is now a fresh appeal for a fresh enrolment of 5,000 women, and when they enrol themselves they will have to be trained. There is another point. I do not know to what extent the Department are employing refugees, either skilled or unskilled. There must be in this country a considerable number of refugees who are accustomed to agriculture, and not only as labourers. I know because I have met some of them—people perhaps from Poland, perhaps from Germany, who in their native country were accustomed to run large agricultural estates. I am just wondering whether it is possible to utilise their skill and experience.
I do not know whether the Minister can tell us anything about the additional provision of fertilisers—a most important thing. I think one of the biggest aids to agriculture in recent years has been the policy of cheapening fertilisers, introduced by the present Postmaster-General, Mr. Shakespeare Morrison. Also I would like to supplement the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, put—namely, what is being done to increase the supplies of good seed, particularly of virus-free seed potatoes. One of the criticisms made in the past was that the Department concentrated too much merely on ploughing up grassland. That obviously was a necessary part of an agricultural policy, but there was great scope for increasing the output of land already cultivated, and also of increasing the production of grassland which, as a previous speaker has said, forms an enormous proportion of the land of this country. We know that there is now new knowledge and new technique, completely revolutionary, as to the treatment of grassland. Many of the county agricultural advisers are first-rate and completely up to date, but I would like to see that every one is. I hope that we can be assured that steps are being taken to see that the latest knowledge is made available to all farmers of grassland, and that this source of food production is increased.
The next point is the question of price policy and of having prices related to each other. The easiest way to induce a farmer to grow a particular food is to make the production of that food profitable, and the easiest way to discourage

619
the production of any particular commodity is to make the production of that commodity less profitable. It really was very discouraging to find that right up to June, 1940 (the war having begun in September, 1939) farmers were being encouraged by the recent price policy to grow luxury products like fat spring lamb, and I hope very much—for this concerns the Minister of Food, working obviously in the closest consultation with his colleague—that they will be able to enunciate a price policy which presumably will be based upon the report of the Survey Committee to which I have just referred. And that again shows how lamentable it was that this Survey Committee was not set up a year ago, as we are not yet in a position to have a full comprehensive price policy. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to tell us anything about the Government's policy as regards pigs. I understand that the pig is the most efficient converter of vegetables into animal foods, certainly is more efficient than the steer. What do the Department intend to do about pigs, particularly in regard to their price policy as related to steers?
A further point: how much of the arable land is to be devoted to fodder crops for livestock, instead of crops for direct human consumption? The policy as stated hitherto is not clear on that. If the Minister could clarify that it would be of assistance. Then there is the very big question of under-farmed land. Land may be under-farmed because the occupier is short of capital or implements, or because his land is second-class land—marginal or sub-marginal land, land which is inherently second-class, or it may be land which is marginal because it is undrained or because it has been allowed to run to waste. And there is another type of land which is not now-producing the full amount of food—namely, good land but in uneconomic units, land where the boundaries ought to be changed, or which has the wrong buildings, or which has an inadequate supply of water. It may be necessary for the Government, in order to make all this land really productive and to do so rapidly, to be as drastic in the steps which they take as other Ministers connected with the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour have been under the Emergency Powers Act.
620
If we have to wait until all private interests are consulted and have given agreement, there may be such a delay that we shall not get the best possible output from the type of land I have been indicating. Some of this marginal land is in ownership where the owner is not in a position to deal with it, and it may well be that the Government will decide—if they do decide, they would be taking a right decision—to set up a Land Commission, as they have set up a Forestry Commission, with powers to take over this land and bring it into maximum cultivation as rapidly as possible.
There is other land which is under-farmed because those who are in occupation are not themselves capable of getting the best results. Farming, after all, is like all other professions. In the legal profession there are good lawyers and there are less good lawyers. In the medical profession there are good doctors and there are less good doctors. People are rather apt to be insulted if it is suggested that a farmer does not belong to the best class of farmer. We are proud to know that we have here some of the very best farmers in the world, we have also a lot of good farmers, but—let us face the fact—there are other farmers who do not belong to either of these categories. You are not insulting the profession of farming when you make that statement. I should be very glad to know how the Government propose to deal with that particular problem, because these particular persons are not able, really, to get the maximum output of food from the lands which they farm.
Now I come to distribution, and may I say here, what is generally said outside, that the noble Lord who fills the position of Minister of Food has already inspired confidence? That is a great relief at the present moment. Reference has been made to the policy on milk, and I hope he will be able to give us more information than he did the other day as to what is proposed in connection with that. It was my privilege to preside over a League of Nations Commission on Nutrition, and there it was made quite clear that if you can give enough milk to pregnant mothers and to children up to the age of five, you have broken the back of the problem of malnutrition. That is why it is so satisfactory to know that the noble Lord proposes to deal with this, and I hope he will do so courageously. At the

621
end of the last war I was at the Ministry of Food, and we then devised a scheme for taking public control of the wholesale distribution of milk. That was never put into operation because the war ended. I need not go into details now, but we contemplated then having public control of the wholesale distribution of milk. Had that been done, a great deal more would have been done to cheapen milk for the public. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us anything about the rationalisation of milk distribution or anything like that.
With the policy of evacuation—a policy that is bound to increase as the war goes on—there is another problem, and that is the provision of the right food in the right quantities for the children who have been moved about. If the war goes on any length of time, I should myself expect to see something very nearly approaching communal meals and communal kitchens in many districts, and if we are to have them later, we ought to visualise and contemplate such a policy at the present moment. Another important point is the question of industrial fatigue. Industrial workers have been asked to increase their working hours by giving up holidays, by working on Sundays, and by working longer hours. Everybody knows perfectly well that, after a time, that results in diminished output. That was the experience of the last war, and it is inevitable. The way to counter it is by seeing that enough of the right sort of food is made available for our industrial workers—that is to say, that industrial canteens are universal, and that the right food is available in these industrial canteens. Setting up a building and calling it a canteen does not mean you will have the right food there, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to tell us something of what is being done in that direction.
There is another and totally different subject. During the last war there was one problem that baffled us, and that was the problem of the red deer in Scotland. They are difficult to catch, but, having killed them, it is not easy to distribute them. They are killed in the far-away glens or in the islands off the west coast, and it is by no means easy to get them to the markets. Because there was no adequate policy for dealing with them in the last war, they increased and multiplied, and instead of being a source of
622
food for the public, in many districts they raided the farm lands and diminished the amount of food available. I never like making a criticism without making a suggestion. May I suggest that the shooting season be lengthened by being begun earlier? Do not let us wait until the stags are in prime condition. It sounds heresy to suggest that we should kill deer while the velvet is still on, but long before they are clean they are perfectly edible, and if it were recognised that it is not unsporting to shoot a deer still in the velvet, I am convinced that a great many more could be brought to the larder. The shooting season is very short, and it is very difficult to catch them in a condition fit for human food.
Recent events over the Channel have put us in the position of being a beleaguered island. In the last war, the ships which brought food to this country had to face the danger of attack from submarines. In this war they have to face the danger not only of attack from submarines, but from the air—an attack that is quite as real and serious as the underwater attack. Because of that, the Ministry of Agriculture and all who are connected with the problem of food production have got to visualise an even more drastic, constructive, comprehensive policy of food production. I am perfectly confident that if that is done the noble Lord will continue the policy which he has already begun of seeing that food, either produced here or imported, is made available at suitable places and in suitable quantities for the population that requires it. I am perfectly certain that I voice the sentiments of all in your Lordships' House and outside when I say that if the Government decide to go in for a bold policy it will get whole-hearted support from the public.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for speaking in this debate, as I took no small share in dealing with the food requirements of the nation during the most critical part of the last war. I should like to say at once how very warmly I welcome the initiation of this debate by my noble friend Lord Samuel. In listening to the various speeches which have been delivered today, not in a spirit of carping criticism but, I venture to hope, helpful suggestion, I cannot help wondering whether it would not materially help us in carrying out the

