Sitting of 8 July 1941

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely—
  Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Bill to be read a Second time.

  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

  GRAMPIAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): May I be allowed to
  2
  inform the House that the Debate on the Grampian Electricity Supply Order Confirmation Bill, with the approval of the House, will not be taken on the date arranged, but when it does come on I shall move that it be adjourned. I think that will meet the general convenience of the House.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War the policy which is being pursued with regard to the internment of Italian prisoners taken in Africa; whether they are being sent to India; and to what extent they are being kept in Kenya and other African possessions?
  The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): The policy is to remove these prisoners from the zone of operations as soon as possible. In accordance with this policy they are being sent to various parts of the British Commonwealth, including India. It is also proposed to retain a number in Kenya.
  Mr. Mander:Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say anything about the treatment of the Duke of Aosta? Is he being treated in any different way from any of the other Italian prisoners?
  Captain Margesson: That is another question, of which I think I ought to have notice, but so far as I am aware there is no difference between his treatment and that of any other officer of similar rank.
  Mr. Riley: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say anything about the statement that has been made that Italians are to be brought to this country to work on the land?
  Captain Margesson: An announcement was made on that subject some time ago, to the effect that arrangements were being made to bring some Italian prisoners to work on the land.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will appoint special representatives of regimental paymasters to be attached to each battalion, battery or similar unit, in order to ensure as far as possible the correct assessment of soldiers pay and allowances and a more efficient control of soldiers pay accounts?
    Captain Margesson: If my hon. Friend's suggestion is that soldiers pay accounts should in effect be kept by Royal Army Pay Corps personnel in the units, this would involve a complete departure from the present pay organisation: it would involve a heavy increase of staff, and it would introduce a system which would inevitably break down under war conditions. If the suggestion is that Royal Army Pay Corps personnel should be attached to units for liaison purposes, this again would call for a heavy addition of trained staff which is not available. But the need for improving in units the knowledge of pay matters is fully appreciated, and, with this end in view, arrangements have recently been made to provide command schools of instruction for regimental officers and non-commissioned officers. Representatives from units attending these schools are not only instructed in pay duties but are encouraged to raise both general and individual problems on behalf of their units. In addition, instructional staff are constantly visiting units and giving lectures and advice on all pay matters.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, whatever he
    4
    has to say about my suggestion, the present system is not satisfactory from the soldier's point of view; and if, therefore, he could not accept this suggestion, would it not be possible to attach a representative of the paymaster to formations like brigades?
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the present system in the Army is that the soldier is responsible for knowing the correctness of his own pay, and in nine cases out of 10 he does not, and will he shift that responsibility for correctness of pay to the regimental paymaster?
    Captain Margesson: I will consider that point. In reply to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), I am aware that there have been complaints, and I am anxious to remove these troubles. That is the reason for the course of action I have outlined to the House.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large number of cases of men and their dependants being put under compulsory stoppages of pay and allowances by regimental paymasters, he will issue instructions that in no case shall overpaid money be stopped from wives or dependants allowances; and, in the case of a soldier, no stoppage shall exceed 10 per cent. of the man's pay for the purpose of recovering sums overpaid?
    Captain Margesson: Existing instructions provide that current payments of family or dependants allowance should not be reduced in respect of the recovery of an overissue by more than 12½per cent. of the total weekly payment, and that the reduction should not be continued for more than eight weeks, unless the overissue was due to misrepresentation on the part of the payee. As regards recovery of overissues of a soldier's pay, instructions have recently been issued that, where the overissues were accepted in good faith, the rate of recovery should not exceed a sum that would leave the soldier with less than one shilling a day. In both cases the rate of recovery may be reduced where it appears that the maximum rate would entail hardship to the soldier or dependant, and part or the whole of the amount overissued may be written off, if the circumstances warrant it.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether the 1s. is after the soldier has made his allotment, and, further, whether he is aware that the instructions which he has just outlined are not being followed by the regimental paymasters?
    Captain Margesson: If my hon. Friend can give me details of such a case, I will look into it at once and do my best to put it right. The 1s. a day is left to the soldier after the allotment has been made.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War what are the general regulations respecting allowances to a wife and dependants when the soldier has leave on account of serious family illness or when he absents himself for this reason; whether each case is decided by the paymaster; and whether, in view of the hardship to the family frequently arising from deductions during or subsequent to this leave or absence, he will consider modifying the practice so that financial hardship to the family is avoided?
    Captain Margesson: The grant of leave on compassionate grounds does not affect in any way the issue of allowances to a soldier's wife or dependants. If a soldier absents himself without leave, he ceases to be entitled to any emoluments from Army funds, but in order to avoid hardship, payments which were being made to his dependants continue for seven days. I do not think that the Army authorities can reasonably be expected to relieve the soldier of responsibility for his family beyond this period.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that some authority has still to maintain the wife and children? Under these circumstances cannot he devise some kind of punishment to the soldier which does not inflict unnecessary hardship on the dependants?
    Captain Margesson: We do not wish to inflict any hardship on dependants, but, equally, a soldier should not absent himself.
    Mr. Sorensen: One quite understands that, but the point is not of preventing him from absenting himself or punishing him for absenting himself, but of the condition of his wife and children, who are not responsible for his absenting himself.

    REQUISITIONED PROPERTY.
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent failure of the military authorities on requisitioning properties, and in the periods when properties are not occupied, to take any steps to protect or safeguard such properties, with the consequence of deterioration and theft which later will be borne by public expense; and will he take steps to remedy this?
    Captain Margesson: Existing instructions provide for the employment of caretakers to protect empty properties from deterioration or theft. I am aware that these instructions were not always carried out in the exceptional conditions prevailing last summer, but I have no reason to think that there is any widespread failure to comply with them now. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Creech Jones:I shall be glad to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman certain instances, but may I ask him whether he will strengthen the instructions with a view to seeing that they are carried out?
    Captain Margesson: Most certainly instructions must be carried out, and I think if they were carried out there would be no complaints.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Summersasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to promote efficiency and acknowledge good attendance, he will fix now the minimum hours of duty and the period which shall be regarded as the minimum necessary for members of the Home Guard to qualify for a service medal, to be issued after the war?
    Captain Margesson: No, Sir. The question of the award of a medal to the Home Guard is part of the general question of the award of medals for service in the present war, and any assumptions regarding such awards would clearly be premature at the present time. So far as my hon. Friend's proposal is intended to serve as an incentive to increased efficiency, however, I may mention that a proficiency badge has recently been instituted for those members of the Home Guard who are recommended by their company commander and succeed in passing certain tests.
    Mr. Summers: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend prepared to consider some other distinction between the regular and irregular attenders other than the proficiency badge, perhaps something of a less stringent character?
    Captain Margesson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give me particulars of what he wants me to consider. I certainly do not think that now is the moment to go into the question of medals to be awarded after the war.
    Mr. Thorne: Is not the Home Guard absolutely under the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's control?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. As Secretary of State for War I am responsible for it.
    Mr. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for War, why the Nelson company of the Home Guard now in camp have been refused either rations or subsistence allowances?
    Captain Margesson: Rations in kind are provided for members of the Home Guard attending approved courses of instruction at authorised training camps. I understand that no application has been made for the camp to which my hon. Friend refers to be placed on an official footing, but I have not yet received a full report from the Command and I am looking into the matter further. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. Silverman: While thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that repeated applications were made to the area headquarters, and assistance of any kind was repeatedly refused?
    Captain Margesson: That is exactly the kind of fact I wish to bear in mind.

    OFFICERS, N.C.O.'S AND OTHER RANKS (ASSOCIATION).
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War the present regulations in the Army with regard to the association of senior and junior non-commissioned officers and private soldiers when off duty?
    Captain Margesson: Except as regards sergeants and corporals messes, there are no regulations on this question, which, I think, can safely be left to the good sense of those concerned.
    Mr. Mander: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there are certain units in which instructions have been issued for these ranks not to associate when off duty, and will he make it perfectly clear that no such regulations exist?
    Captain Margesson: I am very glad to give publicity to that point. There are no such regulations, as I have said in my Answer to-day, except as regards sergeants and corporals messes.
    Mr. Mander: If I send my right hon. and gallant Friend the name of the particular unit, will he be good enough to communicate with the commanding officer?
    Captain Margesson: I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the ban on officers entering the Bournemouth Municipal Pavilion ball-room because they would have to associate with non-commissioned officers and men; whether he appreciates that this degree of segregation has caused considerable resentment, and is not in accordance with democratic and commonsense principles; whether a similar instruction exists in other Commands than the Southern Command; and whether he will take steps to have such an instruction withdrawn?
    Captain Margesson: I have seen reports in the Press of the instruction to which my hon. Friend refers. There is, of course, no objection in principle to the association of officers and other ranks when off duty, and I understand that the instruction in question was not intended to impose any general veto but merely to deal with a particular case in which the conditions of such association were regarded as prejudicial to military discipline. In the circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the local military authorities. I am unable to say whether any similar instruction has been issued in other commands.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the explanation given by representatives of the Southern Command respecting this incident would apply elsewhere, and that, therefore, some further inquiry should be made to see whether these rather superficial explanations should not be put on one side in favour of fairer principles?
    Captain Margesson: Conditions elsewhere may not be the same as in this particular case. That is why I cannot say what instructions have been issued elsewhere. I understand there is to be a meeting between the local authority at. Bournemouth and the military authorities; it has not yet taken place.
    Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a newspaper report that this ban has been rescinded? Is that so?
    Captain Margesson: I have not seen that report.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that one reason given was that a soldier returning to a seat with a partner would find it difficult to ask an officer to give up his seat to a lady?

    FIGHTING UNITS (MENTION).
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that in official communiqués the name of the unit which distinguishes itself shall be given in such a form that the relatives of the men serving may recognise it?
    Lieut.-Colonel Bolesasked the Secretary of State for War whether the principle which guides him in publishing the names of units fighting in various theatres requires the concealment of the regiment in the name of the corps, namely, R.A.C., Hussars; and why the name of the regiment cannot be given?
    Captain Margesson: As I promised my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Norton (Major Peto) on 24th June, I have been looking further into this question, and I have now decided that, in future, individual cavalry or Royal Armoured Corps regiments may be mentioned by name in exactly the same way as infantry regiments. In general, I am most anxious to make public the names of individual regiments in such a way that they can be readily identified by the relatives of the men serving in them, wherever this can be done without prejudice to the conduct of current or future operations.

    RAILWAY TRAIN REFRESHMENTS (SERVICE CHARGE).
    Mr. Denvilleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War
    10
    Transport whether he will consider giving instructions that soldiers travelling by train should not be compelled to pay a service charge for their food; is he aware that Sapper E. Hall, No. 4342381, travelling between Newcastle and Perth, was charged 2s. 9d. for a plain breakfast, this including 3d. for service; and will he cut out service charges for uniformed forces?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): As I stated last week in reply to a Question, special arrangements have been made for the supply of food to soldiers travelling by rail, most of whom, in any case, carry rations for the journey when travelling on duty or going on leave. In the circumstances I do not think that discrimination in charge, between soldiers and other passengers, in restaurant cars would be justified.
    Mr. Denville: Would the Parliamentary Secretary put a stop to compulsory tipping by soldiers?
    Colonel Llewellin: This service charge is operating on two of the railway companies by agreement with the staffs of their restaurant cars. People have a charge of 2d. on bills up to 1s., 3d. for bills between 1s. 1d. and 2s. 6d., and so on, and there is no necessity whatever for a tip in addition to the service charge. This arrangement is similar to that in force at a number of catering establishments, and I think it right that the men serving on these trains should get some form of gratuity.

  SCOTLAND.

    SHEEP (DOG WORRYING).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given consideration to the representations made to him by the National Farmers Union of Scotland regarding the disturbance of sheep by dogs; and whether he has any statement to make?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): The proposals made by the National Farmers Union on the subject, which include a recommendation in favour of doubling the Licence Duty on dogs, concern all dog owners and affect other interests as well as agriculture. I am bringing the representations in question to the notice of the Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Mathers: Is my right hon. Friend trying to strengthen the obligation that rests upon dog owners to keep their dogs under control, and to bring to them the realisation that other animals have their rights as well?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. That matter has, of course, been very seriously under examination by all the interests concerned, particularly during the lambing season.

    DAMAGED HOUSES (RENT).
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that persons whose houses were damaged in air raids and who have been unable to live in them for several months, have been asked to pay the rent for that period before being allowed to return; and will he take steps to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. Johnston:The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I have had inquiries made of the town clerks of several Clydeside burghs and also of the Property Owners and Factors Association, and they are unaware of any case of this kind. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of any such case, I shall inquire into it.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Thank you very much.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    DOMESTIC SUPPLIES, COVENTRY.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary for Mines what improvement there has been in the output of household coal available for the city of Coventry in the month of June, 1941, as compared with May, 1941, and June, 1940?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): Figures of house coal disposals to Coventry for the month of June are not yet available, but I am informed that there has been no deterioration in the position as compared with May. Any substantial improvement must necessarily depend upon increased output. The general control of deliveries which has recently been imposed is designed to ensure the equitable distribution of the supplies available.
    Captain Strickland: Is the Minister satisfied that the restriction of one ton per month per household is not going to
    12
    throw a very heavy burden on the delivery of coal in the winter months, such as we had last winter, which led to the complete dislocation of traffic on the railways?
    Mr. Grenfell: The restriction of coal to one ton a month will ensure the equitable distribution for which the hon. and gallant Member and many other hon. Members have asked.
    Sir A. Knox: Does this restriction not make it perfectly certain that there will be a breakdown in the winter? There was nearly a breakdown last winter, and now there will be an absolutely certain breakdown this winter.
    Mr. Grenfell: No, Sir, it is intended to help. If 100 people get a ton each, it is better than 20 people geting five tons each.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not better to allow people who can do so to store coal?
    Mr. Grenfell: People are asked to store coal. The bulk of people do not consume 5 cwts. a week during the summer months.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the tenement system in Scotland many houses cannot store 5 cwts.?

    MINES MANAGEMENT.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether there is anything in the Essential Work Order or in the rules governing the procedure of the pit production committees which enables action to be taken against the mines management if it is proved that they have hindered or discouraged production?
    Mr. Grenfell: While there are no specific provisions to this effect in the Essential Work Order, there are other ways of dealing with such a situation and they would be considered in a suitable case.
    Mr. Smith: Can my hon. Friend tell me what these other ways are, and is he aware that one source of irritation among pit production committees is the feeling that penalties are too one-sided? He and I know that production is a matter for co-operation.
    Mr. Grenfell: I will promise my hon. Friend that if the offence is shown to be on the owner's side, a suitable penalty can be devised for the owner in that case.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not prepared to take action to force the mine-owners to set up a national board to govern the whole of the industry?

    DEVELOPMENT AND REPAIR WORK.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement on the suggestion made to the mining industry that development work and repairs should be held up in the present emergency so that maximum production can be concentrated upon?
    Mr. Grenfell: The points mentioned are among those receiving continuous attention by the Coal Production Council and by the district and pit production committees. The necessity for taking all possible steps, consistent with proper safety precautions, to secure maximum production during the next few months has been impressed on everyone concerned.
    Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that while one can understand development work being held back, what is annoying the coalfields is the suggestion that repair work should be held back, and a feeling that repair work underground cannot be held back without increasing the accident rate?
    Mr. Grenfell: I do not know who is responsible for the advertisement of that suggestion in the? coalfield. I myself made the original suggestion, but I made it quite clear to both parties in the industry that there was no intention of delaying any necessary repair work.
    Mr. Smith: I did draw my hon. Friend's attention to statements that had been made by responsible persons.

    CANTEENS.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines what financial assistance is possible from the Miners' Welfare Fund or other sources to enable canteen facilities to be provided at collieries in the various coalfields; and what is being done to expedite these facilities?
    Mr. Grenfell:Now that the Ministry of Food have agreed that supplies shall be available for canteens to be established at collieries, it is for the employers, in this as in other industries, to take steps to establish them, co-operating where necessary in the provision of suitable accom-
    14
    modation. The Miners' Welfare Commission has circulated all necessary information for their guidance and has offered to make grants for the requisite equipment where recommended by district miners' welfare committees. The Commission staff are using their good offices to speed up the arrangements.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that grants are large enough to set up the equipment? Is he also aware (hat, as I informed him, one of the first of these canteens set up is absolutely first-class, and that there is also a feeling in the coalfields, so I am informed, that some of the colliery managements have not yet canteen minds?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am very glad to have received the details of the arrangements made at the Yorkshire Colliery mentioned by my hon. Friend. I have sent these particulars to Sir Frederick Sykes as an example of the kind of provision which we would welcome everywhere. I hope there will be additional money available for the purpose of creating accommodation for serving certain additional allowances of food at the pithead.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can my hon. Friend inform me why canteens in the mining industry should be a charge, more or less, on the welfare committee, whereas in other industries it is a charge on the employers?
    Mr. Grenfell:No, it is not a charge on the employers in many industries. There are large funds available under the care of the miners' welfare committees, and I do not think we shall fail in carrying out this work for want of funds.

    RATIONING.
    Sir Douglas Thomsonasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the position of Scotland under the proposed coal rationing scheme; and whether he is satisfied that identical treatment of the North of Scotland and the South of England is equitable?
    Mr. Grenfell: The instructions issued to the divisional officers of the Department provide for the variation of the restrictions on deliveries and stocks where the circumstances of the area are held to warrant it. Representation on certain aspects of the scheme have been received from the Scot-

    15
    tish coal merchants, and their representatives are visiting the Department this week to discuss these points.
    Sir D. Thomson: Does my hon. Friend expect to receive an application from every householder in the North of Scotland?
    Mr. Grenfell: We cannot expect to receive an application from every house
    Major Vyvyan Adams: In view of the physical difficulties of the scheme, is my hon. Friend going to introduce modifications as between large and small households?
    Mr. Grenfell: There are modifications as between large and small households in the scheme as published.
    Major Adams: Why should a small household be entitled to take one ton, which is the same amount as a large house-hold is entitled to?
    Mr. Speaker—

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    PETROL ALLOWANCE (LEAVE).
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary for Petroleum what monthly allowance of petrol coupons for private use is given to. members of the Royal Air Force engaged in flying duties on operational command?
    The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd):Apart from the basic ration, a member of an operational crew of the Royal Air Force may receive petrol coupons when on leave for 300 miles a quarter. In cases where other means of transport are not reasonably practicable, he may also receive coupons for 250 miles a quarter for travelling between his unit and his leave address.
    Mr. Granville: Apart from the ordinary leave allowance, is my hon. Friend satisfied that these members of the R.A.F. get an adequate private allowance of petrol to enable them to get proper rest and relaxation, as some R.A.F. stations are many miles from towns? Is it fair that they should not have sufficient petrol for that purpose, when large numbers of cars are used to attend race meetings?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. These arrangements were made in agreement with him.

    REMITTANCE TO FAMILY, CANADA.
    Sir Cooper Rawsonasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that a Brighton member of a certain squadron has a wife and two children in Canada who cannot receive his Air Force pay as the drafts are sent to her marked not payable out of the United Kingdom, and are cancelled within three months if not cashed; and will he now take steps to alter this system of payment, as the wife in the meantime is dependent on the charity of friends in Canada?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Several months before this airman enlisted in the Royal Air Force his wife and family crossed to Canada with knowledge that permission would not be given for the remission of funds for their maintenance. The man and his wife both signed the usual declaration to this effect, stating that the wife and children would be wholly maintained whilst abroad out of funds provided from Canadian sources. In the circumstances no remittance of Air Force pay or family allowance: is permissible. One postal pay draft was, however, sent to the airman's wife in error when this airman first joined the R.A.F. The position has been explained to the airman and his wife, and he has since applied for a special separation grant. This has been approved and accumulates to the credit of the airman, becoming payable on the return of his wife and family to this country or on their removal to a place within the sterling area to which remittances are allowed. As my hon. friend will be aware, these exchange restrictions are general and have been made in order to conserve our dollar resources.
    Sir C. Rawson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell me whether the cheque which has been cancelled and is out of date will be restored to the man's credit on this side?
    Captain Balfour: Yes. Sir. It will be restored in respect of the accumulating balance on this side provided that it was a payment properly due.

  NEWFOUNDLAND(MR. J. H. GORVIN).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs why Mr. J. H. Gorvin was withdrawn from his post as Commissioner in Newfoundland; whether he is aware of the dismay and disappointment such a change has caused to many responsible organisations in that Dominion and of the excellent practical achievements brought about by his work; and what steps are being taken to continue the services Mr. Gorvin was able to offer?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare):Owing to the changed position brought about by the war, the Newfoundland Government found it impossible to carry out fully the special reconstruction programme which Mr. Gorvin had planned and which he went to Newfoundland to put into effect. It was felt, therefore, that he could give more useful service under existing conditions by returning to resume duty in this country. The Secretary of State has been very glad to see the tributes to Mr. Gorvin's work which have been received from various bodies in Newfoundland. Provision for the continuance of reconstruction work, on the modified scale necessary in present circumstances, has been included in the recent Newfoundland Budget.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. Friend's Department do all that is possible to encourage the further developments which Mr. Gorvin has introduced?
  Mr. Shakespeare: Yes; subject to the necessary limitation imposed by war-time conditions, that is; the intention of the Government.
  Earl Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been to Newfoundland and have seen the appalling conditions prevailing there are anxious that the work should be continued after the war? Will it be carried on as a long-term policy?
  Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir, that development will be continued.

  WAR DAMAGE ACT.