623
sort of policy which most of us would desire to see for perfecting during a period of emergency the production and distribution of essential foods if, instead of placing Ministers on the defensive as is almost essential as a result of a debate in this House, those of us who are more intimately connected with the problems of food production and food distribution could from time to time meet, possibly in a Committee room of this House or in another place, and have a friendly discussion, with the hope, I might almost say with the confidence, of at any rate leaving something on the minds of those who are mainly responsible for food administration which may be of a really suggestive practical character.
So far as the noble Viscount's observations are concerned, he started with a question which I think all of us must deem to be the most crucial of questions—namely, what is it in the matter of food that the nation wants during this period of extreme emergency? Then, having said that, he went on to say that the farmers must be told. I am not quite satisfied that the farmers are being adequately told at the present time, nor am I altogether satisfied that the Government themselves, through their two chief food Departments, are certain in their minds what it is the nation really needs. The noble Viscount went on to say that having discovered what it is that is needed and what the farmers and other producers—and I want very especially to include the allotment holders and cottage gardeners—are expected to do to assist, let the Government give all possible guidance and inducements. In passing, there is only one other remark made by the noble Viscount to which I want to refer. He spoke of the number of road makers to be seen in many parts of this country, putting, as he expressed it, the roads in a state of immaculate perfection. I noticed with pleasure that this particular criticism of the noble Viscount was received with endorsement on the part of the whole House. It offends at any rate some of us to see these roadworkers, large numbers of them in the prime of life, who obviously are capable of doing more essential war work, spraying tar over the main roads, almost as much as it does to see large gatherings of men, as I see I am sorry to say very frequently in my part of the country, attending dog races
624
with all the consumption of petrol which such attendance involves.
There are others besides the road men who might be turned on to valuable work on the land. We have a considerable and growing number of very competent and experienced immigrants from agricultural countries. I can well remember during the last war how very useful indeed were some of those who came from Belgium, from Denmark, from Portugal and from other parts of the European Continent. Indeed I may say that two of them whom I secured on my own farms remained subsequently on my farms for a matter of twenty years, and one very efficient Dane is working for me to-day. Here is a potential source from which you can draw really expert, hard-working, experienced labour of the kind we so much need. We shall need it all the more when we get to the corn harvest on the farms of this country.
I want to refer shortly to a document to which reference has already been made, that very striking document the Fourth Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. I am not referring to it, I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Woolton, in a spirit of criticism but to ask him certain questions. During the last war there was nothing that exercised the minds of the Minister of Food (who, incidentally, was called Food Controller), indeed the two Ministers with whom I was associated, who were in a very real sense food controllers—they controlled their Departments—more than the danger of profiteering. Now I think that perhaps the most striking of all the recommendations of this National Expenditure Committee is the one in which they deal with the possibility of trade preferences being given in consequence of trade directors being on the staff of the various supply divisions of the Ministry of Food. They say:
"…it is particularly important that no suspicion should be created that individuals interested in a particular trade have been enabled to exert an influence inside the Ministry on the profit margins to be allowed to such trade."
I do not know anything with which the late Lord Devonport dealt with greater severity than even suspicion of any attempt on the part of the representatives of a particular trade to obtain an undue margin in respect of commodities provided by that trade.

625
The Committee mention that they had already made a recommendation that there should be set up a quasi-judicial tribunal which would finally adjudicate in each case in accordance with uniform principles to be laid down by the Government, and on the basis of a statement of facts agreed in each case between the Ministry and the trade interest concerned. They point out that the only really plausible objection to that course was, as alleged by the Ministry, that terms have already been settled in most cases already, and that in those still outstanding the stage of bargaining and negotiation is almost completed. In the light of that they go on to say:
"What we recommend is that consideration should now be given to the setting up of a special tribunal which, while the provisional settlements are running, should review the terms in all cases and which should then give its approval before such terms are confirmed for further continuation or modification."
I want to ask in the first place of the Minister whether anything has been done in pursuance of that important and particular recommendation.
Special reference is made to the necessity of disposing of supplies of various commodities in a systematic manner and so as not to have a large amount of perishable food on hand which would only be wasted if not consumed. By way of illustration they refer to the case of bacon. Bacon is a particularly important commodity to concentrate our attention on during this war, because the main source of bacon other than our own pig keepers has been closed by the fact that Denmark is now in the occupation of the enemy, and from Denmark a very large proportion of the whole of our bacon has, in the past, come. The bacon that came from Denmark and the bacon which, according to the public taste in this country during the last twenty years, has been to an increasing extent provided by our bacon factories, is what is called mild-cured bacon with a relatively small amount of salt and saltpetre used in its preservation. I would venture to suggest that a premium should be put upon the; provision not of a mild-cured bacon but of bacon so cured as to enable it to be kept in store or on consumer's premises for a relatively long time—the sort of bacon that our forbears used to consume before the demand for mild-cured bacon became in recent years so insistent. It is common knowledge that a very large amount of
626
bacon was wasted in this country some three or four months ago because prices were too high to enable it to be disposed of and consequently it decomposed and had to be thrown away.
One very important recommendation made in this Report is that there should be a wide scheme for rationalising the manufacture, storage, transport and selling of food, and on that subject the noble Viscount drew special attention to the fact that a very large number of Government Departments are involved, and that it is enormously important that there should be full co-operation and co-ordination between those Departments if the public are to get their food in sufficient quantities at a reasonable cost. In that connection the Committee say in their Report:
"We therefore recommend the setting up of a special Committee, composed of persons whose findings would carry great weight, to study the present methods and costs of food manufacture, processing, storage, transport and distribution and to make recommendations as to possible economies."
Without going further into that subject I should like to ask the Minister whether and to what extent that particular recommendation has been acted upon.
A further recommendation is made in regard to cocoa. It would appear that in order to help the native population in our West African Colonies, and not in order to supply our own food requirements, a very large quantity of cocoa has been imported into this country—much larger, the Committee say, than can possibly be absorbed by human consumption. They ask the Ministry of Food—and this no doubt is a matter for scientific advice—whether something cannot be done with this cocoa in order to prevent it being wasted and to enable it to be utilised either by human beings or by animals. For instance, they suggest an increased allocation of sugar for chocolate making. I believe that has already been done. They go on to suggest also the possibility of utilising cocoa for the extraction of cocoa butter, using the residue for cattle cake. It is perfectly evident from the announced policy of the Ministry of Agriculture that they fear that there is not going to be an adequate supply of concentrated foodstuffs for certain of our farm livestock, particularly pigs and poultry. If it is possible to extract cocoa butter from the surplus supplies of cocoa and use the residue, as

627
in the case of oil production, for cattle cake, surely it must be to the advantage of food producers in this country.
There is nothing in this Report which I welcome with more genuine enthusiasm than the setting up of this new scientific and economic Committee. I may say in passing—I think the present Minister of Food is aware of the fact—that for the last six months I have been pressing myself the very point which the noble Viscount emphasized, that it is not desirable to have our eminent scientists disagreeing through the public Press as to what is the nutrient value of certain foods or what are the best foods to produce in existing circumstances. To see people like Sir Daniel Hall, lately the very eminent scientific adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, criticising in print the policy of the Ministry, and to see others differing from some of our great nutrition experts such as Sir John Orr, is, to say the least, not very edifying. I wrote some six months ago to the late Prime Minister urging him to do all in his power to set up some such Committee as this and telling him incidentally that, although my hair is now grey, if I could be of the smallest use, having presided over various scientific Committees and Conferences in the past, I should be only too glad to take part in the work. A Committee has now been set up, and I want to ask the Minister of Food whether and to what extent this Committee is advising on the matters to which the noble Viscount has referred, and if it is possible to tell us, on one particular subject at any rate, what is the nature of that advice—that is, the preference to be given as between different farm animals in regard to imported concentrated foodstuffs.
I cannot help expressing some regret, in the light of my experience during the most critical period of the last war, that the services of Sir William Beveridge have not been made use of at the Food Ministry in some capacity. During that very acute period in 1917–18 Sir William Beveridge was Chief of the Staff at the Ministry of Food, and his work, not only as a man of great economic capacity but also as a man who was in sympathetic contact with the farming community, was simply invaluable. Since that period he has been
628
the Director of the London School of Economics and at the present time he is Master of University College, Oxford. I have reason to know that he would be only too glad to undertake a war-time task of more importance than supervising a somewhat attenuated Oxford College.
Some suggestions are made in this Report in regard to sugar. I was glad to hear the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench refer to the relatively considerable rise in the price of sugar. Sugar is a most important commodity so far as the young are concerned. I was what was called Sugar Controller in 1917–18 and we had the unfortunate experience of two sinkings of large sugar-conveying ships in a fortnight. I suppose it is not improper now to mention that we then thought we were within a fortnight of a sugar famine. The main outcry at that time was by mothers on behalf of the children. If there is the smallest danger of a shortage of sugar I would suggest with all respect to those in authority that some extra stimulus should be given to the production of sugar-beet in this country. May I say incidentally how delighted I am to see my noble friend Lord Moyne sitting once more on the Front Government Bench? I had the privilege of working with him at the Ministry of Agriculture and I can truly say, if he will allow me to do so, that I have never worked with anyone more efficient in a Government Department. We are told that a certain amount of sugar is still in use to make boiled sweets and icing for cakes. Without ruining all the small people who are selling these boiled sweets—it would be almost worth while to give them compensation—without too much consideration for this large number of vendors of boiled sweets, can we not divert some of the sugar employed in that way to more useful and essential purposes without cutting down the ration of sugar to too serious an extent?
LORD WOOLTON: Would the noble Viscount mind telling me of a more useful purpose?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: A more useful purpose would certainly be rendering it available for children in their milk puddings and other food. As to iced cakes, I should have thought we might have put a stop to the icing of cakes altogether during the war.

629
I have to admit—we all have to admit—that there must be some limitation of the amount of food which normally comes from overseas for different classes of livestock. In a schedule which was kindly furnished to me by my noble friend the Minister of Food, I find that for feeding animals in this country, what I might call the average import of feeding stuff amounts in a normal year to no less than 6,435,000 tons, employing no less than 5,270,000 tons of shipping. Quite obviously, nothing like that is available to-day. But when you look at the list of foodstuffs; maize and maize meal, wheat offals, rice meal and dust, oilseed cake and meal, oilseeds and nuts, and the large figures that are to be found against maize and maize meal, it is obvious that a very large proportion—I estimate it at something like 60 per cent.—goes to the pigs and the poultry. This is really the question to which I wish to ask both noble Lords in front of me to give me some answer.
There is a great difference of opinion among experts on whether the different categories into which the farm animals have been put for the purpose of these imported supplies is a wise order of preference. On that subject a most illuminating letter has lately appeared in The Times from Professor Halnan, of the School of Agriculture at Cambridge. In it, in effect, he says that the order of preference by the Minister is dairy cattle first—and I am sure that no one would contest the importance of putting dairy cattle first—bullocks, or what my noble friend Lord Astor calls steers, second, that is to say, feeding bovines, as well as feeding sheep. The main object of putting them second on the list is alleged to be to maintain and develop the fertility of the farmland—if I may say so, in a time of grave emergency, a very unconvincing reason. Then come as a poor third pigs, and as a very poor fourth poultry. Now Professor Halnan says this:
"None will question his first choice, since all will admit that not only is an ample supply of milk essential to the well-being of the nation, but also that the cow is in addition the most economic converter of feeding stuffs."
Incidentally, I am rather interested to see that the Minister of Agriculture, in a message recently issued to the Small Pig-keepers' Council, describes the pig as the
630
most economical converter of feeding stuffs. I should probably be inclined myself to support in that connection the contention of the Minister of Agriculture rather than that of Professor Halnan.
But Professor Halnan says:
"There are, however, grounds for doubting the wisdom of his second choice, since both fat cattle and arable sheep are somewhat wasteful converters of feeding stuffs, and the reason given—that their maintenance is necessary for the maintenance of the fertility of the land—does not appear to be a valid excuse for using feeding stuffs, so badly needed by other classes of livestock, as an indirect method of applying fertilisers to the land."
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Iveagh is here. Lord Iveagh is a very good friend of our oldest agricultural research station, over which I had the honour to preside for many years—namely, Rothamsted. He provided a fund for scientific research, as a result of which it has been demonstrated that you can make farmyard manure with no great difficulty without using animal excreta at all. But however that may be, I do venture to suggest to my noble friend that, although soil fertility has unfortunately decreased in this country very materially during the last twenty-five years, it is not economical, it is not the best use to make of concentrated food to fertilise the land in time of emergency through the bodies of bovine animals. I should very much like to know what the answer to that is. I understand that that view is supported by Sir Daniel Hall, the late scientific adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, and by Mr. Norman Reed, the well-known director of the Hanna Dairy Research Institute.
I may incidentally say this, and I think it is an important point. After all, we are probably having the most bountiful hay harvest that we have known in human memory. Never has there been a liner growth of sward on our meadows; never, probably, has there been better weather for harvesting our hay. Millions of pounds' worth of good, highly nutritious animal food must result from the present hay harvest, and ought materially to alter the estimate of concentrated food that will be required during the coming autumn and winter for feeding our bovine stock and our sheep. Pigs and poultry cannot feed on hay, whereas cattle can. Therefore, if there is any question as to allowing a reasonable