    CHATTELS SCHEME (AGENTS' EXPENSES).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade the method
    18
    employed in calculating the amounts to be paid to insurance companies to defray their expenses for work done under the chattels insurance scheme; and whether any proportion of those sums will be paid to the insurance agent actually transacting the business between the insurance company and the client?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan):The expenses of the Board's agents under the private chattels scheme will be calculated by reference to the actual cost to them of the work, as ascertained after a reasonable period of operation. The cost will include payments which will be made, in agreement with the Board of Trade, by the Board's agents to their intermediaries.

    DISTRICT VALUERS' ASSESSMENTS.
    Mr. Messerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many people who have sustained loss and damage to goods by enemy action are dissatisfied with the assessment of the district valuer; and what course is open to people who decline to accept the valuation of the district valuer?
    Sir A. Duncan: District valuers are instructed to consider a claimant's objections to any proposed assessment as sympathetically as possible, and to make every endeavour to reach a settlement. I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the assessment of claims by these valuers. Where a claimant does not accept the district valuer's valuation, the assessment is not final, and the district valuer refers the case to higher departmental authority, who considers what further steps can be taken to ensure a final and fair assessment.
    Mr. Messer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider cases which I will present to him, with special reference to the one in which the district valuer simply refused to do anything but stand by the valuation?
    Sir A. Duncan: I shall be very happy indeed to receive details of particular cases, and I will examine them.

  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  Mr. Manderasked the President of the Board of Trade under what conditions permission can be obtained for knitting groups not officially recognised by one of the three Services, but which have been

  19
  working regularly making comforts for men on service and sending them direct, to obtain their wool without coupons?
  Sir A. Duncan: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the general question, but in order to meet the needs of knitters in the meantime it has been arranged that until 16th August khaki knitting wool may be sold without coupons. I regret that it is not possible to give similar exemption to other colours of wool, since they are extensively used for civilian purposes.
  Mr. Mander: When does my right hon. Friend hope to be able to make a definite statement, in view of the great anxiety felt among these small bodies, which have carried on excellent work since the beginning of the war, without any criticism?
  Sir A. Duncan: I appreciate their anxiety, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
  Mr. Banfieldasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take into consideration the problem of industrial concerns who have no coupons, but who must purchase lengths of material, rubber boots, etc., to enable them to carry on; and can he give a decision on the matter at an early date?
  Sir A. Duncan: As regards lengths of material, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) on 2nd July. As regards rubber boots and other rationed goods purchased by industrial concerns for their employees, I am hoping shortly to arrange special facilities under the rationing scheme.

  BABY-CARRIAGES AND PERAMBULATORS.
  Mr. Mathersasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to overcome the serious shortage of baby-carriages and perambulators; and when it is expected to meet the demand?
  Sir A. Duncan: The necessity of restricting the steel available for perambulator manufacture led to a considerable reduction in the number of these articles produced. To avert the possibility of serious shortage, arrangements have recently been made with the industry for the production of perambulators contain-
  20
  ing approximately half the steel contained in the peace-time article. These war-time perambulators are now coming on the market, and I shall continue to watch the situation, bearing in mind both the minimum needs of the public and the heavy calls upon the nation's resources of labour and materials.
  Mr. Mathers: Might I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise that this is a question of general interest, and that it has no personal application? When does he expect the supply to be equal to the demand?
  Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Chancellor to introduce a system of family allowances?
  Sir Patrick Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend take care that no material is allocated to make these articles at the expense of guns and munitions?

  TOBACCO CONTROL.
  Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take in connection with the decision of the Tobacco Trades Association, who have a number of firms under their control in London and the provinces, and who have threatened to ban several firms for giving undue preference to their own retail shops?
  Sir A. Duncan: The action of the Tobacco Trade Association was taken with the full approval of the Board of Trade.

  DIAMOND INDUSTRY.
  Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large proportion of diamonds cut in this country are being sold for hoarding purposes; and can he see his way to divert supplies of rough stone to firms who are prepared to cut for export only?
  Sir A. Duncan: My attention has been called to reports to this effect, and I am considering whether any steps can usefully be taken to achieve the object which my hon. Friend has in view.
  Mr. Higgs: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, might I ask whether he is aware that the value of these finished diamonds, in this country is about £700,000 per annum, and that three-quarters of them are being sold on the black market?

  SCHEDULE OF RESERVED OCCUPATIONS (WHOLESALE SALESMEN).
  Captain Stricklandasked the Minister of Labour for what reason a distinction is made in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations between an indoor and outdoor wholesale salesman; and whether he is aware that the younger indoor salesmen could be made available for National Service by replacing them with the older outdoor representatives?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): Wholesale salesmen who were under 35 years of age when they were due to register for military service have been or are being called up. The only wholesale salesmen reserved at present under the Schedule are the inside representatives aged 35 and over, employed in a manufacturing or wholesale distributive establishment. The question whether their continued reservation is necessary is under consideration. It is not considered necessary to reserve any men of military age as outdoor representatives or commercial travellers.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    EGGS.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what action he proposes to take in view of the threat of Mr. Hammet, chairman of the Lancashire Poultry Producers War Emergency Committee, to withhold large quantities of eggs unless the maximum price is raised?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George):My Noble Friend invited representatives of the committee to which my hon. Friend refers to attend at the offices of the Ministry and discuss the scheme for the control of home-produced eggs. The invitation was accepted and the interview took place last week. I am providing my hon. Friend with a copy of the statement issued at the end of the meeting.
    Mr. Thorne: Now that the question has been settled, will the Ministry of Food see to it that the eggs are properly distributed?
    Major Lloyd George: That is the object of the scheme.
    Captain Strickland: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that very large quantities of eggs are being held up in various parts of the country and are going bad, and that in other parts they cannot get eggs?
    Major Lloyd George: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that a scheme of this character, in the initial weeks, is difficult to administer, but I am not certain, from many reports, whether he does not exaggerate. The object of the scheme is to get a fair distribution in each district of the country.
    Captain Strickland: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some cases as many as 100 cases of eggs are going bad because the eggs are not being distributed?

    MEAT ALLOCATION, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the South of Scotland Wholesale Meat Supply Association, Limited, have now informed the Glasgow Food Control Committee that, approximately, 11??? tons of meat was allocated to Messrs. J. P. Louden, 34, Spoutmouth, Glasgow, between 2nd January and 27th February, 1941; that the meat consisted of silversides, outsides, topsides and insides of rumps; that this steak was used in the manufacture of beef ham; is he aware that the allocation was made on the instructions of the Director of Meat Manufactures, Colwyn Bay; and will he take steps to ascertain why this selected allocation was made?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware that the South of Scotland Wholesale Meat Supply Association, Limited, have furnished the Glasgow Food Control Committee with particulars of the meat allocated to the firm mentioned by my hon. Friend during the period 2nd January to 27th February, 1941. The total quantity of meat allocated in this period was 13½ tons and consisted of cuts of imported beef, known in the trade as silversides, outsides, topsides and insides, which at that time were available for manufacturing purposes. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 9th April, this allocation was made to the firm on the instructions of the Ministry of Food for the production of boiled beef ham. In accordance with these instruc-

    23
    tions these particular cuts of meat were allocated when available to the firm but no instructions were given that these cuts should not be allocated to other manufacturers if required for manufacturing purposes.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the Minister aware that this information was only issued on a threat of court proceedings; and is he further aware that definite instructions were issued from the Director of Meat Manufacturers at Colwyn Bay that J. P. Louden, and Messrs. Young & McMillan, Glasgow, only were to receive allocations of these cuts and that any other manufacturers were to receive allocations of whatever manufacturing meat was available? Is not that a selected allocation?
    Major Lloyd George: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would let me have those particulars. I can assure him that there is no selective allocation in being to-day.
    Mr. McKinlay: Must it always be necessary for Food Control Committees to take court proceedings through the local office to carry out the instructions of the Minister?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not know exactly to what the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have given all the information in my possession.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered a letter of protest from the secretary of the Glasgow and District Retail Fleshers Association against the action of the Ministry in granting supplies of manufacturing meat to J. P. Louden, 34, Spoutmouth, Glasgow, to enable them to manufacture sausages on a large scale; whether he is aware that the firm in question have installed machinery for this purpose; and why the application for machinery was supported by his Department to the Board of Trade Licence Department?
    Major Lloyd George: My Department has received the letter mentioned from the Glasgow and District Retail Fleshers Defence Association about the manufacture of sausages by the firm mentioned by my hon. Friend, and inquiries are being made about the facilities which this firm has for sausage making.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that while this meat has been handed out in this fashion, small caterers have not been able to get meat of any kind?
    Mr. McKinlay: Do I understand that the Minister is not in a position to answer the latter part of my Question in relation to the Board of Trade licence for machinery?
    Major Lloyd George: Inquiries are being made. Up to date, this firm have had one second-hand mincing machine and a motor.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the firm of John Gardner, Ltd., Partick, Glasgow, made a return to the Ministry on the prescribed form of the amount of meat used in manufacture in 1938; that no answer was received; that no allocations of meat had been received; that the firm in question's output of manufactured beef ham averaged 24 tons quarterly pre-war; that this firm's continuous production of this commodity for 75 years has ceased as a consequence; and. why his Department allowed this to occur?
    Major Lloyd George: The firm of John Gardner, Ltd., Partick, Glasgow, made a return in September, 1939, to the Wholesale Meat Supply Association of the meat used for manufacture in 1938. The receipt of this return was acknowledged by the Ministry of Food and as it was incomplete the firm were asked to submit an amended return which was duly received. I have no knowledge of this firm's output of different types of manufactured meat products made by this firm in peace-time as this information was neither asked for nor supplied. The return was not an application for supplies of meat and, as I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 9th April, the firm have not applied for allocations of meat as Group I meat manufacturers. As general butchers they have received the same allowance of meat for manufacture as all other such butchers who are not Group I manufacturers.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the Minister totally unaware of the allegations in the Question and further, is he aware—
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Mathersasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the advisability of utilising motor trailer caravans as mobile canteens in the event of air raids; and whether any decision has been reached?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, but experience in the use of specially constructed trailer canteens is not such as would justify the increased use of trailer caravans for emergency feeding purposes, there are obvious difficulties in manoeuvring trailers into suitable positions and in driving them in thoroughfares congested by debris, apart from the necessity of securing suitable cars.

    BEER.
    Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the widespread shortage of supplies of beer throughout the country; and whether, in view of the importance of this beverage, especially to those engaged in heavy manual labour, he will take such steps as will ensure adequate supplies being available?
    Major Lloyd George: I am aware that, particularly during recent hot weather, local shortages of beer have occurred. These have been due not to lack of materials, but to difficulties of transport, labour and fuel. I have already, however, invited the brewing trade to consider what steps can be taken to ensure that, if temporary shortages occur, the supply of beer to public houses will be maintained in working class districts.
    Sir A. Southby: Does my hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that it is not a local shortage, but a widespread shortage throughout the country which obtains at the present time, and in view of the necessity for men employed in industry and agriculture having adequate supplies of beer, will he see that brewers get the materials with which to make beer?
    Major Lloyd George: There are the difficulties of transport and hot weather which add to the problem.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that miners are far more interested in getting some meat than beer?
    Mr. Mathers: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman endorse the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) that supplies of beer are necessary and must not be allowed to fall away?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not think I can possibly enter into that question.

    SHOPPING QUEUES.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can devise any method of discouraging the formation of queues in and outside shops for the purchase of goods in short supply, seeing that this practice favours unfairly those persons with most leisure?
    Major Lloyd George: There is no evidence of the formation of queues for any rationed foodstuffs except to some extent in the case of meat. In that case competition for the better cuts has at times led to the formation of a queue. It has been decided wherever possible and practicable to improve distributive methods by an extension of rationing or otherwise. When such improvements have been effected there should be little reasonable justification for the formation of queues for any important commodity though it will be difficult entirely to eliminate them, particularly as they tend to form for a variety of causes, such as shortage of staff, not related to the supplies available.
    Sir J. Mellor: In view of the unfairness to those who are too busy to stand in queues, will the Parliamentary Secretary invite the police to stop the formation of queues outside the shops?
    Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a large number of these queues are due to the fact that certain shopkeepers with rationed foods refuse to make proper allocation on Fridays and Mondays? They insist on Saturday being the selected day. If they rationed out the food on two or three days, the queues might disappear.
    Major Lloyd George: I will look into that. I am not sure about the actual details, but I know that in some cases the difficulty is that supplies arrive towards the week-end. As regards the Supplementary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), it is not so easy to use the police for dis-

    27
    persing queues. Moreover, the police have quite a lot of work to do at present.
    Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that if you do not have queues, you will have riots?

  PENSIONS ADMINISTRATION.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House shortly to discuss the question of pensions arising from disability in the Services, and amongst those engaged in Civil Defence; and whether, before such discussion takes place, a White Paper can be presented to Parliament reviewing the position in general and in some detail since September, 1939?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Several Debates on the Motion for the Adjournment have been arranged this year, and another is impending, for the discussion of particular aspects of pensions administration. Moreover, I do not rule out the possibility of finding time for the Minister to present to the House the Estimates for his Department, in. which event hon. Members would have a further opportunity for more general discussion. Meanwhile the Statutory Advisory Committee to the Minister of Pensions, which contains representatives of the three principal parties, is meeting regularly, and I see no sufficient reason for a special Debate or a White Paper at the present time.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Pensions to expedite the report of this Committee, because many important matters are outstanding which cannot be decided until the Committee has reported?
  The Prime Minister: I will see that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to the Question which has been put by my hon. Friend opposite.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Can the Prime Minister give consideration to the pos of a discussion on the Adjournment for the Recess, because this has become an increasingly complicated and important matter affecting our civilian population; and will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to go more fully into it?
  The Prime Minister: It is perhaps too soon to parcel out matters for discussion on the Adjournment for the Recess.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister what procedure Members of this House should follow when they wish to put Questions pertaining to the action of the Minister of State newly appointed for residence in the Near East?
  The Prime Minister: Such Questions should be addressed to me.
  Sir Irving Albery: Does that mean that the Minister of State in the Middle East is acting as deputy to the Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

  ASSISTANCE BOARD (CHAIRMAN).
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to inform the House of the name of the new chairman of the Assistance Board in succession to Lord Rushcliffe?
  The Prime Minister: I hope to make an announcement at an early date.

  COAL RATIONING ANNOUNCEMENT.
  Sir D. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister why the announcement in regard to coal rationing was made, on a day when this House was sitting, through the Press by an official of the Mines Department instead of being made in this House by the Minister responsible?
  The Prime Minister: It was thought to be the most convenient course in a case of this kind and fully in harmony with the practice of the House.
  Sir D. Thomson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is very general confusion in the public mind and in this House about this scheme; and would it not be better to have a proper statement in this House rather than a Press report, which is necessarily abridged?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the statement was a long and rather complicated one, and the House has never desired unduly to encumber its business

  29
  by long, technical, and detailed statements being interpolated in the time available for Questions. It was on that ground that the course taken was chosen.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the Prime Minister consider what would be the desire in the minds of Members in various parts of the House, arranging for the Debate to take place very soon, as there is great dissatisfaction throughout the country?
  The Prime Minister: I am always anxious to divide the time of the House in a manner most fitting to the discharge of our duties, and I shall have to make inquiries through the usual channels as to what is the relative priority.
  Earl Winterton: May I take it from the answer of my right hon. Friend that it was for the technical reasons he mentioned that the ordinary practice was not followed of having a Private Notice Question on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir, but, as I say, a great many statements are made and given out even on days when Parliament is in session which are not made here. The principle to be followed is to select the really important matters.

  REQUISITIONED PROPERTY(RENT).
  Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury take when, in the case of a property being requisitioned by the Government and the rent payable by the tenant includes the provision of services by the landlord, the subsequent negotiations which take place between the Treasury and the landlord for an abate of the rent payable by the tenant are not successful?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Negotiations are conducted by the requisitioning Department, not by the Treasury. Departments have no power to compel a landlord to abate his rent if it includes a charge for services no longer required by the tenant, but if they are required by the Department the compensation rent paid to the tenant would be increased in respect of them.
  Colonel Evans: In view of the unfair and unjustified burden which has been borne
  30
  by the tenants in certain circumstances would the Chancellor consider introducing in this House an agreed Bill to correct an obvious fault in the present legal system?
  Sir K. Wood: I am, as a matter of fact, taking certain steps to examine this question more fully in discussions between myself and the Law Officers of the Crown.
  Mr. Thorne: Would it not be quicker and easier to set up some advisory committee on this matter?
  Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I think my hon. and gallant Friend wants some action taken.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    TREASURY BILLS (DISCOUNT RATE).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the saving to be made annually by reducing the discount rate on Treasury bills to J per cent.?
    Sir K. Wood: If the Treasury bills issued by weekly tender during the year ended 30th June, 1941, had been issued at J per cent. discount the saving would have been rather less than £4,500,000.
    Mr. Stokes: Am I to deduce that the saving for which I am asking is £4,500,000? Will the Chancelor explain why "Be will not take steps to get Treasury bills discounted at a lower rate than they are to-day?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to previous answers, to which I do not think I can add anything.
    Mr. Stokes: But does the Chancellor realise that all these answers are completely unsatisfactory?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: How can the right hon. Gentleman expect people to save money when he is wasting it like this?

    MOTOR VEHICLE TAX.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased rationing of petrol and the consequential increased cost per mile of motor travelling, he will consider an equitable rebate on the motor tax on the smaller horse-powered motor-cars if used for business or similar necessary purposes?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I could not afford the loss of revenue which would be involved, and I do not think that the criterion suggested would provide a workable basis for taxation.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if motor cars go out of use altogether through the increased incidence of taxation, he will lose a great deal more than he is receiving in income?
    Sir K. Wood: That is not the advice I have received.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  Sir Percy Hurdasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in order to secure a speedy answer to the ministerial calls for more entrants into the various war services, he will ask Lord Kennet's Committee to make interim reports and thus enable the work of combing out of men and women of military age to proceed forthwith?
  Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. hon. and gallant Friend will bring the matter to the attention of Lord Kennet's committee
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that contractors working for Government Departments employ many thousands of these young men who are eligible for military service, and will he hasten the inquiry to comb out these people?
  Mr. Munro: I understand that the attention of the Committee will be drawn immediately to the point raised.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (CREWS' ACCOMMODATION).
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is satisfied that the accommodation for crews on merchant ships at present under construction is up to modern standards?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. The accommodation for crews in ships under construction must in all cases comply
  32
  fully with the standard required by the instructions as to the Survey of Masters and Crew Spaces, which were issued by the Board of Trade in 1937, and in most cases this standard is exceeded.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS' BROADCASTS (ENEMY AUSPICES).
  Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for recording evidence of broadcasts under enemy auspices by British subjects with a view to their prosecution as soon as they can be brought to justice?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Yes, Sir, such broadcasts are recorded and my right hon. Friend fully shares the view that all practicable steps should be taken for the collection of evidence which might be relevant to prosecutions in the future against any British subject who assists the enemy.
  Colonel Arthur Evans: Will the Home Office consider the advisability of broadcasting an appeal, and indeed a warning, to British subjects resident in enemy countries against making any broadcasts which they might be inclined to indulge in as a result of bribery held out by the enemy, so that their position will be quite clear on their return to this country?
  Mr. Peake: I will certainly pass that suggestion to the Ministry of Information, which is concerned with this matter.
  Sir I. Albery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that so few British subjects are liable to do this sort of thing that such a measure is quite unnecessary?
  Earl Winterton: Will the Government make clear by an Order in Council that these people will be liable to prosecution, whoever they are, whether famous writers or anybody else?
  Mr. Peake: I think the situation is already perfectly clear. Anybody who assists the enemy by broadcasting in their programmes is obviously liable to prosecution if sufficient evidence can be brought after the war, and it is for the purpose of collecting the evidence that we are taking the steps suggested in my hon. Friend's Question.

  RUDOLF HESS (DR. BENES' BROADCAST)
  Mr. Silvemanasked the Minister of Information whether the script of the recent broadcast of Dr. Benes, in the Czech language, in which he purported to deal with the reasons of the arrival in the country of Hess, was submitted to and approved by the Government beforehand?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): Yes, Sir. The script of Dr. Benes' talk was sent to the B.B.C. before delivery. It is not, however, the general practice of the Ministry of Information to alter talks delivered by Heads of States except in so far as is required by the needs of military security.
  Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it was that the Government approved of statements to the Czechs about this matter, while denying any statement to the people of this country about it?
  Mr. Nicolson: There are several alternative versions of the Hess saga. Dr. Benes himself was careful to say that he was giving only his own interpretation. The: Government neither approved nor disapproved.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this speech indicated that great interest was shown in other countries, apart from this country, in the arrival of Hess, and that the recent statement of the Deputy Commissioner that this was not so was utter nonsense?

  TRAWLERS
  Mr. Denvilleasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a public announcement to the effect that any trawler-owner who keeps his craft in port without satisfactory reason will be deprived of all control over his fleet, and thereby put out of business for the duration of the war?
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not aware of any case of trawler owners keeping their vessels in port without good reason, but if any such case were brought to my notice, I should certainly take appropriate action.

  ENEMY CRUELTIES (RECORD).
  Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a record is being kept of the names of Nazis, Fascists and their allies responsible for deeds of cruelty and oppression committed against defenceless men, women and children in conquered territories, contrary to the established custom and recognised practice of warfare, with a view to future proceedings as and when possible?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): No, Sir. It is difficult to obtain information in present circumstances as to the responsibilities of particular individuals. No doubt such information may in due course become available to His Majesty's Government or to the Allied Governments concerned, but it would be premature to make any statement as to the use to which they may eventually desire to put it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Is such a record being prepared, for example, in Abyssinia, and do the Government recognise that it is desirable that there should be a record of individual criminals during the war?
  Mr. Butler: I should require notice about a particular case of that sort.
  Captain Strickland: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the deterrent effect which such a statement might have with regard to these deeds of cruelty, which are shocking the civilised world, and ought not a record to be kept so that after the war it could be sorted out and a decision taken whether prosecutions should follow?
  Mr. Butler: It is very difficult to obtain information about the actual responsibility of private individuals.
  Mr. Nod-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about Abyssinia and see whether it can be done there as a test case?
  Mr. Butler: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Thorne: Are the Government keep a record of one individual who was responsible for the murder of something like 33,000 people in Rotterdam last year?
  Mr. Butler: That is recorded in the pages of world history.