631
proportion of the imported concentrates for pigs and poultry, do give them a better chance than they are likely to get under the present Government scheme, and do not overfeed the beef cattle, but leave them to the large supplies of food which our meadows and pastures are likely this year to provide.
Professor Halnan, as my noble friend no doubt noticed, drew attention to the different categories in which animals were scheduled for this purpose during the last war. He points out that in the worst period of the war the allocations of concentrated food were:
"Horses kept for agricultural purposes, 10 lb. a head per day; milch cows"—
which, curiously enough, were put second on the list—
"4 lb. a head per day until April, none thereafter until the beginning of August, when an allowance of 2 lb. a head per day was contemplated; calves, a total quantity of ½cwt.; young growing bulls, 3 lb. a head per day until the grass comes; fattening cattle, none; breeding ewes, 14 lb. altogether; lambs and fattening sheep, none; breeding sows, a total of 4 cwt. of meal, with a further allowance of 1 cwt. for each young pig; fattening pigs, none; laying hens, 1 oz. a head per day, with a limited but unspecified allowance for growing-chickens."
I will leave it at that, but I should very much like to know whether the new scientific Committee has advised that the order of preference in the matter of imported food is really wise and truly economic.
My noble friend opposite particularly asked the two Government Departments to give guidance. I am bound to say that in my opinion a good deal of guidance is very badly wanted, particularly in the matter of showing the smaller producers—the small farmers, the smallholders, the allotment holders and the cottage gardeners, many of whom are now being asked by the Minister of Agriculture to keep a pig—what are suitable substitutes for the imported food that is no longer available. There is one source of supply which requires a considerable amount of organisation, but which is a very valuable source of supply of food for animals. I refer to the military camps which are scattered up and down the country and which are increasing in number, and from which a very large amount of good, edible food has to be hastily removed for health reasons, because flies collect about it and so on. This would provide an
632
excellent source of food for pigs and poultry if only organisation was available so that it might be used, and to enable it to be transported to those places where the best use can be made of it. As a matter of fact, I am taking part in a scheme whereby this food is going to be employed in feeding pigs in my own county. I am told by those who are utilizing it that they have never had more valuable pig-food on their premises than this camp waste which is available at the present time.
But why stop at the camps? Throughout England to-day there is an enormous amount of waste food being thrown out of the back-doors of houses, and in certain parts of the country, and notably in Tottenham, under the direction of that very enterprising Member of Parliament, Mr. R. C. Morrison, there is not only a scheme for collecting very efficiently all this waste food from the various houses, separating out the inedible part and selling a large proportion of the remainder to farmers outside London, but they are actually keeping pigs themselves on municipal lines and feeding a large part of this waste food to their own municipal pigs. I do not say that that can be done everywhere, but I do suggest that all urban district councils as well as municipal authorities should be urged to organise the collection of this waste domestic food for the better feeding of the pigs and poultry of this country. It requires a drive from the centre. I made an appeal the other day on behalf of what we call the Gloucestershire Home Food Production Society, which has been set up during the war in order to help small-scale food producers. I made an appeal to the City Council of Gloucester, and they are going to see what they can do. I felt all the time, however, that if only there was a drive from the centre, with some help in the matter of organisation, a large amount of this waste food, not merely in large cities but in small urban areas, could be rendered available for the feeding of both pigs and poultry.
I see in an announcement made, I think, this morning, that the women's institutes are having allotted to them the special task of encouraging allotments. I wish them all success. No one has a higher opinion of the women's institute movement than I have; but I cannot help thinking that if in the smaller urban districts, where there are industrial workers

633
normally employed upon allotments, the urban district council was allotted the task of organising the collection of potential pig foods, it would be of very great advantage to many of those who are doubtful to-day as to whether, in spite of the Government's appeal, they ought to keep a pig. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture in a message issued only, I think, a fortnight ago to the Small Pig-Keepers' Council, said quite definitely:
"A little time ago my predecessor appealed for a further 500,000 allotments. To that appeal there has been a most encouraging response."
Incidentally I may say that we ought not to be content with 500,000 allotments; we ought to be content with nothing less than a million allotments, which would approximate more nearly to the number of allotments in cultivation during the last war. I hope that my noble friend opposite will not under-estimate the potentialities of the allotment movement. Nothing was more encouraging in the later stages of the last war than the large and increasing amount of food which was won from the allotments of this country, particularly, by the way, on the outskirts of London. Although it was rather difficult to make an estimate, we estimated that something like one-fifth of the augmented food supply of the country was in fact coming from allotments and cottage gardens.
The Minister of Agriculture, in the message to which I have referred, went on:
"I want now to suggest another way in which those with allotments and small holdings or even suitable gardens can help to produce more of the food we need. I ask you, if you can, to keep a pig. If you already have a pig, then perhaps you can keep two—and encourage your friends to follow your good example. Remember, the pig is the most efficient machine we have for converting waste into wholesome food. Join your local Pig Club; and if there isn't a club—well, it might be possible for you to start one. In the last war about 400 new clubs were formed. This time we must aim at many more."
My comment on that is that those who are seeking to form pig clubs, including members of the women's institutes, are asking to what extent they can rely upon some modicum of cereal food being available for the pigs if the pig club is formed. They can get no very definite answer. I have communicated with the Minister of Food on this subject, however, and I am bound to say that he has—and I thank him for it—given a much more definite
634
reply than anything which we had up to about three weeks ago. If he can give some confidence to these people that if they proceed with the formation of pig clubs there will be at any rate some modicum of food available to feed the pigs, then they will take upon themselves the risk which some of them fear they would be taking by accepting the Minister's advice and forming a pig club.
I should like to ask that careful consideration should be given to the question of what particular plants it is advisable to grow in allotments and cottage gardens during the period of emergency. I notice that in an article in The Times this morning there is a heading: "Guidance on What to Sow." If we had only had guidance on what to sow about five months ago we should be in a much better position to provide the food that is wanted from these small areas of cultivable land than we are in to-day, but better late than never. What I do want to say, however, in this connection is this. Whereas during the last war we put a great premium upon potatoes, as the chief source of starchy food, energy-producing food, and an almost equally great emphasis upon peas and beans and other leguminous crops, as a great source of proteins, or muscle-forming foods, now the policy—no doubt in the light of high medical authority—has very materially altered. If you look at the model plan of a "Dig for victory" garden as issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, you will find that a very large proportion of that garden is to be given to what are called brassicae—namely, cabbages, brussels sprouts, and the like, which contain over ninety per cent. of water and are very perishable, in preference apparently to those leguminous crops which of course form a very much more valuable substitute for meat.
I am told in answer to my criticism on that subject that it is thought by the medical authorities that those plants of the cabbage tribe are valuable as providing vitamins and minerals, and thereby as ensuring what may be called the optimum health of the community. I cannot help feeling that, though under normal conditions we may do all in our power to provide for an optimum condition of health, particularly among the poorer classes, there is something even more important than that, and that is to do all in our power from our own indi-

635
vidual resources to save ourselves and our neighbours from possible starvation; in other words that we should provide what is essential to the maintenance of energy and flesh production, rather than in a time of emergency put a premium even upon the vitamins and the minerals which are deemed advisable for an optimum condition of health. At any rate I submit that suggestion for what it may be worth.
But, having said all this, I want to make it perfectly clear to my noble friends that I have no doubt whatever as to their competence and their determination to make the food position better than it has been in the past, and I venture to hope—what I am afraid was at times a defect in the administration in the last war—that the two Ministries of Agriculture and Food will work in the closest possible co-operation and co-ordination together and, above all, will give the farmers of this country every possible encouragement to produce what the nation wants, indicating, as the noble Viscount opposite said, in the clearest possible way what is expected of them, helping them with guidance and, as he said, if possible also with inducements, to provide what the nation requires in this time of grave emergency. I am sure that any appeal to them will be met with a welcome and patriotic enthusiasm which the farming community in this country has always shown in times of grave emergency.
6.23 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount opposite and to the noble Lords who have followed him for what has, to me at any rate, been a most instructive debate, and surely it is the right thing that a new Minister should come to your Lordships' House for instruction rather than that he should give instruction. The ground that has been covered is indeed very extensive, and if I were to cover the whole of it in reply I am afraid that we should be sitting a good deal later than I think most of us want to sit. I hope therefore that your Lordships will not feel that there is any discourtesy on my part if I do not deal with all that has been said.
I think the first thing that your Lordships will expect me as the Minister of Food to give to you is a clear statement of the policy on which the Ministry is being run. In the first place it is to
636
secure that we should have in this country sufficient food, either from overseas or from home production; secondly, to secure that the food produced or imported should be suitable food for the very high strain under which the population lives in war. I do welcome Lord Astor's views on that subject, because quite clearly in a period when we are asking people to work very hard we must recognise that there will be both physical and mental strain, and we must provide the foods that are suitable to meet that condition. Then the third thing that we have to do is to secure that where demand is very near to supply there should be an equitable distribution of such foods as are available. Fourthly—and noble Lords opposite will know how sincerely I share their interest in this matter—we must ensure that the prices of food shall be such as all sections of the public can pay. As I have listened to the debate I have not observed that there has been any ground of disagreement on those principles on which the Ministry is being conducted.
There has been some question in your Lordships' minds as to whether the various Government Departments which are concerned one way or another with these problems are working together. I can assure your Lordships on that subject. There is the closest possible co-operation between the officials, but in addition to that there is a Food Policy Committee presided over by the Lord Privy Seal, and an Economic Committee presided over by the Minister without Portfolio. On those two Committees the whole of these various Departments come together and we are working in very close cooperation and, I am glad to say, in agreement. Your Lordships may quite reasonably be concerned with the problem of agriculture as a prime problem in food production. You need have no doubt on the subject as to whether the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture are working in the closest possible co-operation—I was on the verge of saying in the closest possible harmony, but since I am the representative of the buyer and he of the seller there are occasions when his views on prices and mine do not quite agree. But we have no variety of views on the subject of production.
I wish that I were capable of replying fully to the various agricultural points that have been raised. Your Lordships' House is well known as being expert on