  FARNBOROUGH HOSPITAL (MATRON'S LEAVE).
  Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Health why, as the result of a decision by the Ministry of Health, Miss Brown-low, matron at Farnborough Hospital, has been given indefinite leave of absence and is to remain in receipt of an inclusive salary of £500 a year; and in view of the appeals recently made for trained nurses, and in the interests of public economy, how does he justify his action?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The reasons for my right hon. Friend's action in this matter are indicated in an official letter sent to the council, a copy of which he is supplying to my hon. Friend.
  Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Lady ask the Minister of Health whether he does not think that, for the reasons given in my Question, it is quite inappropriate at this time to retire a fully-trained woman on indefinite leave of absence at a salary of £ 500a year, when she could be fully occupied?
  Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the letter which my right hon. Friend has sent to the council.
  Sir I. Albery:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the answer would interest many other hon. Members?
  Mr. Watkins: Will an effort be made to utilise the excellent technical knowledge of Miss Brownlow at an early opportunity, instead of compelling her to idleness while in receipt of £500 a year?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think there is anything in my answer to show that the lady is compelled to idleness. I think the point should be taken up as to what she wishes to do while on leave of absence.
  Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Lady arrange for the letter to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend would be quite willing that the letter should be published if Miss Brownlow agreed.
  Mr. Messer: Is it not the case that if she is on leave with pay, she cannot take other work?
  Sir W. Smithers: Who is master of the Ministry of Health, Miss Brownlow or the Minister?
  Miss Horsbrugh: In a case like this, I think it would only be fair that, before the official letter sent by my right hon. Friend to the council concerning this case was made public, Miss Brownlow should, if possible, be informed

  WAR PRODUCTION (REORGANISATION).
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour and National Service whether any special arrangements have been made for consulting industry centrally on matters relating to production, and whether he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, have been taken to improve the effectiveness of the organisation of the Area Boards?
  Mr. A. Bevan:On a point of Order. Why is a Private Notice Question in this matter being put when a two days' Debate is to take place on the Second and Third Sitting Days, which will give the Minister ample opportunity of making a full statement which can be discussed? Is it not undesirable to anticipate an important Debate of this kind in this way?
  Mr. Speaker: I thought this was a matter of public interest, and that it was rather necessary that the statement should be made before the Debate took place.
  Mr. Bevan: Further to my point of Order. May I submit that it would be in accordance with the practice of the House that, if an arrangement has been made for an immediate Debate upon production and if there is to be a statement made on the matter, it ought to be made in the course of the Debate, when it could be discussed?
  Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, it is quite unnecessary for a Private Notice Question to be asked; it is quite customary for a Minister to make a statement after Questions without any Private Notice Question being put?
  Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Further to the point of Order. May I submit that the mere fact that the Debate is to take place is a justification for the Question? I am extremely interested in the Debate, and I feel that if there is any statement which

  37
  can be made to show what action the Government are going to take, it is very desirable that the House should know this before the Debate takes place?
  Mr. Kennedy: May we take it that if the answer to the Private Notice Question contains Government or Ministerial decisions, they will not anticipate the decisions which should be reached after duo Debate?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The answer to the Private Notice Question is, Yes, Sir. In addition to the normal consultation, which goes on continually, both centrally. and locally, between Government Departments and representatives of employers and work-people, it has recently been decided to set up a Central Joint Advisory Committee to the Production Executive, composed of 12 employers' representatives nominated by the British Employers' Confederation and the Federation of British Industries and 12 workpeople's representatives nominated by the Trades Union Congress General Council, with the following terms of reference:
  ' To advise the Production Executive on general production difficulties (excluding question relating to wages and conditions in individual industries normally subject to joint negotiation) and on such other matters relating to production as may arise from the proceedings of Regional Boards or be referred to the committee by the Production Executive."
  The Production Executive has given careful consideration to the matter referred to in the second part of the Question, and has decided upon certain changes which are designed to strengthen the Area Boards as instruments for furthering the production of goods for war purposes in the areas which they cover. The Boards, of which there is one for each Civil Defence Region, have been re-named the Production Executive's Regional Boards and will in future be directly responsible to the Production Executive instead of being directed as hitherto by the Industrial Capacity Committee. The functions of the Boards and their relations to the Executive Departments have been more closely defined and extended in certain directions with a view to the Boards being in a position to render more rapid and effective assistance in the solution of problems affecting production. Amongst other things, it is intended that the Regional Boards should, where necessary, set up Capacity Clearing Centres in order
  38
  to assist in the better utilisation of industrial capacity.
  In order to obtain the benefit of the knowledge and advice of those officers in the regions who are directly or indirectly concerned with war production, membership of the Boards has been extended by the addition of the representatives of certain important official organisations. With the permission of the House, will circulate the composition of the Boards as now constituted in the Official Report. The work of each Board will be directed by an Executive Committee of the Board consisting of representatives of the three Supply Ministries, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and National Service, with the chairman and or deputy-chairman, and will be conducted in detail by sub-committees. Arrangements have been made whereby questions which in the view of the Boards merit consideration at the centre can be brought to the notice of the Production Executive without delay.
  Mr. Mander: Will the Boards have executive powers to make decisions, or will they be advisory?
  Mr. Bevin: They are mainly advisory, except where powers have been handed on to them to act in advance.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the terms of reference allow the advisory committee to recommend the abolition of the cost plus 10 per cent. system, or the prosecution of managements which lose thousands of hours per month through waiting time?
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
  Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that it was decided three weeks ago to have a Debate on production, may I ask whether these reforms, which my right hon. Friend has announced to the House, were decided upon before or after the announcement that the Debate would take place?
  Mr. Bevin: The question has been in process of negotiation and consideration for a considerable time. One part, the first part, of the answer has been arrived at since, and the other part, relating to reconstruction of the Boards, was arrived at before.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it intended that these Boards should have disciplinary powers over employers and workpeople?
  Mr. Bevin: The main function of the Boards is to assist the industrial capacity and the utilisation of industrial capacity in their districts, which has been the demand of this House, or, in other words, it is a process of decentralisation both in the placing of orders and in the supervision of contracts for effective production in the district— the utilisation of machine tools and everything else.
  Mr. Garro Jones: As there may be some risk of overlapping between the work of this sub-committee and the supervisory work of the various Departments of Supply already established, will there be any contact with the Departments of Supply, such as the Ministry of Supply, other than upwards through the Production Executive and downwards to the Department?
  Mr. Bevin: The Supply Ministries will be represented by their regional officers on the Boards, and they will have knowledge of all the contracts issued for that region. Therefore there is no difficulty. about the procession upwards or downwards.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend stated a few moments and that certain executive powers are to be given in advance to these Area Boards. Surely it is most important to know what these advance powers are, and is it intended to define them in the statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Bevin: If you are speeding up production in a particular direction, or urging action in a particular direction, you ask these Boards to undertake these duties, and you give them executive authority to carry them out. I would remind the House that war production is changing from day to day, and that you cannot seek to define in advance; indeed, it has been the attempt to define everything in advance which has stultified some of our efforts.
  Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. Friend knows, one of the complaints has always been that workers with grievances— whether they are working on time work instead of skilled work, and matters of that kind— have had no particular place in an area to register their grievances and have their complaints dealt with. Will these Boards be able to deal with matters of that kind?
  Mr. Bevin: We do not intend that the Boards should deal with wage difficulties, and we are anxious not to cut across the ordinary machinery of negotiation which exists. As the central body includes employees, production executives and the Confederation of Employers, any difficulties of that character which are impeding production can be raised direct at the centre.
  Mr. Granville: As there are technical and expert managements very closely associated with war production who may not be represented through the Confederation of Employers or trade unions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they should be represented on the Area Boards and the central panel?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring.
  Mr. Davidson: Will the Scottish trade unions have any representation, through the General Council, on the central committee, or will important Scottish industries be left to an area committee with no executive powers?
  Mr. Bevin: So far as Scotland is concerned, I understand that there is a close liaison arrangement between the British T.U.C. and the Scottish T.U.C., but it must be remembered that the unions which operate in England must be represented in Scotland and that we cannot have dual representation of the same unions.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that there are unions in Scotland which do not exist in England, and that certain unions which operate in England do not operate in Scotland?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think that situation exists in the case of war-munition production. Practically all the unions covering munition work are, to their credit, British unions.
  Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister not aware that a representative of the National Union, who comes from a London office, cannot adequately represent war industries operating in Scotland, where there are other union officials who are in daily contact with them?
  Mr. Bevin: I understand that as far as they can the British T.U.C. are endeavouring to arrange representations regionally, but I cannot interfere with the constitution of the trade unions.
  Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of the dislocation which has already taken place in various industries has been due to the fact that English industrialists have been sent to Scotland to try and manage industry?
  Mr. Bevin: I have heard of Scottish people coming to England.
  Following is the statement:
  PRODUCTION EXECUTIVE'S REGIONAL BOARDS.
  The composition of each Board is as follows:
  Three representatives of employers.
  Three representatives of workpeople.
  Each of these groups provides either the chairman or the vice-chairman.
  OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES.
  Local representatives of the Admiralty.
  Board of Trade.
  Ministry of Aircraft Production.
  Ministry of Labour and National Service.
  Ministry of Supply.
  The Emergency Repair Organisation of the Ministry of Works and Buildings.
  The Regional Transport Commissioner.
  The Raw Materials Department of the Ministry of Supply.
  The Chairman of the Machine Tool Area Committee.

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

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill intituled '' An Act to empower the East Worcester-shire Waterworks Company to construct further works and to raise additional capital; to confer additional powers upon the Company; and for other purposes."— [East Worcestershire Water Bill [Lords].

EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER
BILL [Lords].
Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The main purpose of the Bill— involving, as the House knows, a very old and controversial story— is to repeal the Medicine Stamp Duty and the Licence Duty in accordance with the promise given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech on 7th April last. The Stamp Duty at present yields about £800,000. The Licence Duty yields about £40,000. The facts are, as both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor have informed the House in successive Budget speeches, that the tax has become difficult to collect, if not quite unworkable. The present small yield, as compared with the past, is due in large part to the many and anomalous exceptions from Stamp Duty contained in the Medicines Stamp Acts. Of the present exemptions, the main ones are, first, that only medicines in which a proprietary right is claimed are dutiable, and a disclaimer of any such right, if made on the label, exempts them. The second exception is due' to the fact that only medicines referring to the cure of ailments are dutiable. "Cough mixture" pays duty, but a "chest mixture" does not pay. The anomalies, however, do not end there. Owing to the right conferred on chemists and some others to sell what the law calls "known, admitted and approved" remedies free of duty, precisely the same medicine may be sold in one shop without tax, and in another shop only after tax has been paid.
  There is little doubt that a number of these exceptions are not justified by considerations of public health. They have grown up in the course of more than a century, and, in short, the whole basis on which the duties rest is defective. What-ever views may be held about the desirability of some kind of tax on medicines, no one, after the reports of the Select Committees of 1914 and 1937, and the discussions on the various Bills which have attempted— but always failed— to deal
  64
  with this problem, is likely to dissent from the repeal of the present Acts. These Acts, as will be seen from the Schedule, are 12 in number, the first being dated 1802 and the last 1937. The Act of 1802 is still in force and is still the chief Act governing this matter. These Acts are quite unsuitable in the light of modern conditions and modern business. The High Court has stigmatised them as "a mass of confused and obsolete verbiage," which is strong language from the High Court. The Act of 1812, with its reference to:
  "surgeons, apothecaries, chemists and druggists who have served a regular apprenticeship"
  and its exemption from duty of all drugs named in:
  "the book prescribed in the name of Sir Harbottle Grimstone, Baronet,"
  scarcely bears any relation to modern conditions of medical practice or to the very large trade in medicines.
  Attempts have been made over a period of years, with a certain amount of success, to apply the law equitably and to secure by administrative action some relation between the spirit of the Statutes and the conduct of modern business. I am sure hon. Members will agree, however, that it is not desirable or even defensible, to retain on the Statute Book legislation which it is impossible to interpret and enforce in a fair, reasonable, just or logical manner. The alternative to this repeal and the abolition of the medicine duties, would be to substitute other legislation framed in accordance with modern views, and to impose duties on a new basis. There was a very formidable report from the Select Committee of 1914, and the Select Committee of 1937 did recommend an alternative. The House will doubtless have the advantage of contributions to this Debate from some of the members of that Committee who are with us to-day. The alternative which they suggested was fully explored. Their report was in favour of repealing the present Statutes, which they agreed were full of anomalies and largely obsolete. They expressed the view, how-ever, that medicines in general— not merely proprietary medicines— held out as cures for human ailments should, properly, pay a tax on an ad valorem basis, and they suggested a percentage duty of 16⅔per cent.

  65
  The Committee's recommendations met with much opposition. Hon. Members who take an interest in the subject will remember the close examination and discussion of one or two Bills, which showed that many difficulties were involved both in framing and administering such legislation. Bearing all these facts in mind, the Government decided in favour of simple repeal, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House. The general proposition that medicines constitute a suitable subject for taxation and that a fair ad valorem duty would be one of 6⅔per cent. have, however, been carried into effect by applying the Purchase Tax to medicines, at the rate advocated by the Select Committee of 1937. The House will be glad to know that the yield of the Purchase Tax on medicine at that rate is estimated at about £3,000,000 per annum, or nearly four times the present annual yield of the Medicine Duty.
  The moment we begin to touch this taxation we must begin to think of its effect on the chemists' profession, on the trade in medicines and on the public health. Those who have gone into the problem of the Medicine Duties and the consequences of their repeal have been impressed by one difficulty in particular to which repeal might lead, namely, the possibility of damaging the interests of those who have entered the chemists' profession. Under the present law chemists enjoy a financial advantage, in having the right to sell, free of duty, any medicine, otherwise subject to duty, where a formula in accordance with a standard book of reference is printed on the label and proprietary rights are disclaimed. That is what is generally known as the exemption for "known, admitted and approved remedies." The financial advantage derived from this privilege has in the past undoubtedly formed one of the incentives to the recruitment of the chemists' profession, the continuance and maintenance of which are essential to the health services of the community. To sweep away the profession's present rights, without putting in their place some countervailing advantage, might therefore lead to public as well as professional loss, and this problem has been borne in mind in framing the Bill.
  As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech on 7th April, the trade interests concerned have
  66
  considered the problem and have reached an agreement, which is embodied in Clause 7 of the Bill. There may be one or two of whom it may be said they have acquiesced but, broadly speaking, that is true. This is not an agreement made by the chemists or manufacturers only. It is one which has the concurrence of the representatives of almost every trade group concerned in the manufacture or sale of medicines. It provides a solution in our judgment which, while not in any way contrary to the public interest, or the interests of non-chemists taking part in the trade, safeguards the interests of the chemists in the event of the repeal of the medicine duties. The agreement provides that from the date of repeal of the duties all medicines shall be sold retail only by chemists, together with doctors and dentists, with the exception of herbal remedies, of mineral waters, and of proprietary medicines not described in the British Pharmacopoeia or the British Pharmaceutical Codex. Further minor exceptions are for proprietary medicines which though described in the Pharmacopoeia or Codex, are not sold under a title which includes words from the heading of the relevant paragraph, and for a few proprietary medicines at present on sale which are both described in the Pharmacopoeia or in the Codex and are sold under such a title. The effect of the agreement is to substitute a trading privilege for the financial advantage enjoyed by chemists under the present law, and at the same time to enable the normal channels to continue to be used for the sale of proprietary medicines.
  Mr. Silverman: Is the House to understand that this proposal in Clause 7 has the approval of those who are known as herbalists?
  Mr. Brown: That is a different point. The hon. Member need not be uneasy about that. One or two little points have been raised by them, but there is no desire on anyone's part to interfere with the legitimate practice of the legitimate herbalists. We are now discussing with them the meaning of a particular word. I would rather not go further to-day, because it is really a different point. Let me take the third issue, which is, of course, a public health issue, namely, if you repeal the tax and if you come to an agreement, as this agreement has been

  67
  made, what is to be done to regulate the trade in medicines? It is important to consider, first, the effect of the repeal of the duties and, second, the meaning of the agreement reached, but it is much more important to consider the provisions of the Bill for regulating the medicine trade.
  Mr. Lathan: Would it not contribute to a better understanding of the position if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us with whom the agreements have been reached— with which bodies or associations?
  Mr. Brown: I prefer not to do that on the Second Reading. It is a long list. I am prepared to circulate it in the Official Report, but I am not anxious to burden what is a very important issue with a lot of extraneous matters. This issue is: What are the provisions of the Bill for regulating the medicine trade? We are dealing with two outstanding problems for which solutions have been sought on many occasions. There are other issues to which great importance is attached, and I have no doubt some hon. Members will wish that we had gone further. I would only refer them to the past and to the needs of the present, and in my judgment we have done what is necessary in dealing with the secret remedy on the one hand and. the dangerous advertisement on the other with regard to a certain number of diseases, and I think we have chosen the course which is most likely to further this first step in a quarter of a century. The brutally scandalous age of patent medicines is in the past rather than the present. Public-spirited action by manufacturers and the Press has done a great deal to remove the grave grounds for complaint which caused the Committee of 1914 so vigorously to attack the frauds flourishing at the time, but there is no doubt that, in the present state of the law, opportunities still exist for the unscrupulous to trade on the credulity and fears of the ill-informed by the production of useless, or even harmful, secret preparations and— to my mind this is a most serious point— thereby to delay the seeking of proper advice and early treatment for serious diseases by advertising quack remedies.
  Both these practices will be stopped by the Bill. From 1st January, 1942, all
  68
  medicines will have to bear on their labels, or wrappers, a statement of their composition or active constituents. If the medicine is described in the Pharmacopoeia or the Pharmaceutical Codex, the disclosure of composition may take the form of a reference to the formula in that work. Any qualified person in future will be able to tell the value of any medicine, whether it is harmful in itself or useless as a method of treating the patient who is taking it, and to advise the patient accordingly. The only kinds of medicines in regard to which disclosure is not required are those supplied to an individual person prescribed according to his needs, for instance, a mixture made up in accordance with a doctor's prescription. The principle of the Clause is fully accepted by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, which is representative of most of the manufacturers of proprietary medicines. Similarly the future advertisement of remedies for certain diseases, or of articles for procuring abortion, will be stopped. Legislation of this kind is already on the Statute Book prohibiting the advertising of articles recommended for the treatment of venereal disease on the one hand and cancer on the other. The present Measure extends the prohibition of advertisements of remedies for Bright's disease, cataract, diabetes, epilepsy or fits, glaucoma, locomotor ataxy, paralysis and tuberculosis. Those are the diseases contained the Bill to which these particular provisions apply. The basis of this list is the report of the Select Committee of 1914. The actual diseases named have been selected because, like venereal disease and cancer, they are all of a serious nature, because each of them is susceptible to alleviation, if not cure, by normal methods of treatment and because it is dangerous in each case to delay seeking early treatment by resorting to quack remedies. The prohibition of advertisements of articles for procuring abortion carries into effect a recommendation made by a powerful Committee presided over by Sir Norman Birkett in 1939 and strongly urged in its report.
  In addition to these main provisions, there are one or two minor amendments of the law. We have taken the opportunity to make certain minor amendments to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, which are found to be desirable in the light of experience. The most important

  69
  is that in Clause I, in regard to the sale of drugs, where a retailer selling drugs including poisons in one shop also sells drugs not including poisons in other shops. That has been a pledge by the Government since an administrative arrangement was arrived at in 1934 be Co-operative societies and other bodies, the chemists and' the Home Office. So there has been no haste about implementing that particular pledge. Other Amendments are made relating to the powers of the Statutory Committee of the Pharmaceutical Society to add or restore names to the register of pharmacists. That is the explanation of the appearance of the name of the Lord President of the Council on the back of the Bill, for he is concerned in his capacity on that side.
  Let me take a quick look at the Clauses. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the amendments to the Pharmacy and Poisons Act to which I have referred. Clause 1 provides that the retailer who sells drugs, including poisons on Part 1 of the Poisons List at a chemist's shop need not have a registered pharmacist in charge of other shops where he sells drugs not including such poisons, subject to these conditions— first, the sale of articles other than drugs and medical and surgical appliances must form the main part of the business; second, that only pre-packed drugs must be sold; third, than no dispensing must be done or prescriptions received on the premises; fourth, that no title, emblem or description must be used to suggest that the premises are a chemist's shop. Clause 2 enables the Statutory Committee of the Pharmaceutical Society, who have their powers under the original Act of 1858, when considering the addition or restoration of a name to the register of pharmacists, to take into account any offence which may have been committed by the applicant while not registered. The committee is also authorised to remove or withhold names from the register for a stated period.
  Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the prohibition of advertisements of articles as remedies for the diseases I have named or as a means of procuring abortion. Clause 5 lays down the maximum penalties for offences against Clauses 3 and 4, as well as certain grounds for defence. It also provides that any person who appears from the terms of the advertisement to be concerned with the manufacture, import
  70
  or sale of the article shall be presumed to be concerned in the publication unless the contrary is proved. Clause 6 requires the disclosure of the composition or active constituents of medicines as from 1st January, 1942; and Clause 7 embodies the agreement made by those concerned with regard to the sale of medicines after the repeal of the duties. Clause 8 lays down certain grounds for defence to prosecutions for offences under Clauses 6 and 7. Clause 9, which is the heart of the Bill, repeals the Medicine Duties from 2nd September, 1941. Clause 10 is the interpretation Clause; Clause 11 applies the Bill to Scotland; Clause 12 contains the Title; and the Schedule contains the list of diseases to which the Bill applies.
  When a friend of mine heard that I was to take responsibility for this Measure, he said, "I suppose you know that this subject arouses deep feelings, touches many interests and has had a Parliamentary hoodoo upon it for 25 years?" I said, "Yes, but surely after 25 years in one case and seven years in another— Clause 1— and since it has become vitally necessary to do away with the duties, it is time that we took practical steps." Although I am introducing this Bill to a quiet House, this has been one of the most controversial subjects discussed in the House in the last quarter of a century. It is controversial in other countries as well, as anyone who has read that American book, "One hundred million guinea-pigs" will agree. I am introducing it also because the time is ripe and because with infinite shrewdness and great good will, and after long discussions, all concerned have worked hard to prepare the way for this, the first legislative step for a generation on the road to reform. It is as the first step to reform that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The Minister said that the subject matter of this Bill has had a long and stormy career in the House and the country, and he expressed the hope that this time it will be possible to get the Bill through quietly. Looking round the House, I see that the experts are gathered together, and I doubt whether the Minister will have quite as quiet a time as he anticipates. It is, perhaps, presumptuous as a layman to venture into the realm of the experts, but sometimes a layman can bring to bear experience as valuable as that of the expert.