637
agricultural questions. I should not have the temerity to address you on that subject with my noble friend Lord Moyne sitting behind me. I can assure your Lordships that the points that you have raised will be conveyed, I am sure by him and by us jointly, to the Minister of Agriculture. I have noted with great care, and naturally with great respect, the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who has been good enough to help me since I came into office with much very valuable advice. I will see, too, that those views are conveyed to the Minister of Agriculture.
If I may detain your Lordships long enough I should like to give you something of a picture of what this Ministry of Food is trying to do, and the extent of it. Your Lordships have been very good this afternoon in that there has been very little adverse criticism coming from you. I am sure that there must be room for criticism. When you realise that this Ministry of Food, which was born but a few months ago, is in fact an enormous business, that it has a turnover of £600,000,000 per annum, a staff of 23,000 people, and that it is divided into seventeen main divisions and 1,500 subdivisions—that gives your Lordships some idea of the enormous enterprise which has been created in these very few months. The staff of the Ministry is an extraordinary combination. My predecessor succeeded in gathering round him men of great national repute, in addition to civil servants. These men have come in, many of them heads of businesses, prepared to come in as war-workers and take comparatively minor positions in the office. Here in London and in the provinces I have been to see this staff at work, and I want to take the opportunity publicly of expressing to them my gratitude, and an assurance that the nation appreciates the zeal and capacity with which they are working and making this great machine work.
I have been asked by Lord Listowel whether I will override trade obstructionists if I come across them. It is but recently I came from that world, and I know something about the methods of traders. I am glad to say that I find no occasion for overriding. The food trades of this country are very well organised. In peace time they have succeeded in giving a most effective service to the public of this country. They are
638
organised in their local associations and in their national associations, and it is indeed true that if anyone in the Ministry wants to know the opinion of a trade, or the practice of a trade, in any particular, he can get that information at very short notice. The trades have been most helpful. They have suffered curtailment, they have suffered control—these trades that in peace time are fiercely individualistic and competitive—and, worst of all, they have been forced to fill up innumerable returns in order that somebody else besides themselves might know what stocks they have. That has been the only thing to which they have objected. I do not think I need contemplate having to take strong measures with these traders. I have sought, ever since I came into office, to work Government control through the normal channels of business—adjusting, adapting, and limiting both freedom and profits, but in such a manner that when the war is over, when we go back to ordinary commercial life, then these trades will be left unharmed as the result of their association with the Government and, I venture to hope, improved by it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has referred at length to the Report, which we call the Schuster Report, of the Committee on National Expenditure. There is very grave danger in Committees investigating Departments deciding that it may not be in the public interest to have this or that person in office in the Ministry because he has great financial interests outside. We have called together in the Ministry of Food the most competent men in the various trades with which we are dealing. They are men of very high commercial reputation. They have come in, in order that they may serve their country in war time. We should be vastly poorer if they were not there. If they are to be subject to the criticism that they are now using their positions in order that they may subsequently obtain commercial advantage, we are rendering them a poor return for the great service they are doing. I can assure your Lordships that, for my part, and I am sure for their part, a position would not for one moment be tolerated in which the trades themselves determined the margins on which they should operate. That is in their interests just as much as in ours, and I can assure your Lordships I shall take very great care on that point. I noted two other suggestions of the noble Viscount. One,

639
which arose out of the Departmental Committee, was that I should set up a tribunal controlling these various questions of margins and profits and so on. The noble Viscount said that in the last war the Minister of Food was called the Food Controller, and that he controlled his Department. I am endeavouring to control my Department.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I say at once I did not mean any aspersion on the Minister?
LORD WOOLTON: I did not for one moment take it that way. I do not want to set up any unnecessary number of Committees. There are so many, they take up so much time of so many competent people and officials that I have not taken that advice that was given in the House of Commons Report. Neither have I taken the advice to form a Committee to consider the reorganisation of the distributing trades. We are in the middle of a war. We have not the time now to consider reorganisation of trades. That is a thing I should like to leave until we have won the war.
The next point on which your Lordships will want a reply, and which was raised by Lord Listowel, was how are supplies secured, and have we got enough? We are the sole importers of 85 to 90 per cent. of the foodstuffs that come into this country. Control ensured that, according to our capacity to buy in foreign markets and to obtain shipping, we should secure what we wanted. I wonder whether I have an opportunity here of satisfying the noble Earl. We have known what we wanted. If we are controlling 85 per cent. of the goods that come into this country, and if, in fact, the country is being adequately and properly fed, then there is some evidence that we have known what we wanted.
We have been accused—not by the noble Earl—of not having a plan. We have a plan for imports, and that has been the responsibility of the Ministry I control. We have brought in food on an import programme that has been deliberately built up on food values, and when I tell your Lordships that our imports of food are down by 12 per cent., but that our imports of calories are only down by 1 per cent., then it does indicate that we have been considering
640
the scientific and nutritive question which is involved. We have taken this control of imports in order that we could secure what we wanted. We did not want strawberries; we did want more meat because we had the Forces to feed. We wanted to avoid competitive buying abroad, which would only have put up the prices here. We have to avoid the competitive buying of freight. In order to make these imports we have not set up an organisation of our own. We have called all the importers together and asked them to accept service under the Crown. We have used the normal channels of trade. I wish I could tell your Lordships the extent of some of the deals which have been undertaken by these trades—deals of such magnitude that in years to come those who have carried them through will tell their children what wonderful things they bought without anybody knowing they were buying them on behalf of His Majesty's Government during war-time. We have waited until the market was ready to sell, then, quietly, without anyone knowing the purchases were being made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, we have taken advantage of the buyers' market and obtained goods. We have by that means saved many millions of pounds for the Treasury.
I wish I could tell your Lordships what the stocks were. I did indeed in my inexperience propose to do so, but I was advised it was not the sort of thing that I ought to make public. Will your Lordships accept my assurance that the stocks are adequate? They vary. There are some stocks, and those the most important, in regard to which I can look forward to weeks and weeks of supply if nothing else comes into this country. Indeed most of the essential foodstuffs are covered in that manner. We are not equally covered for everything, but all the essential things are there, and it is, I can assure you, our constant care to see that stocks are kept as high as possible. But it is not only stocks that matter. It is no use having food if it is in the wrong places. The best place for food stocks is in the shops of the various retailers all over the country, because by that means you get the best spread. I have done all I could to encourage the retailers, according to their financial capacity, to fill up their shops. The next best place is in the warehouses that are adjacent to the small centres of population, and then in the

641
warehouses that are associated with large centres of population. The worst place for stocks to be is near docks, and I am happy to tell your Lordships that, entirety as a result of voluntary action on the part of the food trades, we are at the present time in the position of having our docks clearer than I think they have been for a very long time.
We spread our food all over the country. Always in my mind there has been the possibility of emergency, the possibility of the disruption of communications, and I think your Lordships might like me to spend a few moments in telling you how I have tried to meet that problem. I told you we had seventeen different areas in this country, each with a highly competent officer in charge. In the event of a breakdown in communication he takes complete control. He does not have to refer to London for instructions, but gives; his own instructions. He is trained to use every possible initiative. He is competent, because of the returns that have been sent to me, to know just what foodstuffs there are in the counties over which he rules, and he has the power to move foodstuffs from one place to another if he desires to do so. During the course of the last month there has probably been a greater movement of foodstuffs in this country than has ever been witnessed before. By that means we have, I hope, secured the spread. But I have told everyone of the seventeen divisional officers and 1,500 local officers, and I have told all the traders, that in the last resort they are to use their own initiative and their own discretion, resorting to such Government instructions as they have merely to act as guides to them. That, I hope, will deal with the problem of the civilian population staying in their own homes wherever they are and whatever may happen.
When your Lordships raise the question whether we have done anything for the people who are evacuated, I would point out that there we have two different problems. We have, up and down the country, and in places which I hope we have been able to keep secret, iron rations of food to be used only in case of great emergency. In addition to that we have prepared in all the areas round about the large vulnerable centres of population in this country other rations which will be used in the event of a crisis evacuation.
642
Before I conclude I feel I must say something on the problems of rationing and prices. Your Lordships have observed that we have not rationed very many articles of food. We only introduced rationing where the supplies were short, or, alternatively, where they were vulnerable. For example, in the case of sugar, we have done it out of sheer necessity. In the case of meat, we have done it as a precautionary measure. The system is easily capable of expansion. I believe that without straining the organisation I shall be able, if necessary, to undertake the rationing of half a dozen other commodities at very short notice. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out the importance of having food at prices the people can afford to pay. Well, my Lords, pre-war standards are not now the guide to defining that section of the population that cannot afford to pay. Many people who were in poverty before the war have, as a result of obtaining work and higher wages, no difficulty in buying the food they need, but many others, people who were considered to be quite reasonably and comfortably off, have gone into the other class. The problem has become more difficult and more diffuse.
The action that we have taken in regard to prices is this. For milk, for bread (through the operation of flour) for meat and for bacon, we have said: "These things are so important that we have to ask the Treasury to come to our help in keeping the prices down." The average increase in prices in respect of these commodities has been only 8 per cent. Without subsidies the price would have risen 30 per cent. For other things such as sugar, currants, sultanas, raisins, eggs, cheese, condensed milk, potatoes and butter we have fixed a maximum price. The increase in price here has been 19 per cent., but I must point out to your Lordships that that 19 per cent. as very heavily weighted by the fact that sugar has been increased by 49 per cent., and that the increase in the price of sugar is due to the needs of His Majesty's Treasury. Taxation has caused that price to rise. Uncontrolled foods have risen in price by about 40 per cent. I have been endeavouring since I took office to apply the vast sums of money—some £60,000,000—which His Majesty's Treasury has spent on subsidised foods in such a manner as to secure that sub-

643
sidies shall go to people who most need them. You and I have been benefiting by getting milk at a lower price than should have been paid. There has been one price for milk and many people have not been able to afford to pay it. I have, as I remarked to you a week ago, now arranged that that subsidy on milk shall be so arranged that it goes to the people who most need it, and the rest of the community will pay the ordinary economic price for their milk. That appears to me to be the proper way to use Treasury money.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I am afraid, takes an elaborate view of the dietary of the working man and the poorest people before the war. He feels aggrieved that the price of butter has gone up. But many of the poor never had batter before the war. They had margarine, and except perhaps in the matter of personal taste I am informed that one is now as useful a food as the other. The noble Earl raised a problem of very great difficulty when he told us how many people before the war, according to Sir John Orr's book, were living in poverty. That is a very grave problem. I am constantly being urged to use my powers to try to solve it. Surely I must go cautiously. My prime duty is to secure foodstuffs at prices that people can afford to pay. If I do that, then I think I shall have fulfilled all that it is right that I should attempt to do in the matter of social reform. There are other Ministers of the Crown who are concerned, and I feel, as I say, that I am doing my best by doing the specific job with which I am charged and not trying to take on the reorganisation both of trade and industry and the elimination of poverty. But I would like to tell the noble Earl how I have tried to deal with the problem of the poorest.
In the first place it has been obviously by State help. In the second place I have gone to the traders—and let us remember that the food traders of this country have kept the poor alive in the past. In spite of their poverty they have always been able to obtain, if not sufficient food, at any rate considerable quantities of food and I put the problem precisely like that to the food traders. I said to them: "These people were your clients before the war, and they will
644
be your clients if they are alive after the war. I therefore suggest to you that during the period of the war it is an obligation on the trade to see that it provides goods at prices these people can afford to pay. "And they have risen to this appeal. The traders of the country have immediately recognised their patriotic obligation. The bread people came to me to ask for an increase in price, but after a conversation of that nature, they withdrew their request and said they would not ask for an increase in price for the time being, although they had increased costs as justification for an increase in price. The milk people who came to ask for an increase in price, first at my request made the concession that they would distribute milk to nursing mothers and children under five with no profit to themselves. That at any rate was a gesture.
The food manufacturers in this country have decided, large numbers of them, that they will be prepared to produce foods without any profit to themselves for some proportion of their production if the food can be distributed to the poorer section of the population without undue extra charges. The retailers of the country are now meeting my staff and discussing these things. I am trying by using normal trade channels and the normal pre-war practices of the trade to secure that the poorest classes shall be cared for during war-time. If I cannot get that result through the trade channels then you have given me all the powers that I need to get them in other ways, and I shall not hesitate to use those powers.
I must just say a few words on the subject of food education. Several of your Lordships have referred to the importance of the public being told what foods they ought to eat and how they ought to cook them. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that during the last few months we have conducted a campaign in this country on the nutritive value of foods such as we have never seen before. The Board of Education has taken up the matter very widely, local authorities have helped, voluntary and commercial organisations have placed their resources at our disposal and have lent us their teachers, there have been innumerable articles in the Press and day by day, usually once or twice a day, there are talks on the wireless which, to judge from my mail

645
bag, are very popular indeed, telling people how best they can use their foods. This idea of the "Kitchen Front" has appealed to the women of this country. They feel they are doing a job, as indeed they are, of very great importance.
Now, my Lords, you ask me whether we are using the scientists. If it is any comfort to you to know it I may tell you that the first question I asked when I took office was "Where is my scientific adviser?" I had the advantage in my early days of some scientific training and I know how valuable it can be, but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, the trouble about scientists is that they find it so difficult to agree with one another! All I can do is to listen to the advice of the scientists and then, having listened to it, make up my own mind. Your Lordships are also concerned about the question whether it is necessary to create in this war a Food Production Department such as existed and did such wonderful work in the last war. I am sure that I need not emphasize the danger of assuming that the best way to conduct this war is to duplicate the conditions of the last war. An organisation which was necessary then need not be necessary now. The truth is that the Ministry of Agriculture is the Food Production Department of this country. That really is its job, and I do not think that there is any necessity to create another Department to do the job of the Ministry of Agriculture. Your Lordships know that the Minister of Agriculture has the fullest scientific advice. He has a most competent staff to give him all the advice that he can take. As Lord Astor so wisely said, if you want to get the right things produced you have to pay for them. We have this new Scientific Committee, appointed by the Lord Privy Seal with the most cordial support of the Minister of Agriculture and myself, to advise us on the scientific side of food production. That Committee is meeting; the first thing upon which it is engaged is what it calls the iron ration, and it is advising us on that. It is meeting frequently, and I have very great hopes of the advice that we shall get from it. But when it comes to putting that advice into practice, that is the business of the Minister of Agriculture and myself.
The farmers are perfectly willing to produce anything that we want in this country if we will pay them for it, and accord-
646
ing to the measure in which we want it we pay. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food are working so well together and in such close co-operation that I believe that if we were to form another Department to deal with this problem of food production, it would indeed only be a question of duplicating offices. Your Lordships have asked me many questions concerning practical agriculture with which I have not dealt. I can tell you this on the subject of tractors: that sixteen thousand have been delivered this year, and that in the corresponding period a year ago only four thousand were delivered. I can tell you that the Minister of Agriculture is taking most careful note of the importance of virus-free seed potatoes, and that they have not as many as they wish they had; if they had more, then more could have been sold. The subject of fertilizers is under the control of the Ministry of Supply. It is, I can assure you, occupying attention, and I think the position is satisfactory to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Supply.
There is no reason why I should detain your Lordships longer. I hope that what I have said to you has not indicated that I feel any self-satisfaction in the Ministry of Food. Indeed, I have been there for such a short time that there is no reason why the fact that I find things satisfactory should be regarded as a sign of self-complacency in me. It is for my predecessor and for the men who have built up the Ministry to be congratulated. With markets lost, with crops failing, with populations moving, with the danger of our factories and our stores being bombed, there is no danger of our resting on our laurels. We are grateful that up to now we have been able to feed the people of this country with the minimum of inconvenience to them. Always a substitute has been readily available: if butter has been short, margarine has been plentiful. The solitary exception is sugar; and really it was not my fault that we should have, I suppose, the best fruit harvest that we have had for a very long time concurrently with the failure of the sugar crop in the West Indies.
I can assure your Lordships that I welcome most cordially the suggestion which Viscount Bledisloe has made: that outside this Chamber I should meet members of this House. I should be glad at all times to meet them; I should be indeed grateful