  71
  There is a point over which the right hon. Gentleman skated very lightly. It has been put to me by my colleagues that the question of the Medicine Duties falls to be considered urgently for two reasons— first, the fact that the Chancellor has been busy in this matter in the Purchase Tax; and second, we were told some time ago that a legal action was pending and that the Government were advised that if the matter went to court, possibly the people who proposed to bring the action would be found to be right and that the law was in such a muddled state that it had been operating for a long time without any force. Apart from that, questions will be put to the Minister as to the urgency of bringing up the other Clauses. I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading, so that many of these problems can be discussed on the Committee stage.
  Apart from the repeal of the Medicine Duties, there are certain provisions of the Bill which it is very desirable that we should place upon the Statute Book. I propose to comment upon one or two of those and to ask one or two questions. I strongly support the Clause laying down that advertisements of alleged cures for certain diseases shall be prohibited. There is nothing worse than the exploitation of the fears of hopes of poor people who are ill. I have read the report of the Select Committee of 1912–14. No one can read that report without being moved to indignation at the system which permits such callous exploitation of people who are suffering. We can now look back upon that report with the experience of a generation that has followed, and if we compare it with the present conditions, it holds a valuable lesson for us. At the time when the Select Committee were considering this aspect of the problem they had put before them examples of all kinds of alleged cures for what at that time was a disease that troubled this country much more gravely than it does to-day, though it is still a very grave disease, that is tuberculosis, which was more familiarly known under the old name of "the decline." The part of the country from which I come has been decimated by this disease more than any other part of the country, and we know that there are two psychological repercussions of the disease. The first is that it makes those suffering stick more tenaciously to life, and the second is
  72
  that hope increases as the disease gets worse. These two factors make the sufferers much more subject to being exploited by those who appeal to that desire to live and that hope.
  In 1912 and 1914 most of those were advertisements of quack cures, and sometimes much worse than quack cures, for tuberculosis, but it would be true to say that more recently there has been an enormous decrease in the number of such alleged cures. The explanation of that holds a lesson for us, I submit. People are not now so ready to respond to the quack in tuberculosis cases because we have provided an alternative. We have built up a service for the early diagnosis and the best treatment of this disease. What has largely killed the T.B. quack are sanatoria and a good medical service. Everywhere we have built up sanatoria. In my own part of the country, through the King Edward VII National Memorial, we have built up a national service dealing with tuberculosis and have provided sanatoria. In these days that service is being handicapped by the exigencies of the war, and I hope the Minister will do all he can to see that it is not restricted. The place which used to be occupied by tuberculosis is now taken by cancer, and here I would urge that the lesson of the last generation is that the best way to meet this problem is not merely to prohibit quack remedies— although that is desirable, indeed essential, and I fully support the Clauses of the Bill which deal with them — but to provide an alternative to the quack remedies which lead to the fraudulent exploitation of poor people. In addition to a policy of prohibition the Government should follow a positive policy by furnishing treatment for the victims of cancer.
  An effort is to be made to abolish one social evil by prohibiting the advertisements of substances by which it is said that it is possible to procure miscarriage. I have spoken to medical officers and to social workers on the subject, and we find that it is a very grave problem, but it is a social problem. This practice grows or declines according as poverty increases or diminishes. In the depressed areas it became a very serious problem indeed. I urge upon the Minister that we shall not solve the problem by saying that no one

  73
  shall advertise these preparations in newspapers. The problem is that we live under a social system, under a wage system, in which the coming of a child, which ought to be regarded as a blessing, becomes a curse in many homes. That is the problem which has to be faced. I do not think that any woman, unless she is completely distracted and depressed by the circumstances of her life would look to this way out of the situation. I say to the Minister that I do not think a policy of prohibition is enough. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is here and he has recently been brought into this problem in another direction. I do not think this House ought to take up any attitude of moral superiority and say, "We will stop advertisements in newspapers offering quack remedies." That will not deal with the problem which was so startlingly revealed in the Driscoll Survey, showing that when a family get beyond the second child its poverty deepens with each addition to the number of children. I urge upon my hon. Friends who are experts and who will speak later to remember that the real remedy lies in the advance of education among the people, in the provision of medical services and medical facilities, in the building-up of a real health service. If the Minister of Health could widen the scope of that other Bill dealing with that aspect of the matter which is in contemplation so as to bring more people, especially dependants, within its scope, he could do more than is possible under the Bill before us to do away with the evils which this Measure is designed to tackle.
  I do not propose to say much about the other Clauses. Some of my hon. Friends take different views about them, but I should like to put one point. In this, as in many other matters, the Government do not hesitate to hit the little man but are rather afraid of the big man. It will be said, and I share the view, that the Government have been very tender to the big trusts, to the big vendors of proprietary articles, to those who engage in what may in one sense be termed "respectable quackery," quackery that is a big vested interest, run by big combines. Such people are being left rather outside the scope of this Bill, and the Minister ought to be pressed to reconsider their position. Instead, the Minister has gone to the market place, has gone to the little village; he has attacked the
  74
  smaller people, but he leaves the very big people alone. I do not want to mention any names, but the Minister and other hon. Members know of some of the claims that are made for so-and-so's wines and for so-and-so's other products, and they know also the prices that are charged for them. Those advertisements, too, call for his attention. Since this problem is being tackled I would ask why it is that these larger vested interests have been left outside this Measure. The Minister may say that it is all part of the agreement to which he has referred. I notice that he said that those people were satisfied with the provisions of this Bill. I have no doubt they are. I see no reason why they should not be. It does not touch them. But it will create a very bad impression in the country if the Government pick out the small man and leave the public with the idea that the big vested interests can "get away with it."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Would the ho a. Member indicate the Clause he is referring to which is having this dreadful effect upon the small man?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am going on to speak about the small man, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be patient. There is a man who has become a familiar figure indeed in the industrial areas of this country, and that is the herbalist. There are good and bad herbalists. I shall not say a word in defence of the bad herbalists, but I think we shall make a mistake if we can condemn all herbalists altogether.
  Mr. E. Brown Mr. E. Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Griffiths: If the Bill does not treat them all alike, then I hope that point will be made clear in the course of the Debate. I know that the Minister says that there is a saving Clause, but the Society of Herbalists still have very great doubts whether they will be in any way protected under this Bill. They have the fear that they may be driven completely out of business. I should like to quote a letter on that point from one of the herbalists.
  "We fear that under the Clauses of this Bill we shall be driven completely out of our work. Speaking for myself and many of my colleagues, I can say that we work in perfect amity with a large number of doctors. Every person who consults us does so with his

  75
  doctor's permission as a pre-condition. This Bill would deprive thousands of people of the opportunity to try herbal remedies if they wish to do so. We have now been working for 14 years and we have a mass of evidence of the beneficial effects of the herbs that we sell. We can prove this. In fact, we are carrying on a most valuable educational work and doing what no other body is doing."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer may laugh. I know that this matter is open to quackery and to abuses of various kinds, but many of these people have done very good work in their own way. Many of them are not only respected, but revered in the communities in which they work. I hope this matter will be cleared up in the course of the Debate. I am putting to the Minister the point of view of many of my hon. Friends. We should not like to see people who have rendered good service and have not done a great deal of harm treated unfairly and penalised, while very much bigger people got off scot free.
  While we might give this Bill a Second Reading to-day, we ought to examine its Clauses very carefully in Committee. There may be a problem of urgency, and whether we can afford the Parliamentary time to give the Bill an adequate Committee stage is a problem for the solution of which the Minister must take responsibility. I hope that we shall not be asked to pass hurriedly the Committee stage of this Bill, but that we shall be able to discuss all its Clauses. I hope that, as one consequence of the passing of this Bill, the Ministry of Health will proceed to develop a national medical service in this country which will give the best attention and the fruits of the best medical knowledge to people, whatever their incomes may be. This kind of service is not available now. People are exploited; their poverty is exploited. This situation is another aspect of the poverty problem. One way to prevent "the poor from being exploited is to provide them with a national medical service. In my area a struggle has been taking place, but an agreement has now been reached to provide a medical service which is ample for all the people in that industrial town. The Ministry must not say that it cannot be done. It is their duty to provide such a service for everybody.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: As a member of the 1937 Committee, I
  76
  should like to say one or two words. That Committee met morning after morning, and those who sat upon it remember the very hard work that was put in by our old friend Sir Arnold Wilson. He extracted the last word from everybody in the box. That Committee came to the conclusion that the patent medicine industry in this country could well afford to pay to the country a revenue of about £3,000,000 a year. At that time the industry was paying some like £700,000 or £800,000 a year. We submitted a recommendation. Mr. Chamberlain was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was not prepared to do anything in this matter. A year went by. Sir John Simon became Chancellor of the Exchequer. We listened to his Budget, feeling that the hard work we had done was to have its reward and the nation its £3,000,000. To our amazement, the right hon. Gentleman removed the existing tax. Not only was there no increase in the tax, but the tax was done away with. We went to see him, and subsequently he put the tax back.
  Then came the war. Now, four years after the meetings of that Committee, this. House is carrying what I firmly believe could have been carried out in one week. The Treasury has been deprived of £3,000,000 for four years. The Minister said this morning that exhaustive arrangements, conferences and everything else had been in progress; I believe it could all have been done in one week. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies to the Debate. I hope he will explain why the Treasury was done out of this money. The people in the patent medicine industry were anxious and eager to pay, since they would have secured the monopoly which they so earnestly desired. The Bill reads like a very innocent and constructive Measure, but it seems to me that it contains a tendency to place monopoly powers in the hands of the British Medical Association, which is a very reactionary institution and —
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I say!
  Mr. Baxter: I cannot believe that even any doctor, loyal to his profession, could say that the British Medical Association is alert and up-to-date.
  Sir F. Fremantle: Does my hon. Friend realise that the British Medical Association, of which I am only a humble member, started the whole business by its wonderful book, which was published some-where about 1910 and which exposed the whole thing?
  Mr. Baxter: I should be the last to say that, over many years, the British Medical Association never did anything useful.
  Sir F. Fremantle: Thank you, very much.
  Mr. Baxter: It takes genius to do nothing useful at all over a period of years. In prohibiting the advertising of quack remedies, the Bill is wise, but is there not an implication in that prohibition which ought to be studied? In the last 24 hours I have been lobbied by herbalists. Up to that time I knew practically nothing about herbalists. Now I am aware that they are people of eminence, social charm and some position in the community.
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the hon. Member say whether, in addition to their charm and social standing, they have any scientific qualifications?
  Mr. Baxter: When one is lobbied over a period of 24 hours there is not much chance to ascertain all people's qualifications, and I have no knowledge of the scientific side of this matter. The people concerned appear to be responsible citizens, and they claim that, in these herbal remedies, there is a tendency or move towards a cure for epilepsy. Suppose that is true; do we not, by putting a ban upon the advertising of such things, make it difficult for us to develop such a cure? Might it not be muffled? I know I am putting this point badly, but I think there is a tendency to ban things too much. I would much rather have a system of inquiry and judgment as to merits. We have not much time in this House to discuss the Bill thoroughly. It has been rushed, we are going to be asked to agree to it, and we simply have not time to study its implications. I think it should be confined to those Clauses which deal with the necessary revision of taxation, and outside all that I strongly recommend that: this Bill be not rushed through in its present form
  Professor A. V. Hill: I am very grateful for the opportunity of saying how warmly I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction, and only a step, for I feel that it is a temporary Measure which will need a far more extensive Bill some day after the war. A leading article in the "Times" this morning, which may have been seen by many hon. Members, rebukes the Government for bringing in this Bill now. It reminds me of a story of a Vice-Master of a college in Cambridge, who said once that when any change was brought before the College Council he always asked himself two questions. The first was, "Is it a good change?" which he said he almost always answered "No." The second question was, "Is it needed now?" "And to that," he said, "I invariably answer 'No'." I am sure that my scientific and medical colleagues will welcome this Bill, and in particular two of the Clauses to which special reference has been made, that prohibiting advertisements of drugs supposed to cure certain special diseases and that requiring the disclosure of the composition of substances sold as medicines.
  I am not always on the side of the medical profession, particularly when it seems to me that their activities are directed more particularly to maintaining their privileges. I admit— and admire— their good nature in the way they receive my ironical remarks, and I agree very warmly indeed with the remarks, we have just heard from the other side about the necessity of a more extensive public health service. When, however, attacks are made on the medical and allied professions because of their objections to nostrums and charlatans and other improper activities, my spirit rises and I rush at once to their rescue.
  There are people who scrupulously obey the law, the Ten Commandments and Mrs. Grundy, but who like to have their fling at medicine and are in favour of quack medicines, thinking perhaps that in this way they show their liberalism and openness of mind. Unfortunately, liberalism of this kind is apt to verge on stupidity, and such openness of mind really means emptiness. The stupidity in this case is to neglect the elementary fact

  79
  that very large vested interests are involved in this question of the sale, and particularly of the advertisement, of secret remedies, and I have little doubt that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health read his "Times" this morning he gave a loud and ironical laugh. As an illustration of these activities— many of them are known to Members of the House — there is the excellent little book which has already been referred to, "Secret Remedies," published by the British Medical Association, which provides perhaps the most striking evidence. In it the composition, the cost of the constituents, the claims for these medicines and their probable effects, if any, have been exposed now for a good many years. The advertising interests soon realised the damaging effect of these exposures, and succeeded practically in excluding it from the bookstalls. It became almost un-obtainable, which apart from anything else is a great pity, because the book is very readable, rather in the style of the hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford (Mr. A. Herbert).
  As an example, the best known of all these remedies— it is a harmless and unobjectionable one which must have brought its owner countless money— is the one which is said to be "worth a guinea a box," and which costs is. I½d.— or did some time ago; the value of its constituents is one half of one farthing, and all it contains is aloes, ginger and soap. What fraction of the difference between the "retail price and one-eighth of a penny goes to the advertisers and what to the proprietors is not known. Another example, not so harmless because of the danger of not treating the disease properly, was advertised many years ago, namely, the Brompton consumption specific, doubtless intended to produce an association in the mind with the Brompton Chest Hospital. The contents of a 2s. 9.d. bottle were, chiefly treacle, ipecacuanha, opium and water, costing ¾d. Such illustrations show how necessary it is to scrutinise very carefully the objections which may be raised to the principles underlying some of the Clauses in the Bill. The motives of those who object to them, like the secret remedies themselves, are not always what they seem.
  We must not imagine that the advertisers are. idle now, and the most respect-
  80
  able papers contain these advertisements. For example, the "Observer" last Sunday had advertisements inviting us to wake up our liver bile with little liver pills in a way that would make us jump out of bed in the morning. The "Sunday Times," in spite of the paper shortage, has a one-fifth of a page advertisement for Phyllosan, which "revitalises the blood," whatever that means, "fortifies the heart"— which sounds like the Minister of Information trying to keep up our morale, "corrects our blood pressure"— unfortunately without any indication of how it does it, ''stimulates our metabolism"— regardless of the fact that it is much more easily done by going for a gentle walk; "strengthens our nerves," "increases our vital forces,"— quite meaningless phrases— but gives no indication whatever of the contents of the remedy which is said to have all these effects on the system. The "Spectator," complaining of the paper reduction, yet has half a page to give to an eye lotion which is specially recommended for Civil Defence workers when they return after an incident. I personally should have thought that a dilute solution of boric acid would have been just as good, but it. has the disadvantage, of costing much less. The '' News Chronicle '' has. an advertisement for Zam-Buk, an old friend, at the present moment specialising in relieving tired feet.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Will the hon. Member assist the House by pointing out which Clause of the Bill would prohibit advertisements of that kind? I understand that prohibition is confined to diseases specifically mentioned in the Bill.
  Professor Hill: I am pointing out the importance of the interests of the advertisers in these remedies.
  Mr. Bevan: But you have tried to point out to the House that these advertisements will be prohibited if the Bill is passed.
  Professor Hill: I am pointing out that the advertisement of these medicines will be seriously decreased if the constituents are disclosed. Zam-Buk is composed of paraffin wax, 60 per cent., resin, 26 per cent., and eucalyptus 14 per cent. It is said to be a "grand herbal remedy." I do not know where the herbs come in. It is sold at 50 times the cost of its constituents, and in its day it has been advertised to cure every conceivable skin ailment, including dog bites and centipede stings. Bile

  81
  Beans allow you to slim while you sleep. Germoline is for bad legs. Limestone Phosphate— which sounds very grand chemically, but which I do not recognise — causes all fat-forming foods to be eliminated from the system; since nearly all our foods can form fat, this would appear a highly dangerous substance. Yeast Vite returns your money if it does not cure you of a wide variety of unrelated diseases.
  "Picture Post" gives us Beltona, which penetrates the skin, dispersing uric acid, somehow miraculously escaping the blood-vessels on its way. It gives instant relief to rheumatism, sciatica, lumbago and sprains. None of them would cause so much waste of money and hope if the constituents were honestly exposed. Moreover, we might avoid the danger of objectionable constituents, as, for instance of a children's teething powder, which it was stated "does not contain opium." Actually it contained morphine the active constituent of opium. Perhaps the most important Clause is that relating to the prohibition of advertisements for the alleged cures of certain diseases. I once had an argument with an editor of a rather highbrow weekly about an advertisement for a nostrum which was guaranteed as a cure for tuberculosis. The editor defended its publication on the grounds that it is desirable that everyone should have freedom to express his opinion, or advertise his wares. I think he was a little ashamed of himself, because later the advertisements ceased. The episode reminded me of the editor of an anti-vivisection journal who allowed a statement to appear that several millions of people had died in India as the result of inoculation. When challenged, she said she knew that the statement was not true but thought that everyone had the right to express their opinion.
  In America there is no law against allowing advertisements to be published, but the Postmaster can prosecute anyone for using the public service of the post to spread falsehoods or make claims dangerous to the public. It is very desirable that the British Government should have analogous powers. Therefore this Clause, which prevents the advertisement of treatments of the special diseases men is a great step in the right direction. It might be desirable, in Com-
  82
  mittee, to add further diseases or, at least, to give the Minister power to add others as needed. If anyone is fool enough to be taken in by advertisements for the cure of grey hair, he deserves to lose his money. With many diseases however it is necessary to get decent, responsible advice, not to waste money, to waste precious days and precious hope on fraud. This Bill, through no fault of my right hon. Friend, is long overdue, and I congratulate' him on bringing it before us. It must have required a certain amount of courage and determination on his part; he must have been aware of the misrepresentation which would be applied to him. We have been too respectful and tolerant for too long of the exploitation of the sick and suffering. It is time we realised that laisser faire in this matter means cruel scandals, that laisser faire is not freedom but simply everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
  Mr. Woods: One of the Clauses deals, quite rightly, with the anomaly which was created by the introduction of the Purchase Tax. When that was under discussion it was pointed out that it involved an additional tax on an article already taxed. But as we pro with the Bill it was discovered that a far greater anomaly was being perpetrated, and that the Purchase Tax actually included a tax upon a tax as it applied to a patent medicine. That, I understand, will be corrected completely by this Bill. Now, with the Purchase Tax applying to patent medicines, there is an overwhelming case for the complete abolition of the Patent Medicines Duty. We welcome the Bill on that account. I was rather perturbed by the Minister's speech in explaining the Bill, when he referred to the fact that in the case of patent medicines to be modified the qualified chemist had an advantage not shared by others who from time immemorial-have been concerned in the sale of household specifier; The chemist, by selling the commodity with the prescription printed on, could sell minus the tax, therefore minus Purchase Tax on the tax, but the ordinary man in the village store was having to charge his customers the extra money. That meant that a considerable section of the population of this country who live in rural districts found that it paid them to pay bus fares to go to a chemist, and achieve the

  83
  economy they would effect by so doing, in not paying a tax to the chemist which, if they had bought at their local village store, they would have had to pay. Why should the Minister suggest that, because through the incidence of legislation a privilege was conferred on a section he is to go altogether out of his way in this Bill to try and see that there is no harm done, that he is not to take away from those people a privilege to which they were not entitled? I hope that he will modify his attitude in this, because if we are going to be concerned at any hardship that is incurred by people because they have had a privilege which they have no right to have, which is not theirs by any legitimate winning or service to the community, that is an attitude we ought to get rid of, especially in war-time.
  Mr. Wakefield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that chemists undergo a long professional training to enable them to become qualified, to discharge certain statutory qualifications?
  Mr. Woods: I do not wish to enter into debate on that score. I am as familiar as the hon. Gentleman with that matter. I have come to the conclusion that there is perhaps more balderdash talked on that subject than any other. There are people who have to take a job at the age of 14 and are handicapped throughout their lives because of that. Others of us have been privileged, instead of going to work — we may have had a short period of work— to go to college. Because we had the pleasure and joy of practically doing nothing except increasing our own capacity, is the argument that we are to go on for the rest of our lives not only enjoying higher standards than other people, but that we are to have additional privileges created by legislation? It is time we began to be rational and dealt with human beings as human beings and that we should end these privileges and not perpetuate them. I have spoken more feelingly on that question than I might have done but for the hon. Member's interjection. There is no justification for this privilege. No privilege should be given or conferred in this way.
  There are one or two other points with regard to the Bill which I think ought to be made clear. I hope that it will be made clear that there will be no inter-
  84
  ference with the present procedure in the selling of quite simple proprietory articles, the use of which is quite reasonable, for example, aspirins, the various carbolic disinfectants, and so forth. They ought to be readily available in every community, whether there happens to be a chemist's shop, or a branch of a chemist's shop, there or not. With regard to the publication of advertisements, I do not know what the position will be, and I would like the Minister to enlighten the House. It does not seem of much use to prevent newspaper publicity when one can go into the streets of any big city, particularly in the North of England, and have free entertainment from gentlemen with innumerable bottles, who tell one something about the contents of those bottles and of the wonderful things they will do. Such people will be able to do all the things that this Bill prohibits established traders, with business addresses and reputations to maintain, from doing. When trying to mitigate an evil, we should not go too far in the other direction.
  There is a strong case for Clause 3, which deals with remedies for specific diseases, but the medical profession will agree, I think, that insulin is helpful to victims of diabetes. I am not an expert, but I think that that is usually conceded. It seems that if any specialist in the proof insulin wished to make insulin available easily, by laying down an efficient plant, the Clause would prevent him from doing so. That is a point which ought to be cleared up. It is only in recent years that the properties of insulin have been discovered. I can imagine other remedies being discovered, not only through university research and by famous people, but by humble people. I am reminded that at a recent Chelsea Flower Show the whole world was startled by the achievements of an old jobbing gardener from York, called Fred Russell, who if one met him in the street might have been mistaken for a tramp. We know him in York as "Old Man Russell." He lived for his lupins, and gave to the world a range of colours which startled the visitors to the Chelsea Flower Show. Genius is widespread in this country. It is not limited to those who, like some of us, have had the privilege of a university career. A rigid application or an extension of this provision might not only cut out initiative, but might prevent any gain from cures which

  85
  might be discovered. I appeal to the House to support the main principle of the Bill, and to see that on the Committee stage the Bill is made wholly beneficial, and that it does not become numbered among the quack remedies for our social ailments.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: I rise to make a short speech in very strong support of this belated Bill. I have many times been asked why I, as a sailor, take an interest in this, in some respects, complicated subject. But to-day we have already had speeches from a scientist, a journalist, a coalminer, and other people who are concerned with the health of the nation and with the prevention and control of fraud. Anyone who has travelled even about this country, and certainly anyone who has travelled about the world, as I have done, and who has come into contact with African and Chinese practices— the ju-ju practice in Africa, and other practices such as the sale of the wild ginseng root for its weight in gold in China— must take an interest in the subject. The ju-ju people and the people in China who deal with the subjects I have mentioned have nothing to learn from the advertisers of the quack remedies with which we are surrounded. Those of us who have read "The Golden Bough" can clearly appreciate the background which it provides of the incredible and in eradicable credulity of civilised and un-civilised men and women. Those of us who have had the pleasure of reading O. Henry's "The Gentle Grafter" and his tale "Next to Reading Matter" must surely realise that that is a description of the methods of exploiting the credulity of which I have spoken. This Bill seems to me, at least to control and, in some measure, to expose the monstrous and Pagan fraud of the quacksalver.
  As for the abolition of the Stamp Duties I might mention, in parenthesis, that I was for a time on one of the Committees which went into the question— and that is an added reason for my being interested in the subject. In the eyes of the public, the stamp has always been a sort of seal of value, of rectitude and of purity; but it is no such thing. It is merely a method by which this and other Governments exploited one of the minor, but very dangerous, vices of the people. The revenue that has been obtained in this way has been, in the past, minute. If in future,
  86
  when this Bill becomes law, it is possible to find a way by which large revenue can be obtained from this trade, I shall be the first to support it. What is wanted is exposure of the methods which have led to some of the provisions of this Bill; and above all, the protection of the public. The Clause which deals with the prohibition of advertisements is of very great importance. Even to-day the Government, in my view, are much to blame. One has only to look at the books of postage stamps which we buy from the Post Office to see advertisements of quack remedies which cannot be justified.
  This advertising of what I call ju-ju is not new at all. I took the trouble last night to turn up Steele and Addison's "Spectator," which was published not very long after the invention of printing, and from the date of printing perhaps these advertisements spring. In looking at that publication of nearly 250 years ago, I find that there were advertisements of the very worst possible type. Again, I would say that the modern advertiser has nothing to learn from the indecent exaggerations and lying statements of the people who advertised in Steele and Addison's "Spectator." I do not think myself that it is wrong to make revenue out of what I would call public vices, of which I have many myself— all of us have them— but when the vice takes the form of these secret remedies that we are discussing, we have no right, the Government and the House of Commons have no right, to condone this thing to the extent that we have in the past.
  I repeat, that it is the business of this House, first of all, to protect the public, and perhaps almost as important as protection is enlightenment. My hon. Friend who spoke from behind me and cleared up a number of points connected with the composition of these secret remedies is right in saying that enlightenment is of extreme importance. Actually, I went into a chemist's shop this morning and asked for two sorts of pills and two sorts of ointment. I did not buy them. I found that they were is. 5d. each, and that in the case of one of them the ointment is alleged to cure no fewer than 63 ailments, of which my hon. Friend mentioned only two. If fools and their money are very easily parted— and they certainly are— at least let this House pass a Bill which will

  87
  enable the foolish to know what they are buying. Again, I refer to what has been mentioned here about this vested interest. How can we look complacently upon the vast fortunes that have been made from these miserable, cruel, witch-doctor frauds on the public? It is all very well for people to say that, if a man buys a secret remedy and he feels that it does him good, he should be allowed to buy it, but enlightenment will help him very much indeed, and if he knows he is buying soap, ginger and aloes, he will say, "I will keep my is. 5d."
  Speaking of this vested interest, many of us have met— certainly I have— individuals whose names are a public, I will not say byword, but almost a password. They have made vast fortunes, and I personally never can meet them without feeling that they or their ancestors have committed a fraud on the public. These secret remedies are in the nature of a social crime committed by the people who push them, by trading on the credulity of the ordinary individual, and no Act of Parliament should condone them. That is why, when the times comes, I hope that I may be allowed to move an Amendment, which is already on the Paper, to try and clear up some of the doubts, and prevent the poor unfortunate individual who has no knowledge and perhaps not even the money to enable him to go and see a doctor, asking a totally unqualified man for some remedy for his trouble. I welcome this social reform, and if perhaps the steps are tortuous and testudineous, they are nevertheless welcome.
  Mr. Arthur Duckworth: I think that, taking into account the heated controversy which these Debates have raised in the past, the Minister has every reason to be highly gratified with the reception which this House has given to this Bill. I wish briefly to support he Bill, which is very long overdue, and the Government are certainly to be congratulated on the attempt which this Bill at long last makes to deal with problems that have been considered by two Select Committees of this House, and which have been debated on numerous' occasions both here and in another place. Really there can be no justification for the plea which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) that there
  88
  should be any further delay in dealing with this question.
  I claim some very small part in the parentage of the present Bill, because some of its Clauses follow, broadly speaking, the provisions of a Private Member's Bill which I introduced in this House in 1936. That Bill met an untimely, and, as I thought, an undeserved fate, and I am confirmed in that view by the fact that the Government have decided to introduce the Measure which we are considering to-day. But the present Bill is, of course, very much wider in its scope, though many of us think that it should be a great deal wider still. The Minister has told us that this matter was first considered as long ago as 1914 by a Select Committee that examined the whole question of the commercial traffic in patent medicines and secret remedies. They reported at that time that the existing law was wholly inadequate to safeguard the public against widespread fraud and deception, and they produced quite remarkable evidence of the extent to which human credulity can be exploited and of the colossal swindles that were being perpetrated on the public at that time. It is true that the Report of 1914 is to some extent out of date to-day and the public have meanwhile received some additional measures of protection through the Dangerous Drugs Act, and other legislation which has been passed by this House, and it is also true that there is to-day some small check at any rate on the more undesirable and fraudulent type of advertisements which is carried cut by the voluntary censorship which has been established by the reputable newspapers. But all newspapers do not come within the scope of this censorship, and no one who has studied the present situation— and many examples have been given by several speakers already— can possibly come to any other conclusion than that enormous frauds are still being perpetrated upon the public every day which are really a serious danger to the public health.
  This Bill has been largely founded upon the Report of the Select Committee which sat in 1937 to consider the Medicine Stamp Duty. This matter of advertisements was largely outside their terms of reference, but, nevertheless, so greatly were they impressed by the view that further control of the medicine trade was necessary that they emphatically recorded

  89
  that view in paragraph 16 of their Report. Therefore I particularly welcome Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of this Bill, and especially Clause 6, which requires a list of the ingredients to be printed and affixed to the outside of the container, wrapper or label. I think that constitutes a most desirable and most necessary reform, and it provides a powerful safeguard to any-one who cares to take the trouble to see that he is not purchasing absolute rubbish.
  The only criticism I have to make of this Bill is that it does not go nearly far enough in the matter of controlling undesirable advertisements. Clause 3, very rightly, provides safeguards against the exploitation of certain incurable diseases, and it is true that that Clause is fairly widely drawn. But the Bill makes no attempt whatever to deal with the far more widespread evil— the type of advertisement that is wholly fraudulent and undesirable in itself, quite apart from the preparation or substance which it advertises. Many of these preparations are no doubt perfectly harmless and, in fact, may be useful in treating certain minor ailments, but the manner in which the substances are advertised is nothing short of a public scandal. There are advertisements which are calculated to do infinite harm, because they prey on, and exploit, the emotion of fear, and it is not going too far to say that the interests which are exploiting this emotion in this way are attempting to levy a huge form of black-mail on the public.
  One can give innumerable examples of that type of advertisement. We have all seen pictures of acid burning an immense hole in a piece of carpet: Underneath the picture we are told that this is what happens inside you when you get stomach pains and that if you take the tablets which are advertised you will be able to eat anything. We are told that four out of live people suffer from pyorrhoea, but medical authorities say that this statement in itself is wholly untrue. We are told that if we use a certain tooth paste we shall be protected against what is called this widespread disease. Further than that the ailments and disorders which may prove destructive to romance are heavily exploited. The advertising artist has used all his ingenuity in supporting that type of advertisement. There is the picture of the girl who has lost her friends and her lover, and it says that no one
  90
  would tell her why. I contend that all these types of advertisement are wholly undesirable in themselves and should be controlled by the Ministry of Health.
  There are endless examples of this kind of advertising, and it is not enough to make sure simply that the ingredients of the substances advertised are harmless. I am convinced that the actual advertisements themselves should be brought under control, and I suggest to the Minister that it is quite easy to set up, under this Bill, a statutory body, under the Ministry of Health, to exercise censorship over the whole range of advertisements for patent medicines. Many reputable firms never use these methods, but, unfortunately, there are exceptions, and when we consider the enormous profits being made by this trade, I say that it is intolerable that they should be permitted to push their products by these methods. It is no defence to say that the ingredients themselves are harmless, that these advertisements are in a minority and that people are not fools enough to believe the statements made. The fact is that there is really no limit to human credulity. We have taught people to read and write, but we have not taught them how to think, and certainly this war has taught us, as never before, the unlimited powers of propaganda and that if you say a thing loud enough and often enough people will believe it. I believe this exploitation of the emotion of fear and the suggestion that most people may be suffering from some particular ailment may in itself be a potent cause of disease, and I see no reason whatever why this evil should not be dealt with under this Bill. It is a proposal that could only be opposed by vested interests which would stand to lose.
  I would like to say a word in regard to the abolition of the Stamp Duties. It is generally agreed that the duties in their old form were wholly unsatisfactory and that the legal position was very anomalous. The Select Committer of 1937 recommended their abolition and, further, that a new set of duties should replace them, on a far wider range, levied on the selling price of the article. That course has not been followed, and many of us cannot accept the case made by the Minister for not pursuing that course; Many find it difficult to understand why, at the

  91
  present time, when revenue is urgently needed, this trade, which is still making colossal profits, should be exempt from any special taxation. It is true that mean-while the Purchase Tax, amounting to 16⅔per cent., has been imposed on all these articles, but is there any reason why this trade, if it were a fit subject to attract special taxation before the war, should not attract special taxation now? This matter is certainly no reason for opposing the Bill, but it is to be hoped that in the very near future the Chancellor will reconsider this question and will implement the recommendations of the Select Committee. I believe that this Bill constitutes a very considerable measure of reform, but I think it could be improved and widened in the way I have indicated, especially with regard to the further control of advertisements. Every effort made in the past to grapple with these problems has always been frustrated, and legislation in this country has lagged far behind the legislation which exists in Continental countries, and particularly in the British Dominions. The Government are to be congratulated on finding time to deal with this question in the middle of the war, and I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I need not apologise for speaking by giving a testimonial to myself as to my qualifications for doing so, because I should have thought that in this matter the only qualification necessary was that one was a victim, or might be a victim, of some of the things with which we are supposed to be dealing. I have another qualification, in that I was for very many years a member of the committee of a medical aid society about which Dr. Cronin wrote in his famous book, "The Citadel." I think that some hon. Members who have spoken, and who belong to the medical profession, might have remembered the latter portion of that book before indulging in their praise of the medical profession.
  Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has commended the Minister for introducing the Bill, and particularly remarked on the fact that it has been received with such commendation, consider-
  92
  ing that a Bill of this sort usually leads to bitter opposition owing to the many vested interests that are involved. I think that some hon. Members are rather too naive. Surely, the reason the Bill has not aroused any opposition is that it is almost innocuous to those vested interests, who would have fought the Bill if it had been an effective one. I think that before the end of the Debate it will be shown that even what the Bill pretends to do will not be done, and in fact, the Bill only tries to go a very little distance. I could say now in what way it would be possible for all the interests which the Bill proposes to tackle to evade the Bill. I could at this moment frame an advertisement which would escape under the Bill. The suggestion that, by having the ingredients stated on the bottle, one will deter people from buying it is one that I cannot understand. No doubt other hon. Members better qualified to speak about this will intervene before the Debate closes, but I am bound to say that I do not think one can devise legislation which will adequately protect people from their own credulity, without dealing with it in other places, in the schools, and in our methods of teaching science. As long as there are educational institutions which teach people to be superstitious, their superstitions will be exploited by commercial interests at every opportunity. Again, I am bound to say that it does not seem to me that quacks cease to be quacks by reason of their be given a charter. The suggestion that because doctors have to pass examinations, quackery is eliminated from the medical profession is a suggestion that is entirely opposed to our experience. For instance, the medical profession has not got to prescribe the ingredients of the medicine bottle in such a way that people will understand them. Very few doctors can write legibly, and even when they do, they write in Latin. How many patients will understand what are the ingredients of the medicine bottle?
  In order to show that the claim that the medical profession is free of quackery is unwarranted, let me recall an incident from my experience of the medical aid society to which I have referred. We had a very successful and popular doctor who was attracting patients from all the other doctors whom we employed— and we employed a great many— to the disadvantage, of course, of the salaries of the

  93
  others, as we had a system of competition inside the society so as to enable the patients to select their doctors. This doctor was so popular that his salary was going up to astronomical heights, and the salaries of the other doctors were falling; but at the same time as his salary was going up, so was our drugs bill going up, in the same proportion, and for the same reasons. He was exceedingly popular because he gave to his patients long and impressive prescriptions. We had to do something about the matter, because it was demoralising the whole of the society. It was no good writing to the British Medical Association about it, because they would have supported the doctor in any case. Therefore, we sent for a private report from an analyst, and he reported, in a preamble, that it was not possible to tell with any degree of scientific accuracy what would be the reaction to a compound containing more than four or five ingredients, and that when the number of ingredients was in the degree of prediction declined. The doctor to whom I have referred had been prescribing 13,14 or 15 ingredients. The analyst said, with regard to one medicine, that the effect of the particular ingredients was, as far as he could see, wholly innocuous, and with regard to another medicine, containing 13 or 14 ingredients, he could only describe the result as an act of God. We managed to get rid of the doctor.
  I refer to this matter in order to show that it is complete nonsense to suggest that because doctors are in a chartered society, there is consequently no quackery in the medical profession, or that the patients are necessarily protected against quackery by that reason. Indeed, no reputable doctor would claim any high percentage of science for medicine; medicine is about 25 per cent. science and 75 per cent. art; and as long as there is a body of protected citizens who cannot claim any high degree of scientific accuracy for their practice, it is very dangerous to prevent anybody else from practising the same arts. That is why I want to find out from the Minister whether it is true, as I understood him to say, that the herbalists' profession is protected. The herbalists do not think so. They have lobbied us, and they suggest that if the Bill goes through in its present form, very heavy disabilities will be
  94
  placed upon them. I have no special plea to make for them; all I say is that, as long as a body of people is working on a vast deal of empirical research conducted by citizens who have no legal licence, and do not need one, it would be a very bad thing for the medical profession to prevent them from going on with their investigations and explorations, because a very great deal of what is to-day described as quackery becomes the accepted practice in medicine tomorrow, as is known by anyone who is familiar with the history of medicine. Therefore, I suggest that, in the interests of the medical profession, it is undesirable to put legal disabilities upon persons who do not sell poisonous drugs, but who are engaged in a field of research to which many doctors are too pedantic to pay attention.
  It is no argument against a drug to say that it is innocuous and that the patient is deceived by it. To a very considerable degree our therapeutic system consists in this, that the patient is getting better when, in fact, no organic change is taking place, simply because the induced condition of optimism has a great curative value. Therefore, it is no argument against a drug to say that a person is deceived when he thinks that it is doing him good. If this form of therapeutics has anything to be said for it, then the patient is better because he is deceived. Very many doctors would lose their patients if they had not that charm of manner and personality which convinces the patient that he is in good hands.
  Sir Patrick Hannon (Moseley): Am I to understand that the Minister's statement about the Society of Herbalists and those engaged in research into herbal treatment is satisfactory to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Bevan: No. I confess that I have read the provisions very carefully, and I can see that it is intended to give some form of protection to herbalists, but it is disputed as to whether they are protected. That is the point. If the Minister had explained in his opening speech precisely and particularly the forms of protection, a great deal of this discussion might have been curtailed, because, as I have already said, most of the rest of the Bill is entirely innocuous, and, however well-meaning, misses the target. I hope, when we come

  95
  to the Committee stage, that we shall not place any legal disability upon persons who are carrying out an investigation of forms of treatment, which have not become part of the general medical practice, but which nevertheless may prove themselves of great curative value.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I congratulate the Minister on introducing a Bill which has certainly some very valuable features, including, in particular, the compulsory disclosure enjoined by Clause 6. I think that it is unfair to attack the Minister of Health on the ground that this Measure is introduced in time of war, because the introduction of a Measure on these lines was rendered essential once the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to repeal the existing Medicine Stamp Duties. I know that a number of speakers wish to intervene in this Debate, and I shall therefore confine myself mainly to a single subject— the prohibition of advertisements which is contained in Clause 3. I agree with many of the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in making the opening speech on the other side, and with many of the statements contained in the speech of the junior Member for Cambridge University (Professor Hill). They both welcomed the prohibition of certain advertisements under Clause 3, but went on to mention a vast number of advertisements which, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has pointed out, will not be hit by Clause 3 at all. The only way these advertisements will be hit, if at all, is by the indirect method of the proprietor being compelled to disclose the composition, with the result that a certain number of people may be deterred from buying the product. The doubts of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, on the question whether people will in fact be so prevented, are fully justified. I will give the House a few examples of human credulity which render any suggestion that they will be deterred extremely optimistic.
  I do not know whether the House realises the vast extent of vested interests in these patent medicines. My figures may not be up-to-date, but I find that the public has been spending something like £30,000,000 a year on these medicines, on which this is the considered view of
  96
  perhaps our most distinguished living doctor, Lord Horder—
  Mrs. Tate: The most advertised—
  Mr. Strauss: He states:
  "We have this campaign of quack medicines and food, totally un combated so far by His Majesty's Government, but led by very subtle and skilled generals bent upon maintaining national ill-health, moral and physical, in order to have a read' market for then-goods."
  I agree with Lord Horder that the advertisements themselves often constitute a greater danger to health than the contents of the medicines which they are designed to sell. What Clause 3 of the Bill says is that there are eight subjects about which you must no longer tell lies in advertisements. There are also two prohibitions contained in earlier Statutes. On all other subjects advertisements can continue to lie as at present. I was very much astonished by the optimistic statement in the admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth) when he talked about the voluntary censorship by certain news-papers. I remember that not very long ago one of the newspapers which boasted that it was maintaining a very high standard through this voluntary censorship contained an advertisement, which I hold in my hand, on the subject of rheumatism. It was an advertisement for an ointment, which stated:
  "There is literally no need to continue to suffer from rheumatism or its allied complaints."
  That was the promise given if you bought this ointment. The fact is that the advertisements which will be stopped by Clause 3 of the Bill are those which have now become least important. Subjects upon which advertisements are at present lying include rheumatism, vitamins, indigestion and the question of food values, about which the public is taking an in interest. I have given an example concerning rheumatism, and my hon. Friend gave a really disgraceful example of an illustrated indigestion advertisement which stated that the acid in the stomach would burn such a hole; in the carpet. Another advertisement, known to be a blatant lie, is that four out of five people have pyorrhea. That is known to be untrue, except among the uninformed, but the product will still be allowed to be sold