647
to them for their advice, as I have been to-day. I hope that I have not detained your Lordships unduly.
7.6 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I want to say a word of apology. I think that all of us who have listened to the noble Lord will have been comforted. I am sure I have seldom had the pleasure of listening to a statement which showed a clearer grasp of a series of very complex problems, and which gave one a better assurance that policy was being directed by the Minister. I have only two observations to make, except to express my hearty concurrence with one statement the Minister made. That was that he demurred at the creation of a special Food Production Department and said it was the business of the Ministry of Agriculture to be the Food Department. I should like to express my hearty agreement. I should say that if the Ministry of Agriculture is not an effective Food Production Department, then it has failed in its first purpose. Therefore I see no reason for duplicating it.
There are two matters which I ask the Minister to think of a little further. One is that of milk. I think that the scheme which he has put up, and of which he very kindly provided me with a draft in advance, for the provision of milk for women and young children and for poorer persons is wholly admirable. I only hope that he will find that its administration will work fairly smoothly. I know he does not expect the impossible; but the ascertainment of the needs of the families of those who will be entitled to obtain the milk at a cheaper rate is a prodigiously difficult problem. It will not be fair to be too critical for some time to come. I hope, however, that he will not rest satisfied with what he calls the "economic" price of the rest of the milk. It will not do. I should not like to leave it to find its own level, if that is what is meant. The present price of milk—I am not going into details now; it is too late—and the price for many years past have been a shocking illustration, in my opinion, of excessive distribution charges. For some years past milk has been a commodity in which the increase of price for distribution has been nearly 100 per cent. of what the farmer has received for his milk. I cannot accept the idea that this has ever been
648
justified, and I find that every Government Commission and other body which has examined this question—and I have a long list of them here—has condemned the retail price of milk as being too high.
The Minister of Food said last week, I believe, that he had set on foot an inquiry into the retail price of milk and that he was going to allow a trial period of three months; at all events he said that he was having an inquiry. All I have to say on that is that it will rejoice my heart if at long last, after many years of protests by a series of Government Committees, who have said with complete unanimity that the distribution cost of milk should be reduced, the Minister of Food succeeds in doing it. I am not criticising the Minister; I am urging him to get on with the good work. I hope that he will have a firm hand, and that he will not leave it to the free finding, so to speak, of some price which is called economic. He must be firm in this matter, because the price has been far too high for multitudes of buyers for many years past.
There is one other point of policy which I should like him to reconsider, and that is the decision, which I suppose that he and the Minister of Agriculture arrived at in conjunction, to put food for poultry at the bottom of the list so far as imported supplies are concerned. I question the soundness of that. I think that all scientists agree that eggs form one of the most important articles of diet, especially for children and adolescents, and they say that more of them ought to be consumed. Owing to the exigencies of the war, however, we have lost all the nearby sources of production, and we are left in the position that the big suppliers of eggs are now to be found many thousands of miles away. It is a long way to New Zealand, which is one of our other big suppliers. The Scandinavian sources of supply are now completely cut off. Yet at the same time the Ministry suggests a policy which will necessarily curtail the home production of eggs. I think that that is wrong and should be reviewed. The bulk occupied by feeding-stuffs imported for poultry is not, I should think, large as compared with that of feeding-stuffs imported for other animals, but, as I have said, the value of the egg as an article of diet is immense. At a time when, owing to the war, we have to obtain our

649
imported supplies of eggs from the other side of the earth—because that is what it amounts to—I do not think that we should have a policy in regard to the importation of feeding-stuffs which necessarily limits the production of eggs here at home. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give the matter further consideration. Apart from that, I should like to express my unbounded pleasure at hearing the statement which the Minister has made.
7.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that you will agree that this debate to-day has served a very useful purpose. Perhaps I may be allowed to remove one misapprehension. I have not advocated a separate Ministry of Food Production. There was no separate Ministry of Food Production in the last war; there was a section of the Ministry of Agriculture under a Director-General of Food Production, who was allowed considerable latitude and was able to carry out on his own initiative a number of special schemes. Whether that would be the best thing to do now, or whether the Ministry of Agriculture at present is adequately organised for that special purpose without an internal Department of Food Production specifically devoted to that object, is a matter which can be judged only by those who are closely acquainted with the internal working of the Ministry. For the rest, the public at large must judge by results. If the present organisation of the Ministry produces the results that are needed in the shape of adequate attention to all the special aspects of food production, well and good; if not, then the
650
decision arrived at not to create a special section of food production may be judged to have been erroneous. We must wait and see the consequences.
As for the speech by the Minister of Food to which we have just had the privilege of listening, it is a speech that I feel all of us will agree has been full, comprehensive and satisfying, like a good dietary! The statement which he has made will increase the confidence of the nation in the Minister who is charged with an interest vital to us all. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MID-WESSEX WATER BILL, [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you may like to be reminded that the House will meet at three o'clock to-morrow, and after the transaction of certain formal business of minor importance, the Leader of the House will move that the statement to be made on Home Defence be heard and debated secretly.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.