  97
  in this way, because Clause 3 does not hit this type of advertisement.
  Perhaps one of the most serious of the many misstatements in advertisements concerns meat extracts. This may greatly affect the nutrition of the poor. A poor mother, if her child is ill, will very likely be induced by one of these advertisements to scrape her savings together to buy some meat extract, which she believes to be of almost supreme value, when as a matter of fact the same amount expended on ordinary food would do much more good. Those advertisements are absolutely out-side the scope of Clause 3. Let me give one other example— again a lying one— that "everyone takes a laxative." The ordinary healthy person, who does nothing of the sort, immediately begins to wonder whether he is health. That is a type of advertisement designed and calculated to depress and produce a sense of ill-health.
  It may be said, if these are the evils, how are they to be combated? I can quite understand my right hon. Friend, or the Parliamentary Secretary when she comes to reply, saying it will be quite impracticable to make a great extension of the list contained in Clause 3. I agree that it would be quite impracticable to do so. If, however, you are not going to extend Clause 3, it would be much better not to have it at all. As long as there is no control whatever of these advertisements of quack medicines, so long will it remain possible to sow distrust of advertisements in the mind of the ordinary member of the public. The right way to combat these advertisements is to have distinguished doctors and others broad-casting speeches through the B.B.C. and giving the true answer to the bogus claims that are put forward by these vested interests. That, at any rate, might be effective. What the Bill does is to prohibit eight particular lies and to permit all the rest. The only effect of that is that the public is given a false sense of security. It knows that Parliament has made some provision for preventing frauds through advertisements of patent medicines. It does not read the details. It does not know that there are eight particular frauds that are prevented. The only effect of preventing those eight and allowing all the rest is to give the public the impression that any advertisement that still continues after the Bill becomes law is much more likely to be true, because otherwise
  98
  it would have fallen within the ban of the Bill.
  In considering the gullibility of the public, I invite the House to consider two facts. The first is that after some 70 years of compulsory education it is the opinion of those who are making money from these advertisements that there is nothing too idiotic for the British public to believe. I wonder if anything more fantastic has ever been put before the public than the idea of night starvation. From the beginning of history people have thought it quite a healthy thing to sleep at night. Suddenly, by a brilliant advertising campaign, the public, or a great part of it, is convinced that, since you cannot simultaneously sleep and eat, the only way to sleep without incurring the risk of starvation is to take Horlick's before you go to bed, and then promotion in whatever profession you adopt is almost certain. The most interesting thing about this fantastic notion is that the article sold is, I believe, good, but it is sold by the propagation of this fantastic idea. Let me give another example. In every, popular paper published on Sunday for some years it has been considered essential to have an article by an astrologer. After 70 years of compulsory education that is the state of mind of the people. If it is true as the newspaper proprietors and advertisers believe that there is no statement so fantastic that you cannot get away with it by advertisements, is it sufficient protection for the public to think that mere disclosure of the contents will stop the sale of. worthless articles? Unless the Government are prepared to go much further than they do in the prohibition of advertisements they would do much better to leave out Clause 3 altogether, and then those of us who have 'any power of persuasion at all may induce in the public a distrust of all advertisements instead of giving them a false sense of security through the illusion that the worst evils have been removed and that they can rely on the advertisements which are allowed to survive.
  Various Members have mentioned the Society of Herbalists. I have no connection with that Society, but I want to put in this plea. I think the Society is mistaken in thinking that it is as badly hit by the Bill as the Memorandum circulated to Members of the House would indicate. Nevertheless, there are provisions in Clauses 6 and 7 on which it is

  99
  possible for them to entertain legitimate apprehension. All other bodies whose interests were undoubtedly affected by the Bill were, I believe, taken into consultation before it was drafted. Probably the Society of Herbalists was not so consulted. I suggest that between now and the Committee stage the Ministry should consider with an open mind any representations that may be made by the Society, which I think is recognised as being a reputable society, and carefully consider any Amendments that may be tabled to meet the apprehensions which they express. I believe, from an intervention that the Minister made earlier, that this plea will be met, and the only criticism therefore that I wish to make of the Bill is the criticism of Clause 3 which I have put before the House.
  Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I propose to support the Bill but to deprecate what I consider is the disappointing character of its scope. After so long a period of waiting for a really constructive Measure, it is frankly disheartening to see how little has been effected. The Preamble to the Bill states that one of its purposes is to regulate the sale of medicines. Two years ago, when the repeal of the Stamp Duties was suggested, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day was obliged by the consensus of opinion in the House to make a promise that he would deal with the sale of medicines both in its health and financial aspects. There is another event which has an important bearing on this Bill. At the beginning of this year the Ministry of Health made an important and useful advance by appointing a committee to supervise the provision of drugs. The committee has not yet reported, but one of the measures which are proposed is that drugs should be divided into three categories— those which are essential and available, those which are not so essential, and those which are not essential at all. The obvious desire of that measure is to restrict the consumption of drugs as such. The effect of the absence of legislation has been enormously to encourage the consumption of drugs in this country. A larger quantity of medicine is taken in the British Isles than in any other country in the world. That is not checked but actually fomented by the enormous number of patent medicines. The extent of the financial gains in that
  100
  trade has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). It has really reached scandalous dimensions. A sum of £30,000,000 a year is extracted from the public for patent medicines, which is a larger sum than is spent on all the hospital services.
  I hope that the Minister of Health will keep in view what is obviously one of his tasks, that is, the supervision of the health of the people. It is not for the health of the public that they should dose themselves and be induced to dose themselves and that no check should be placed on the encouragement of the use of drugs. What is one of the real reasons for the immense development of this trade? I submit that it is largely the power of the Press. Let me give an illustration of the power of the Press in the opposite direction, that is to say, in condemnation. About 17 years ago a famous chemist wrote a report for one of the newspapers on the product known as Yadil. That product was advertised very largely and this report contained an analysis of it. It was so damaging that the sale of the product immediately stopped. Inversely, the sale of a product may be enormously extended by advertising, and it is a cruel form of exploitation. It is becoming increasingly prevalent, and, I think, scandalously prevalent in the exploitation of what might be called war weariness. You will find in every newspaper— I have seen three or four this morning— an advertisement to the effect that "If you cannot do your job and you find it difficult to go to sleep, take two of our tablets; carry them in your pocket and give them to your friends." That sort of thing is horrible, because it is not true that such medicines are useful. They do, on the other hand, unquestionably produce a measure of disease consciousness. That is an unfortunate thing for any human being to contract and it is very easy to contract under the conditions from which we are suffering at the present time.
  Sir P. Hannon: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the advertisements in the newspapers induce a sort of consciousness of illness which does not exist at all?
  Sir E. Graham-Little: Yes, I do say that, quite definitely. I want to deal with an important item which has not

  101
  been touched on in the Debate. In the report of the 1936 Committee a valuable recommendation was made that drugs of common usage and common knowledge should not be prescribed under fancy names which concealed their nature and origin and which led to the sale of quite common drugs under what were practically fraudulent pretences. There is a commonly used drug known as aspirin. It is a German patent which has now become known by that name, which is used in preference to the chemical name, which is a long one and difficult to assimilate. There is a number of preparations which are nothing but aspirin, but which are sold under fancy names and pretend to be something which aspirin is not. It is true that one of these advertisers declares that their product is "pure acetylsalicylic acid," which is the chemical name for aspirin, but they do not say that the product is nothing but aspirin and that aspirin can be bought for about one-fifth of the cost of what they are charging. Let me give my experience of a hospital. All large hospitals have a hospital pharmacopoeia. These are arranged largely to avoid expense in prescribing on the part of the younger doctors in the hospital. They are given directions to use The drugs which are in-expensive and of equal potency as compared with others. It is a fact that there is a large number of patent medicines which are nothing but perfectly simple and well-known chemical products. I will give one instance. There is a preparation which enjoys a fancy name and is sold for 13s. for 100 tablets. Under its correct chemical name the same thing can be bought for 6s. That surely is a case of fraud upon the public.
  The British Medical Association wisely produced a formulary some time ago for National Health Insurance, and it was approved by the Minister of Health. If a medical practitioner goes outside the formulary he is liable to censure. A demand was made at the beginning of this year to have a war formulary and the chief medical officer to the Ministry of Health announced in February the formation of a committee to devise it. It is obviously the desire of scientific medical practitioners to simplify as far as possible the medicine which they give. It is not true, as one hon. Member suggested, that the medical man wants to have a multi-
  102
  plicity of drugs. It is quite the other way. The scientific doctor wants a simplification of medicines. There is a salutary tendency to encourage the restriction of drug consumption when so many drugs are non-essential. Many of the drugs in the long list of non-essential drugs which I read out are used by nobody more profusely than by the manufacturers of patent medicines, and it is rather galling for medical practitioners who do use less expensive' ingredients to find that the patented product manufacturer has no such scruples as to non-essential drugs. I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the proposals for restricting advertisements do not go nearly far enough and I do not think they will have very much effect.
  I am also puzzled by the requirement that a description in the British Pharmacopoeia must be reproduced on the container. Does the man who buys medicine in a shop know the British Pharmacopoeia? To put down the scientific names of the products is really quite illusory. One cannot expect the ordinary patient who buys patent medicines to derive any sort of knowledge of what he is buying from a perusal of the chemical constitution. The use of these preparations leads not only to a waste of money but to a waste of valuable time before the patient receives proper treatment. I will give an illustration of a case which came to my own notice. A patient who was suffering from an inoperable cancer consulted a notorious cancer quack, a gentleman who pretended that he could cure cancer by drugs. He was given two powders and charged 15 guineas. He died two days later, after taking only one of the powders. The coroner ordered an inquest and the powders were analysed, and the county analysed reported that they were 100 per cent. cane sugar. The practitioner was absolved of all responsibility for the fatal termination of the illness, but that case, which was fully reported in the Press, exploded his claim to possess a cure for cancer. I support the Bill in its general principles, but I rather hope that the Minister may find it possible to give effect to the recommendation that drugs should not be allowed to be sold under fancy names when they are perfectly simple preparation and quite accessible to the public in the ordinary way.
  Captain Sir Ian Fraser: I happen to be the director of a small private company in South Africa which is a subsidiary of one of the larger manufacturers of medicines in this country. I feel that I ought to tell the House that before I speak upon this Measure. It is, of course, the reason why I am to some extent informed about the subject, and also the reason why I have, during the past month, at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taken. some part in trying to bring the trading interests together in order to find a solution of the difficulties which presented themselves to the House two or three years ago. In 1936 a strong Select Committee of this House examined this whole matter, and I would briefly summarise what seemed to me to be the important recommendations of that Committee. They recommended the repeal of the Medicine Stamp Duties, and that these should be replaced by other taxation which should be simpler, which should be lower on the lower priced goods but should cover a, wider range of goods, and include not only medicines but medicated articles and even cosmetics. I think I have fairly summarised what were the primary recommendations of that Committee. Clause 9 of this Bill repeals the Old Medicines Stamp Acts and a Section in the Finance Act of last year put on to the Statute Book a tax identical with that which was recommended by the Select Committee. Therefore, the Finance Act and Clause 9 of this Measure carry out between them precisely the recommendations of the Select Committee.
  I would remind the House that that Committee sat in 1936, so that there has been plenty of time for this matter to be considered in all its aspects, and it can be hardly true to say that it has been rushed. It may be asked why, if the Chancellor came to the House last year with the Purchase Tax, which was part of the arrangement, he did not then repeal the old Stamp Duties Acts. There were two reasons. One of them is that the chemist has a long-established trade interest under the old Statutes. It should be observed that the Select Committee proposed that that interest of the chemist should be abolished but did not propose to give any concession in its place. This House showed very clearly, and the Chancellor also felt, that a privilege which had been enjoyed over 100 years could
  104
  not be lightly abandoned, and it was partly for that reason that he was un-willing to deal with the matter last year. He wanted to give time for the interest of the chemist to be reconciled, if that were possible. Clause 7 gives to the chemist a protection which has. satisfied him. In place of the fiscal advantage which he had because he could sell certain medicines without a tax when other persons had to sell them with a tax, it secured for him that under certain conditions he alone may sell certain important medicines, Therefore, the chemist has been given a statutory advantage to compensate him for the kiss of the fiscal advantage.
  Let me say in passing that all the benefits of Clause 7 apply to the herbalist. Where a herbalist has been carrying out the law as it stands, he will not be prejudiced by this Bill in any way whatever. I am sure that the Minister and the experts will agree with me in that submission. An agreement was entered into. Earlier in the Debate, an hon. Member asked who were the parties to the agreement. Since, as I have told hon. Members, I am interested in this matter and had something to do with the agreement, I would like to tell the House who were the parties. There was the P.A.G.B., that is to say, the Proprietory Association of Great Britain. It is the Society to which all the reputable manufacurers of proprietary medicines belong. There was the P.S.G.B., the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, a professional body of chemists. It is an examining body, and, like the B.M.A. it is an ethical body. It rules the chemists' lives and sees that a high standard is maintained in their work. Then there was the N.P.U., the National Pharmaceutical Union, the body to which chemists belong in their capacity as shop-keepers rather than as professional men. It looks after the chemists' business. Finally, there was the Wholesale Drug Association, whose name explains itself. Those bodies thrashed out the arrangement, to make it possible for the proposed reform to take place without hurting the long-standing vested interests of the chemists.
  When the matter was thrashed out, it was submitted to the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress and to the Grocers' Federation of Great Britain. The co-ops and the grocers are

  105
  interested because they sell these medicines in their shops. While not parties to the agreement, they expressed themselves in agreement with it. There was delay, because all this negotiation had to precede action. The House has clearly shown that it was not willing to trample upon chemists' rights. Another reason for delay was that the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer felt that there was a strong public health aspect to this matter. That is why lie asked his colleague the Minister of Health to take the matter under his charge, to examine the public health aspect of it, and to bring to the House a Rill which would deal with the fiscal side as well as with the health side.
  Three Clauses with two objects have been added to the Bill as a result of the representation of those who cared for the public health aspect of this matter. They are Clauses 3 and 4, which limit advertising in certain conditions, and Clause 6, which declares that the composition of the medicines shall be published. Much has been said about the advertising Clauses and I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members to the contrast of view evidenced by the speeches of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) and the hon. Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little). Those speeches were very interesting, but they showed how carefully one has to go with a highly controversial matter of this kind.
  The hon Member for Ebbw Vale made a plea for the utmost freedom to individuals to experiment with cures and alleviatives and to take what they think best: for themselves. The hon. Member said there were many things that doctors had riot shown us how to cure, and that what was experimental quackery to-day might: become, and often had become, the regular professional method of to-morrow. That is profoundly true. On the other hand, the other two hon. Members indicated that they felt that doctors alone were to be trusted. The hon. Member for London University cited the case of the poor person who had cancer and who took medicine that turned out to be sugar. The poor person died; but that patient would have died just as surely if he had visited the practice of the hon. Gentleman, though perhaps he would not have been charged 15 guineas. There
  106
  is much to be said for reasonable freedom in this matter and for no extreme view. To say that people are not to experiment or to sell medicines lest they do harm is a safety-first policy which may limit progress. On the other hand, to say that advertising dealing with dread diseases should go unchecked is too extreme. Somewhere between the two lies the right course, towards which the practical unanimity in this House to-day upon the Minister's proposal is perhaps the first step.
  There have been criticisms. It has been stated that, whatever the argument and the merits of the matter, it is not right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lose £800,000. I would put forward for consideration the point that the companies concerned are paying Excess Profits Tax and that, consequently, any reduction of taxation, which would mean their making increased profits, will go wholly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will not be a financial loss to the Exchequer. Other Members have made the very important point to which I want to address myself and to draw the attention of the House.
  It has been stated, not only in this House but to me privately and in one or two organs of the Press, that these are wealthy manufacturers, who, despite the fact that they are making great sums, are trying to evade legitimate taxation and have come to the House in war-time to seek relief from taxation when most other people are bearing taxation with a smile and with courage. That point of view is profoundly untrue, and is extremely un-fair. The initiative in this matter did not come from the manufacturers. May I remind hon. Members of the history of the matter? Before 1936, the revenue from the old Acts of Parliament— 130 years old — was beginning to fall away rapidly because modern practice had got out of touch with ancient legislation. In these circumstances, the Select Committee was set up to investigate the question of the fall by over 50 per cent. in the two years before 1935 of the proceeds of that taxation. The desire of the Customs House at that time to have this matter in and dealt with was strong, but it is even stronger now, because the conditions have become worse in the course of time. The Customs House has a

  107
  primary interest in collecting the money which Parliament tells them to collect. The Chancellor's duty is to come to the House, impose taxation and tell the House when taxes are no longer fruitful.
  This tax has ceased to be fruitful; nevertheless it has involved increasing work on the part of Civil servants, both clerical and administrative, and such work can no longer be spared for that purpose. These people are wanted to deal with the administration of extremely complicated new Measures of war taxation, which require all the skill and ingenuity of the Revenue and Customs House Departments to carry out at the present time. The Bill is not a manufacturers' Bill, nor is it conceived in the interests of the manufacturers. It is a Customs House Bill, brought forward to simplify the method of getting the taxes and to avoid what is now a waste. I have already shown that there will not be a loss of revenue.
  There may be hon. Members who welcome all taxation on medicines rather as they would welcome all taxation on whisky and who say, "Let it be as high as possible, because we do not believe in self-medication." They either say it is bad or that doctors alone should write prescriptions. There may be various reasons and motives for that belief, but there are Members who say, "Let the accident that these medicines have been doubly taxed continue; we are glad that they are subject to this penal taxation, because all medicines should be cut down; they are altogether harmful." If that be the view, may I submit to the House that that end can be obtained without involving the Customs House in the extremely difficult business of maintaining these old Acts which are now becoming unworkable? The view that medicines ought now to be more severely taxed can prevail if a certain number of Members wish it. They can ask the Chancellor to raise the 16⅔per cent. tax to 33⅓per cent., and put medicines in. the luxury class, but there are others who think that the medicines the poor use should not be put in the luxury class and should not be taxed as heavily as fur coats and diamonds. It should, however, be open to Members to put forward their view that medicines are so undesirable
  108
  that they should be taxed out of existence, or at least that they should be taxed efficiently, fairly, and without involving the Customs House in maintaining this old and difficult legislation.
  I have been asked sometimes whether the effect of the passage of this Bill will be to increase the sales of medicines just now, at a time when jumpiness and nerviness are common in the community and when increased sales may perhaps not be wholly desirable. My hon. Friend who spoke last touched upon that. The immediate answer is this: There can be no increase in sales, because the commodities of which the big proprietary brands of medicines are made are already under strict control; there is already rationing throughout the trade, and the cartons and packages in which they are sold are even still more limited. Nor is it credible that new lines or new remedies should be brought out now, because the House will be familiar with the fact that in all these manufacturing trades the packing and other materials are distributed on a quota basis related to pre-war sales. The fear that war-time neurosis may lead to an increased sale of medicaments is without foundation.
  Another point to which our attention has been drawn by a rote in a journal this morning is that this is hasty legislation of a kind to be deplored in war-time. May I submit that the leader-writer who allowed himself that view must have hastily read the documents? I have read them at length, as I am sure the Minister has. They go back in history to 1914 and far before that, and the present proposals are an identical carrying-out of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1936. The matter has been fully discussed in this House three times, and sufficient time has elapsed for us to be sure that every view has been put forward. This Bill is supported with a fair degree of unanimity in this House and outside it, and ends a long controversy, and it will, I hope, enable us to get on with more urgent business.
  To sum the matter up as I see it, the Chancellor will get his simplification of taxation, which will help him in his staffing and in his difficult job. The Minister of Health has brought about a situation in which those Members of the House who feel that a beginning should be made in

  109
  the control of advertisements and in compelling the disclosure of the secret formula will get half a loaf if not a whole one. Many hon. Members will feel, and some have already suggested, that the Bill does not go far enough to please them in the control of this industry, and here let me inform the hon. Member who spoke from the opposite bench that the Bill does not discriminate between large and small manufacturers. There is no discrimination, all the provisions for control apply to all, and not to any one section. Finally, the recommendations of that Select Committee are being carried out in a way which meets with the assent of the chemists, who, on a previous occasion in this House, had reasonable cause to say that their interests had been neglected. In these circumstances it seems to me that the House may well be asked to give this Bill a Second Reading, so that this controversy may rest and that we may get on with more urgent business in connection with the war.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I would like to add a few sentences to the Debate on this Bill, and in doing so I would join with others in saying that I regard it as a very necessary Measure. On the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, that a Select Committee had recommended the provisions of this Bill and that consequently Parliament must translate those recommendations into law, I am tempted to suggest that if the Government translated all recommendations of all Select Committees into law, we should be doing nothing else in this House except that.
  Sir I. Fraser: I did not say "must."
  Mr. Davies: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman's "ought" meant "must." The reason I intervene is because I have come in contact with this problem in several ways. The House will be aware, of course, that there are in this country 20,000,000 insured persons under the national health insurance scheme, and they are all entitled to free medicines. They need not therefore turn to proprietary articles at all. They are entitled to free medicines by way of a prescription from their panel doctor; and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us in the course of this Debate if the amount of drugs purchased outside National Health Insurance prescriptions
  110
  has increased since that scheme came into operation. It would be very interesting information, and perhaps I had better repeat the question in this form: As 20,000,000 of our 44,000,000 population are entitled to free medicine under the National Health Insurance scheme, is the sale of proprietary articles still maintaining itself? If so, it is indeed a commentary on the gullibility of the public.
  Sir I. Fraser: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I believe it is a fact that a very great many panel doctors prescribe proprietary brands.
  Mr. Davies: Yes, I believe that is so-. In any case, it would be interesting to find out what effect prescriptions under the National Health Insurance scheme has had upon the sale of proprietary drugs. The next thing I want to mention is that I feel that this Bill falls very short of the requirements in one particular, in so far as the approved societies which deal with some of these problems are concerned. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) will, I am sure, agree with me at once when I say that the biggest problem of all in this connection is not proprietary medicines but surgical appliances. I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman or his Department ever turn their attention, while dealing with this particular problem, to the many advertisement for surgical appliances which in some cases cost enormous sums to people who are suffering and who desire to buy them. I think the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) will agree with me in connection with National Health Insurance when I say that the approved societies have had to be very strict, especially in regard to earphones, for their members. They could probably be sold at a profit for £3 or £4, but the charge is sometimes 10, 12 or even 15 guineas. Had it not been for the Regulations of the Ministry of Health and the approved societies, there would have been a first-class racket in some of these appliances. I wonder therefore if tin.: Minister has come into actual personal contact with that problem in connection with Health Insurance and whether he has thought of including something in this Bill to deal with the sale of such instruments.
  The insured population— 20,000,000 of them— are in part safeguarded under the Regulations of the Ministry on this score

  111
  — and let me pay tribute to the Ministry for the good work they have done in preventing on occasions the exploitation of the insured population. But they have not prevented the exploitation of the people who are not health insured, from exactly the same thing. I thought that the Bill we are now discussing might prove to be the means whereby we could have dealt with that issue. Let me ask the Minister, or whoever will reply, to tell us whether "advertisement" means the printed word only or whether it covers speeches delivered by a quack in a market place. I am not sure whether more trade is done in quack medicines by speeches in this connection than by the printed word. I have heard some of them, and as for an hon. Member saying that people are gullible after 70 years of free elementary education, their gullibility does not relate entirely to these drugs. Gullibility is colossal in respect of party politics, too. I am wondering about the attitude of the Minister of Health to these advertisements after the very excellent speech of an hon. Member who thought that such advertisements created despondency among the people. If that is so, why not prosecute those responsible under the Regulation concerning the causing of alarm and despondency? There is the point as to whether these quacks can still, without printing an advertisement, speak in the open market, as is done in scores of places almost every night.
  Let me turn to another problem. I would like to be assured of one thing. Will shops which sell proprietary articles be affected by the provisions of this Bill? A statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry at the end of this Debate would clear the atmosphere, if she were able to say that small corner shops, selling proprietary articles, will not be affected at all by the provisions of the Measure. With regard to herbalists, so far as I understand this Bill, it may be true that the herbalist can go on as before, running his business; but I have the impression that this Bill somehow puts him on the defence. He has to prove he is innocent. After this Bill becomes law is it not a fact that the onus will be thrown upon the herbalist to prove he is innocent of any offence? As I read the Bill, I should imagine it will be his duty, in future, unless the wording
  112
  of these Clauses is changed, to prove that he is carrying on his business within the law. If we could have a word on that point too when the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I feel sure it would be welcomed by a great number of people.
  Finally, the Lancashire people, I understand, know more about taking medicine than the people in any other county of England, Scotland or Wales. I think that National Health Insurance statistics prove that. I am not sure that there are not more herbalists in Lancashire than anywhere else per head of the population. Consequently, in that county they will be very interested in the provisions of this Bill. Some hon. Members, from what I have gathered from their speeches, appear to assume that an Act of Parliament can settle all problems. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most difficult problems of all to settle by an Act of Parliament. For instance, if a person suffering from neurosis has faith in a given medicine, that is more important for the cure of his complaint than the medicine itself. The visit of a particular doctor to a person suffering from a nervous complaint is sometimes very much more important than the prescription he gives him to take to the chemist. I should say, therefore, that although all that may be true, I for my part welcome this Bill, and I trust it will pass into law very soon.
  Mr. Wakefield: I think it is unfortunate that legislation on a matter of this importance should have to be introduced in war-time, but it is obviously impossible for all domestic legislation to be suspended indefinitely. Admittedly the Bill is a patchwork, but it is amply justified by the special problems which it seeks to solve. The Chancellor, the Minister of Health and other Government Departments, with the various organisations who have got together to solve their problems on the lines of this Bill, are, I think, to be congratulated on having reached a very workmanlike compromise. I am sure that none of them regards this as ideal, but it does represent a fair recognition of those many interests involved and it does contain provisions which have been referred to by several Members in connection with the controlling of proprietary medicines. I agree that it does not go far enough in this direction, but I hope that this Bill is not the end of the road but just the beginning. I am sure

  113
  there are many who feel that the State should take greater responsibility for proprietary medicines offered for sale to the public. The goal we should aim at should be that if a medicine is valuable, and if the claims made for it are reasonable, the State should authorise its sale. On the other hand, if a medicine is bad, it should be the responsibility of the State to prohibit entirely the sale of that medicine. That means there must be introduced into this country what is in existence in most other countries, a State register of proprietary medicines. The provisions in this Bill are a step upon the right road, but it seems to me that further steps will have to be taken in more auspicious times.
  An indirect result of the passage of this Bill will be to throw open to manufacturers of proprietary medicines a large number of channels of distribution which they have hitherto not used. It is to be hoped that, when packing materials and supplies become more abundantly available due restraint will be used in making use of the possibilities of the various new avenues of distribution. Already, proprietary medicines have found their way into the public houses, the fried fish shops and the sixpenny stores. If uncontrolled expansion takes place so that the patent medicine comes to be regarded by the public as a commodity to be purchased like a box of matches. Governmental action in the interests of the public will be called for. The hon. Member for Fins-bury (Mr. Woods), who is not now in his place, stated that lie did not see there was any need for chemists to be privileged because of their qualifications. His thesis seemed to be that it did not matter for how many years a man had prepared himself to become a doctor, an architect, or an engineer or had been apprenticed to any trade; whatever qualifications he might have gained, he should not be allowed any privileges in practising that occupation. I think that that will not commend itself to the public or to Members of this House.
  It seems not out of place for me to draw attention to the effect of this Bill upon the chemist who has become qualified and is registered by the State to look after the distribution of medicines. He is the sole retailer able by his specialised knowledge to advise the public with regard to medicines, proprietary and otherwise. He is an essential
  114
  link in the health services of the community. There is, however, a substantial business now in the hands of men with no such qualifications. This seems to me a source of danger. Protection is necessary if enough men are to be persuaded to apply themselves to the long training which is necessary for a chemist. It is in the public interest that we should obtain a sufficient number of expert chemists, not only in peace-time but in war-time as well. The chemist, therefore, is entitled to ask the Government to decide whether they need someone with his qualifications, and if they do, to ask that they should secure him from unreasonable competition on the part of those with none of his responsibilities.
  Hon. Members have referred to lobbying which is being carried on by the Society of Herbalists, Limited. Reference was made to this society by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), who said that the society was not consulted. But this society is a commercial company. You cannot consult various commercial companies. This company, also, is not representative of the herbalists. And, if I understand aright, the Bill does not affect the interests of the herbalists, except in so far as they have interests in common with everybody else. The circular which was sent to me asked me to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not propose to do that, because, from what I understand of the position, the only reference to herbalists in the Bill is contained in Clause 7, and herbalists have to make no further disclosure than does anybody else. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying, will clarify that matter.
  I would ask the Minister is he satisfied that Clauses 3, 4 and 5 will not prevent persons from communicating with experts overseas about articles for treating diseases in respect of which advertisements are prohibited? Is he equally satisfied that the definition of advertisements in Clause 10 will not include a recommendation by a doctor in, say, the United States to a patient that he should follow a particular course of treatment for diabetes, for example? How does the' Minister propose to give or to withhold his sanction in the case of medical experts not resident in this country? How will he deal with newspapers, books and magazines imported into this country which

  115
  contain offending advertisements? There are certain American magazines imported into this country which contain such advertisements. Is he certain that this Bill will not prevent publication in the general or scientific Press of articles describing the progress made in the cure of diabetes by insulin or of tuberculosis by various experts overseas? Finally, I would like to ask how he would deal with journals imported into this country which might contain such articles? I realise that it will not be possible for an answer to be given to all these questions now, but perhaps he will consider commenting upon the points I have made when the various Clauses are considered on the Committee stage.
  I want to say one word about the enforcement of the Bill. Clauses i and 2 fit into the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. Their administration, therefore, falls automatically into the hands of the Pharmaceutical Society. For the remaining Clauses, as I understand, there is no enforcing authority. Presumably a Government Department or a local authority or the Pharmaceutical Society or a common informer could take proceedings, but I understand that it is nobody's duty to do so. That seems unsatisfactory. In the absence of any other machinery, is the Minister considering using the Pharmaceutical Society, for example, for enforcing these provisions, in the same way as it is used for the enforcement of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act? This seems to be a weakness in the Bill. Whatever action the Government decide to take in order to strengthen the Bill will, I am sure, receive whole-hearted support. I would like to congratulate the Minister upon introducing the Bill, which, as other hon. Members have said, is long overdue, and to assure him that it will have my whole-hearted support.
  Captain Elliston: We have had such an excellent Debate and the House is so anxious to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that I hesitate to occupy more than a few minutes, but there are points which I should like to make, not because I expect them to be considered to-day, but because I hope that they will be considered before the Committee stage. I should like to thank
  116
  the Minister and his advisers for producing a Bill of such importance at a time when their Department is beset by so many urgent problems. Those who are especially interested in public health matters appreciate this, because we feel that this matter of the education of the people in regard to extravagant claims by advertisers of remedies is very necessary, and that in this Bill a great step forward has been taken. In Clauses 3 and 4 we have gone further towards some general control of the advertisement of proprietary medicines than has hitherto been attempted. We have, of course, in recent years dealt with advertisements in relation to cancer and certain other diseases. Now we are doing something more, and approaching that general protection of the public which is found in the British Dominions overseas and in the United States, where the exploitation of the people by misleading and fraudulent claims is severely restricted. The Bill contains also that most important Clause requiring disclosure on the label of the active constituents of the remedy. That in itself is a notable achievement in the interests of public health, because now for the first time you prevent that ringing of the changes which used to be practised by unscrupulous manufacturers who would vary the contents of their remedy, according to the market price of drugs.
  I was surprised this morning to see in the "Times" that there was no sufficient urgency for this Measure to justify its production by the Government at this time. But this matter has been before Parliament for the last 30 years, and legislation is long overdue. There were the monumental report of the Select Committee of 1914, and the Government Bill introduced in another place in 1920. Again, there was a Private Member's Bill introduced here in 1936, and the report of another Select Committee in 1937. How then can we be told that this matter has been sprung upon the country? How could the Government justify further postponement? One was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green(Mr. Baxter), who also developed the point about the Bill being untimely, and who suggested that it was of a wholly contentious character. I myself played some part in the work of my hon. Friend

  117
  the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth) when he introduced the Medical and Surgical (Appliances) Bill in 1936. At that time we reached what was practically an agreed Measure. We had with us the doctors, pharmacists, newspapers, manufacturers and advertising agents, and the representative bodies of all these interests accepted, after long negotiations, the terms which practically reappear in this Bill to-day as Clauses 3 and 4.
  The newspapers were especially helpful. For the hon. Member for Wood Green, who knows something about newspapers, to suggest that this Bill is unnecessary betrays his ignorance of the fact that the newspapers themselves some years ago set up a voluntary censorship. The reputable newspapers in loyal co-operation have been steadily enforcing that censorship. In the same way rules of conduct are being enforced by the reputable manufacturers. The newspapers who have been doing the censorship have anticipated this proposed legislation, and the reputable manufacturers have also welcomed this Bill. How then can the "Times" criticise the Government for placing such a Measure upon the Statute Book? The reputable newspapers are not unduly anxious to see the less conscientious publications, over whom they have no control, brought into line. The same applies with regard to the reputable manufacturers. They know that there is a certain number of un-scrupulous manufacturers whom they would not admit to membership of their trade association. This Bill will bring such people under some sort of control.
  I am not going to pretend to have wholehearted enthusiasm for this Measure. Many of us still consider that this is no time for the State to surrender the revenue from the Medicine Stamp Duties. We may have more to say on the subject in Committee. But perhaps the weakest point in the Bill, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), is the absence of any enforcement Clause. I and my hon. Friends will make suggestions, which, we hope, the Minister will consider in the Committee stage, for the creation of some sort of advisory or controlling body for the registration and supervision of proprietary medicines in the interests of the public.
  118
  The Minister might well be pleased with the reception accorded to the Bill. Those who still oppose the repeal of the Stamp Duties had no desire to "soak" the manufacturers, but they had genuine misgivings about the removal of a charge which to some extent had prevented the widespread offer of cheap packets which encourage the public to treat their own ailments, instead of securing the skilled medical diagnosis and treatment provided by the National Health Insurance and other services. Nevertheless the Bill represented a definite step towards the better control of secret remedies,, and there was a general desire to thank the Minister for a Measure that was long overdue.
  Sir Dymoke White: I rise to put the view of a large body of retail pharmacists, including the National Pharmacists Union. I am hot prepared to go into a large amount of detail, as this Bill was published only last Wednesday and the pharmacists' interests have not had a lot of time in which to get up their case. I have seen it suggested that the Bill has been agreed with the trade, but I am to say that that is not so. They are genuinely alarmed at many of the proposals in the Bill, and points upon it will be raised at a later stage.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to add much to what has already been said in very interesting speeches to the House, but various references have been made to certain points, to which I feel I must make some reply. I particularly applaud the speech of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), with his wide view— I might almost say his philosophy— concerning the improvement which has been made since 1914. The position to-day is not the same as it was when the Select Committee reported. It is ridiculous to speak of this as being hasty legislation when one remembers that the Select Committee of 1914 went into the business and made a full report. That report was only pigeon because of the outbreak of the last war.
  This is the most maturely considered Bill which I remember during 20 years as a Member of this House. The hon. Member referred to the improved conditions and their effect upon the situation, and particularly in regard to tuberculosis

  119
  and sanatorium treatment. I would remind the hon. Member and the House that there is much more in it than that. There has been great improvement in the general standard of living and in the nutrition of the people. Improvements in these two respects have probably done more that anything else, really to give us a better position. I entirely agree that what we want when we are considering restrictive legislation like this is to provide people with better medical services. Nobody is keener on that object than myself. There is nobody who benefits so much from this quackery as the medical profession. The results of quackery come to the medical profession eventually and could have been avoided by a visit or two to a doctor in the early stage. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in his otherwise excellent speech, suggested that a cancer patient would not be any worse for taking a dose of medicine instead of consulting my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir E. Graham-Little). I can give instances where certain treatments have resulted in the death of a cancer patient who might otherwise have been cured by proper X-ray treatment and operation.
  Sir I. Fraser: The patient to whom I referred died two days later.
  Sir F. Fremantle: Well, my hon. and gallant Friend has me there, but the real point is that the medical profession wants the truth and wants to educate the public to recognise the truth. We believe in disclosure of the medicine and that, more than anything else, makes us unanimous in supporting this Bill. I admit that the Bill does not go far enough, because it does not compel disclosure of the quantities of the component parts of the medicine. But it is a step in the right direction. If all the active ingredients are included in the disclosure, that goes a long way towards showing people what they are buying and then they can use their intelli— which is growing markedly, as regards scientific matters, throughout the whole population every day and every year. It seems always necessary to remind the House that the medical and pharmaceutical professions were given statutory recognition, duties and privileges, not for their own benefit, but as a
  120
  necessary guide to the public and a measure of public safety. There are tremendous gaps in any profession but do not let us deal with this as a question of privilege as against the herbalists. The question is the health and safety of the community and pharmacists and members of the medical profession are safeguards of the public. Those who do not come under the official headings will suffer, to a certain extent, in competition with the privileges which have to be given in support of professions set up by law to safeguard the public. You have to look into these professions and see to what extent they are carrying out their job and how they can be improved.
  I think the gibes against the British Medical Association are most unfair and unjust. The Association has tried to protect the interests of the profession and has gone a long way to promote the increased practice of medical men and advance science in every kind of way. It has done its best to run down the gross frauds and quackery about which so much has been said to-day. It took the initiative in its exposure of the book "Secret Remedies" and that has redounded to its credit. In this way, we have the medical profession as a whole wishing to support the proper administration of medicines, as proposed in this Bill. That being so, I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and others who want to give as much chance as possible to initiative and originality, outside conventions or rules. I do not believe this Bill does anything to stop them and I agree with those who have said that the history of medicine shows that there have been homoeopaths who were once considered outside the pale but who, it is proved, have contributed largely to medicine. Homoeopaths who were damned by medicine 100 years ago, have had a large number of their teachings adapted for the present day. Osteopaths are now in the profession called manipulative surgeons.
  I wish herbalists would genuinely come forward with their drugs and remedies and put them on the table so that they could be properly submitted to professional and scientific investigation. But they do not do that; almost entirely they trade on the ignorance of the public and their love for flowers. When herbalists believe they have the best thing, they are

  121
  not in a position to have it examined scientifically. I believe in physiological healing by nature but there are obvious and large exceptions. I entirely agree that this Bill is insufficient and I am glad that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) brought forward the case of the exception to this Bill as regards advertisements dealing with surgical appliances. I have had a great deal to do with the National Institute for the Deaf. The deaf find the least sympathy in the world yet are much traded upon and defrauded by so-called "deaf aids." The amount of fraud by those who sell so-called invisible appliances is extraordinary. I could expose them and give names to the House but we do not want to go into details. It is unfortunate, too, that there is not included in the Bill anything regarding the sale of trusses for rupture and the electro-medical apparatus, which some people have in their houses, so that they can have the benefit of electric rays when there is no sunshine. Disaster often ensues on the use of these appliances. There is nothing in the Bill either to deal with "foot comforts."
  Why are these matters not included? Although we have tried to get them included we could not find a definition clear enough to enable us to deal with them in a non-contentious Bill, such as we are supporting now. If it were peace-time and there were no limitation on our deliberations I would press most strongly for Amendments to include such fraudulent things in this Bill. We are holding our hand and I hope we shall not introduce Amendments which will hinder the war effort. This Bill is a beginning and will help on the spread of truth and its application to patent medicines. I hope that the experience gained by this Bill will be such that in a few years' time the Government can come forward with an even more useful Measure. I thank the Minister for introducing it in such an extremely reasonable way.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I think my right hon. Friend has ever' reason to be satisfied with the reception of this Bill on Second Reading. If there is one thing that has been made amply clear, it is that hon. Members feel that, far from the Bill having been brought forward in a hurry, it ought to have been
  122
  introduced a long time ago; and it is not haste, but rather slowness, which is the chief thing they have against my right hon. Friend. I also have something to be grateful for. Many of the questions that have been asked by hon. Members have already been answered by other hon. Members, and indeed, in one case an hon. Member both asked a question and answered it himself. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) asked why various surgical appliances and instruments are not included in the Bill. In this case, hon. Members who have studied the problem— and I would mention in this connection the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. A. Duckworth), who brought forward a previous Bill on the subject— know the difficulty. What we want to get, if possible, is reasonable freedom and protection. There are some things on which we want to see further experiments carried out. We have also found difficulty in some instances in getting an absolutely clear definition of some of the appliances. It is for these reasons that the Bill does not go further.
  I do not intend to go into the history of the Bill, which has already been covered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in his excellent speech explaining the history behind the Bill and the difficulties due to taxation. There are one or two points with which I want to deal. In the first place, there is, to a large extent, agreement between the parties concerned. We have heard from the hon. Member for Fareham (Sir D. White) that there are certain associations which are not in agreement. I can only assure my hon. Friend that all the points brought forward, even at this late hour, will be looked into with a view to seeing what further agreement can be reached on the Committee stage. The main points that have been raised come under the headings: who sells medicines, where are they sold, and what is sold. It has been suggested that the Bill in some way prejudices the little man, but I can assure hon. Members that there is no difference whatever between the treatment of and the arrangements for the little man and the big man, the big bottle and the little bottle, the high-priced and the low-priced goods.

  123
  The question of herbalists has been referred to in almost every speech in the Debate. I cannot see how this Bill will put herbalists out of action. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) said he was sorry that they had not been received or communicated with, but I can tell him that I received a deputation from them yesterday. As far as we can see, there is no foundation for their fears; if they are abiding by the law now, they will not have to close down. They will be able to display their drugs and bottles, but, like everybody else, they will have to put on the label a description of the ingredients. That is the difference. But again, as in the case of other people, they will not have to make that disclosure if they are serving a particular person with a particular remedy. From my discussions with them yesterday— naturally, we shall look into the matter further— I cannot see how the Bill will affect them in any way differently from anybody else. A question was also asked as to whether there will be any difficulty with regard to the sale of insulin. There will be no difficulty whatever. The Bill does not prevent things from being sold; what it does is to tell the public what is being sold. A question was put as to whether the street trader is to be dealt with. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that all this trading has to be done in shops. I come now to the question of advertisements, on which, I think, more time has been spent than on any other aspect in most of the speeches. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked whether oral advertisements are included. A definition of advertisements is given in Clause 10, and it reads:
  "An advertisement includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light or sound."
  As far as we can see, we have covered everything, but if the hon. Member for Westhoughton can think of any further addition to that definition, no doubt we can deal with it on the Committee stage. The main points that have been made on the subject of advertisements are these. From one or two hon. Members we have heard that we are controlling the freedom of the people, that there should not be this control, and that we should leave people perfectly free. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that as
  124
  long as the public is gullible in this way, the only thing to do is to have more and more education in order to ensure that the men and women, at any rate of tomorrow if not of to-day, will not be so gullible. I think we all agree with that, but what is to happen in the meantime? The hon. Member for Norwich asked why, if we do not put down all advertisements, we should have Clause 3 dealing with certain advertisements concerning certain diseases. My answer is the same as that given by my right hon. Friend in his speech. The hon. Member for Norwich will remember that in the Report of the Committee in 1914, it was urged that certain diseases should be dealt with as an urgent and serious matter. All those diseases are of a serious nature and, as was said by my right hon. Friend, all of them are susceptible to alleviation, if not cure, by normal methods of treatment, and it is dangerous in each case to delay seeking early treatment by resorting to quack remedies. The reason those diseases have been particularly chosen, and advertisements will not be allowed concerning them, is the urgency. The hon. Member for Norwich then asked, Why not go further? The hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) and other hon. Members have told us of various advertisements which, they said, were completely fraudulent, which simply gull the public and get people to spend money on worthess medicines, and which, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, perhaps increase people's fear of certain diseases or the results they may have.
  I think the hon. Member for Norwich gave us an answer in this matter when he spoke of the difficulty. He dealt with different types of advertisements of medicines, and then he came to the question of foods. He mentioned "night starvation"— "take Horlick's to prevent night starvation." If one goes further, one gets to cures for baldness— rub something on your hair and it will grow within a few weeks. Where would one stop? This Bill is not a Bill to deal with advertisements as a whole; it is not a Bill to protect a gullible public from every form of advertisement. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the more the public can be educated, the more people realise that it is no use looking at slogans, or titles, or large letters on hoardings, the better; but this Bill cannot deal with the

  125
  whole subject of advertisements. From medicines one would get to foods, and it would be very difficult to know where to draw the line. I recall one advertisement — I do not know whether hon. Members would call it fraudulent or not— which comes into the region of foods.
  Some years ago I was shown an advertisement in a paper on how to get fat. There was a picture of a lean man, and it was stated that your money would be returned if you were not absolutely satisfied after following the course suggested. Someone I knew wrote, enclosing a small amount, and received a letter back in which she was told, "Go to the butcher and buy some." People do not always get such a clear answer, but I think if we began to deal with all advertisements we should be going beyond the range of medicine and pharmacy. That is the reason why these particular diseases are dealt with in Clause 3. But we do not leave it there. The very fact that disclosure is being insisted upon will go a long way in this direction. How long will the public continue to pay money for a particular cure, if they are informed on the bottle or on the packet what are the contents? If as a result of disclosure the public are not attracted to buy these things, we shall see a gradual disappearance of these advertisements. I do not think hon. Members realise the extent to which most of us believe disclosure will go towards stopping what, in a great many cases, may be a racket. We cannot say for certain, but it is my own opinion, and the opinion of those who advise us, that this step will go a long way towards attaining this object. Suppose the ingredients in one particular mixture were very ordinary, such as salt, bicarbonate of soda, dandelions or cloves, and a few things like that. Gullible as the public may be, how long would anyone go on buying such mixtures?
  Mr. Quibell: The person deserves to be had if he continues to buy them.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the contents be stated in English which people can understand?
  Colonel Arthur Evans: There is a practice, about which I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, by which free samples are submitted for a 10-day trial. If the person is satisfied, an expensive
  126
  bottle of medicine is then sent. Under the Bill, will it be necessary for these people to state the ingredients on the free samples which are circulated in the first instance? If so, they will know exactly what they are getting.
  Miss Horsbrugh: I think I may assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that will be necessary, so that people will know what are the ingredients if they are sent a free sample.
  Mr. Leslie Boyce: Will these ingredients be described in English?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I was coming to that point, and to the methods of sale. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the registered pharmacist alone is given the right under this Bill to sell certain medicines, whereas a person who is not a registered pharmacist has a right to sell other goods if the ingredients are disclosed. The medicines sold by the registered pharmacist will be those included in the British Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex. I was asked if it would be possible for people to obtain this volume in order to see from the number what are the ingredients. Of course they can; they can go. to the free libraries, where they. will find these books, and look up the ingredients.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: What is the objection to inserting a Clause in the Bill, providing that the contents shall be stated in English which everyone can understand?
  Miss Horsbrugh: No doubt my hon. Friend will consider whether he wishes to bring forward such a provision during the Committee stage. I do not know that I can give him a satisfactory answer now.
  Mr. Griffiths: The whole policy is to protect people so that they will know precisely what they are buying. But a person does not know what he is buying until he has bought the bottle. Why should the ingredients not be stated in language which everyone understands?
  Miss Horsbrugh: We shall certainly consider that point during the Committee stage, because we wish to see how clearly we can attain that object. I do not think I need keep the House over any of the other points which have been raised. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) that in regard

  127
  to the question of enforcement we are looking into the various suggestions, and that during Committee we may be able to go into the matter further. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Lanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that what we want in this country is a constructive health policy. It is because we see certain things happening which come in the way of our constructive policy that we want to put them right. He gave an example of tuberculosis. Treatment is going on, and more sanatoria have been put up. We hope as things get easier in our hospital services to get a great advance in that line. It is these things, such as these advertisements, which are keeping us back. People will not go for treatment, but instead they take these cures which they are told are remedies for tuberculosis. We do not want a negative health service, but something which is constructive; but in order to build we have to demolish. We have found some things which ought to be demolished, and it is because of that that my right hon. Friend has brought forward this legislation which I believe has received unanimous support from all hon. Members in this House.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. Grimston.']

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill which comes up every year is purely formal, and it will be of great convenience if the House will pass it through all its stages to-day.
  Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House [Mr. Grimston.]
  Resolved, "That the House will immediately resolve itself into the said Com— [Mr. Grimston.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  NEW CLAUSE.— (Refund of rent in certain cases.)

  Where land is rendered unfit by reason of war damage and the rent therefore has been paid in advance there shall be refunded by the landlord to the tenant such proportion of the rent so paid as is equal to the period during which the land is not occupied.

  Where land is rendered unfit by reason of war damage and is partially occupied by the tenant and the rent there for has been paid in advance there shall be refunded by the land-lord to the tenant such proportion of the rent as may be agreed between them or, in default of such agreement, as may be fixed by the court.— [Mr. Glenvil Hall]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  It is customary for rents to be paid in advance— almost every lease or sub-lease contains a clause to that effect but, owing to a decision of the courts it is by no means certain that, if a house suffers from war damage and the rent has been paid in advance, the tenant can recover that proportion of it which is properly his for the time that he is out of occupation of the premises. The Attorney-General may say that much which I wish to achieve was covered by words inserted in Clause I in Committee. But those words refer only to a short tenancy, and later on we are given a definition of a short tenancy. A short tenancy to which these words will apply is a tenancy of not more than three months. In a very large number of leases tenancies are for periods much longer than that. Therefore, although that may go a long way to meet the point that I am trying to get ventilated, it only partially covers the point. Even if the words can be said to cover most cases, they do not cover the case of a man who has put in a disclaimer. If the Attorney-General cannot accept my form of words, I should like to ask for an assurance that in another place words will be Inserted to cover a gap which ought to be filled.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The hon. Member was quite right when he told the House that, so far as short tenancies are concerned, the point was properly covered. I can assure him that it is covered. We inserted words in Committee in Clause 1 (2) to make it clear. The words are, "in respect of that period," and by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal that has been held to make the rent apportionable. It is, however, true that, as the result of two recent decisions in the Court of Appeal, the position is as follows: In the case of a notice of retention or a notice of disclaimer, rent payable in advance can be apportioned up to the date when the notice became effective, but under one of the decisions if a tenant of a tenancy other than a short tenancy serves a notice of disclaimer in the middle of a period in respect of which he has paid in advance, he cannot recover back, but an apportionment is made of the rent after the day of notice. That decision is based on the landlord and tenant law that if the least: comes to an end in the middle of a rent period, rent paid in advance cannot be recovered back. It is worth consideration whether we might not reasonably make the rent apportionable in that case. The hon. Member's words would not do, because they are quite general and would be restricted to a notice of disclaimer, but I will look into the point. As at present advised, it seems to be a point which might reasonably be met, but we will go into it, and, if we find that there is no objection, we will certainly consider making the change in another place.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also consider the first point about long tenancies being included? At present only short tenancies are covered.
  The Attorney-General: That is the point. So far as long tenancies are concerned, either a man serves a notice of disclaimer or a notice of retention.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  CLAUSE 1.— (Provisions as to weekly tenancies.)
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from
  130
  "and" to the end of line 11, and to insert:
  "continues to be in that state of repair."
  This Amendment and the next are intended to meet a point that was raised in Committee. A certificate of fitness might properly be given shortly after the damage was done, and it might be a perfectly proper certificate having regard to the conditions then existing, the materials available and so on. But four or five months later it may be that more materials are available and the standard on which the certificate was given has ceased to be a reasonable standard of fitness, having regard to all the circumstances. It was suggested that the tenant might go back to the local authority and say, "I want my house looked at again," and if an official of the local authority came to the conclusion that it had not been kept up to or improved up to the proper standard as at that date, he could withdraw the certificate, and the house would be treated as unfit. The words are designed to carry out that suggestion, and I think I hey will satisfactorily do so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert:
  "(5) If the local authority in whose area any such dwelling-house is situated issue a certificate that the dwelling-house has been repaired to the extent mentioned in the last foregoing subsection the production of the certificate shall, at any time while the certificate remains in force, be sufficient evidence that the house is fit for the purposes of this section at that time, unless the contrary is proved:
  Provided that the local authority shall, on the application of the tenant made not less than three months after the issue of the certificate or after his last application, inspect the dwelling-house, and if they are satisfied that—

  (a) further repairs have become reasonably practicable since the issue of the certificate and have not been carried out; or

  (b) the works of repair carried out before the issue of the certificate have not been maintained in a reasonably efficient state;

  they shall revoke the certificate and serve a notice of the revocation on the tenant and on the landlord, and, as from the date of the service of the notice and until a new certificate is issued under this subsection, the production of the notice shall be sufficient evidence that the dwelling-house is unfit by reason of war damage, unless the contrary is proved."
  This Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment, and I dealt with it in my speech.
  Major Milner: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line I, after the word "If," to insert: "the sanitary inspector or other officer of."
  I submit that the alterations which were made in the Bill on the Committee stage are likely to cause serious difficulty and certainly considerable delay. This is war emergency legislation, and it is essential that speedy decisions should be given in all these cases as to whether or not houses can be repaired. The original Bill contained the words "the sanitary inspector of the local authority," and the duty was cast upon him of giving the appropriate certificate. On the Committee stage, for reasons which the Attorney-General explained, and which I thought insufficient, the sanitary inspector was left out and the matter was left to the local authority. Local authorities in matters of this sort which are committed to their special care have to act judicially. They have no power, unless it is given them in the Act, to delegate their duties. It would be their duty to instruct one of their officers, no doubt the sanitary inspector, to examine the property and to make a report to them. That report would come before the appropriate committee of the local authority and the committee would pass a resolution approving or disapproving of the report of the sanitary inspector. That resolution would come before the council and would be approved or otherwise by the council as a whole. That would involve considerable delay in these days when councils are frequently meeting only quarterly and when in some cases councils do not meet for even longer periods. There is an insuperable objection to the Clause, as amended by the Attorney-General, which leaves this matter to the local authority.
  There are ample precedents for my Amendment. The Housing Act, 1936, and a number of other Measures dealing with slum clearance, development, and so on provide that the local authority shall, on the representation of an official, do so-and-so. That would be the case here. I was never clear why the first thoughts of the Minister of Health, the Attorney-General and the draftsmen were not best and why the matter was not left to the sanitary inspector, although I was willing to have added the words:
  "or other official designated by the council."
  132
  For years past the sanitary inspector has had such matters left to him. The Minister of Health, in Circular 2376 of 13th May, indicated to all local authorities that the sanitary inspector's know and experience were indispensable in giving certificates in regard to the repair of war damage. One of the Attorney-General's reasons for deleting the term "sanitary inspector" and leaving it to the local authority was that he desired to be able to supplement him by other officials if necessary. I would point out that these are not certificates that would be required immediately after bombing had taken place and that there would be ample time for the sanitary inspector to go round damaged properties and give the appropriate certificates. I have no objection to the council being enabled to authorise other officers. Another reason which the Attorney-General gave for deleting "sanitary inspector" was that he desired a uniform standard to be achieved as far as possible. That is an object with which we are in agreement. It is far more likely that sanitary inspectors, acting as they have to do daily in accordance with instructions of the Ministry of Health, would be able to bring about a fairly uniform standard of certification but to leave the matter to the local authority at large or any official of the authority would widen the range of decisions, for the medical officer might do it in one case, the surveyor in another and the city engineer in another. That would reduce the thing to an absurdity.
  The third ground on which the Attorney-General deleted the term "sanitary inspector" was that he desired complaints to be addressed to the local authority and not to any particular official. I am in sympathy with that view, but for nearly 50 years, and more so in the last 20 years, sanitary inspectors have been standing between landlords and tenants, and as far as I know there have been no serious difficulties. I am at a loss to conceive why at this late hour and in the midst of war the Attorney-General should take so much thought for the comfort of those who make these reports and should suggest that there would be a difference between complaints addressed to the local authority arid those addressed to the sanitary inspector. I submit that the alteration was uncalled for and that it will result in speedy decisions being

  133
  made impossible. There is a great number of Statutes dealing with various questions of this sort. The Rent Act, for example, provides that a certificate should be given by the sanitary authority, but it also has a provision enabling a certificate given by any official to be good in a court unless the contrary is proved. I would call the attention of all those, whether landlords or tenants, who have been in the habit of applying for certificates to sanitary authorities that very probably those certificates were wrongfully given and would be subject to challenge in any court because they were not given by the sanitary authorities in the majority of cases but by the sanitary inspectors. I want this Bill to provide that the responsible, knowledgeable official shall give the certificate in order to obviate delay. If my Amendment were made, it would do away with all the difficulties, ensure speedy decisions and give satisfaction to all those concerned in what may well be an extremely important matter.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  I am seconding this Amendment in only a half-hearted way. I should have preferred the words as they stand if I could be assured that it would not be necessary that the certificate should be issued after a meeting of the council. That is the gist of the whole thing. If these words mean that only after a meeting of the council, which may take place only quarterly, can certificates be issued then obviously the thing is not workable; but if it means that the certificates can be issued on the authority of the council at any time I should prefer that the certificates should be issued on the authority of the council and not on the authority of the sanitary inspector or any other official. While I have seconded the Amendment in order that we may have an explanation from the Attorney-General, I hope it turns out that a local authority can issue these certificates without waiting for a full meeting.
  The Attorney-General: After the explanation which he has given us of his reasons for seconding the Amendment to the proposed Amendment the hon. Member will, no doubt, be regarded by some of his friends as in the nature of a Parliamentary Quisling. I think my
  134
  hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is really not quite right in his statute law. I do not think he will find in those statutes cases in any way comparable with that which he has put forward in which the sanitary inspector has, as an official, this responsibility placed upon him. There are certain provisions under which he can return a certificate to the council and on that the council can act, but that premises that the matter has been before the council and that is the thing we want to avoid, I still think that it would be wrong as a matter of principle to place the responsibility for this action upon the sanitary inspector as such, so that the local authority could say in effect, "It is no good your complaining to us. The Bill has made the sanitary inspector the unappealable judge." Our intention is that the sanitary inspector should do this work and should do it as an official of the local authority, and I certainly agree that it is most important that the machinery should not involve the necessity of waiting for a meeting of the council, or, indeed, a meeting of a committee of the council, in respect of each certificate given, and I doubt whether the words on the Paper could have been so construed.
  It is known that bodies have to act and do act through their officials. In some cases matters come before the council or a committee, and in other cases they are perfectly prepared to leave it to the official to act in individual cases in his own name under the authority of the council and on their behalf. I agree that it is most important that we should be certain that we have not used words which in law would involve the necessity for a meeting of the council or a committee before the certificate could be issued, and if it is found necessary to insert words to make that certain we will do so; but it is a matter which calls for rather careful consideration, because there are other more or less analogous provisions in Acts dealing with local authorities, and we do not want to insert words here if the effect would be that their absence in other cases would suggest in those other cases that there has to be an appeal to the council. We will do our best to see that, before the Bill becomes law, it is made as clear as it can be made that a meeting of the council or committee is not necessary.
  Major Milner: May I ask that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good

  135
  enough to communicate his decision to me in good time? Last week this matter was left to be considered, and naturally I communicated with him to hear what view the Government took.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and gallant Member wrote me last week. I did not get the letter till this morning. I did, in fact, write a letter to him yesterday evening.
  Major Milner: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. I wrote to him communicating certain further observations which had occurred to me, but I had rather anticipated having regard to what he said last week that of his own volition he would further consider the matter.
  The Attorney-General: I did consider the matter.
  Major Milner: Then I withdraw that observation entirely. I think that what has happened is that he wrote me a letter, and that before I received it my letter to him came along. If he will be good enough to communicate with me in time to give me an opportunity to have the matter ventilated in another place if that should be necessary I should be grateful. One further point occurs to me, the possibility of some division of responsibility arising. A council might authorise the surveyor or the medical officer to make an examination and he might give a certificate that the premises were fit, but then the sanitary inspector, whose duty it is at present to inspect the premises, might come along and say that the premises were not fit and serve a notice of repairs. In that case there would be divided responsibility. I beg to ask leave to with-draw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2.— (Conditional notice of retention.)
  The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after the third "to," to insert:
  "execute all such works as are reasonably practicable for temporarily meeting the circumstances created by the damage; (b) to."
  136
  This Amendment and the two following ones are submitted in order to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) during the Committee stage. He suggested that a tenant whose house was slightly damaged might serve a conditional notice of retention in order to get out of paying his rent while the War Damage Commission were dealing with the vast number of cases with which they will have to deal; that he could wait until they had decided that they would give him costs of works; and that in that way the landlord would be kept out of his rent for a long period although an expenditure of a few pounds could have made the house fit. One answer to that would be that the land himself could go in and do the work; but we felt that there was a point to be considered here, and we now propose to put upon the tenant who is in such a position an obligation which it is clearly reasonable that he should bear, and that is to execute all such works as are
  "reasonably practicable for temporarily meeting the circumstances created by the damage."

  Those words are taken from Section 5 of the War Damage Act and describe the type of repair for which the tenant will get a cost of works payment irrespective of whether the ultimate decision, or what I may call permanent decision dealing with the building, is cost of works or damage.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give us any indication of the type of repairs he has in mind and of the maximum liability which could be imposed upon a tenant in these circumstances?
  The Attorney-General: I think it would be difficult to define the maximum, because that would depend upon the size of the building, but the type of repair one has in mind is, for example, where a roof has some damage to it but could at comparatively small expense be made weather-proof by being covered by a tarpaulin, and so on. It is the type of repair which is reasonably practicable to meet the circumstances created by the damage. This would include window repairs with boards or other material which enables the house to be lived in and prevents the weather coming in.
  One starts with a notice of detention, under which the tenant is liable to do all the repairs as and when practicable. The present proposal enables him to get very

  137
  much more advantageous notice by making it a condition of his getting a cost-of-works payment. When one is giving him an attractive option to relieve him of the liability which he was under by the principal Act to have the repairs done, there is no reason why he should not have a wider obligation to do temporary repairs to make the house fit to live in. It is reasonable that this type of repair should be a liability on the tenant when he takes advantage of this option.
  Amendment agreed to. Further Amendments made:
  In page 5, line 25, at the beginning, insert "to take."
  In line 25, leave out from "practicable," to "to," in line 26.— [The Attorney-General.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."— [King's consent signified.]
  Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I desire to make clear what I could not state in moving my Amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill, and that is to express my appreciation and that of those who are associated with me, of the very generous extent to which the Attorney-General has carried out the assurances which he gave. He has seen fit considerably to alter the words which I put upon the Order Paper, but I make no complaint about it. He has also gone further, and included provisions for the maintenance of the repairs which have been carried out. I should like to express my appreciation of those additions.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  REPAIR OF WAR DAMAGE BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  AGRICULTURE ACT, 1937.
  Resolved,
  "That the Land Drainage— Grants (Further Postponement of Prescribed Date) Order, 1941, postponing the prescribed date provided for in Sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, a copy of which was presented to this House on 25th May, be approved."— [Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 to 1936.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, and confirmed by the Minister of War Transport under the Electricity(Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for increasing the borrowing powers of the Central Electricity Board, a copy of which was presented to this House on 10th June, be approved."— [Colonel Llewellin.]

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the Parish of Cranleigh, in the Rural District of Hambledon, a copy of which was presented to this House on 1st July, be approved."— [Major Dugdale.]

  VEGETABLE CROPS (GARDENS AND ALLOTMENTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]
  Mr. Loftus: I want to raise a question connected with agricultural policy. It is a small point, but it seems to need clarification concerning the attitude of the Department. It refers to the increased cultivation of vegetables in private gardens and allotments. It appears that my right hon. Friend has changed the policy of the Department during recent months. In July, 1940, under the joint auspices of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture, the Women's Institutes were asked to cooperate in organising a campaign for the production of vegetables in allotments and private gardens. Further, it was stated that the arrangements proposed would provide for the collection and marketing of vegetables through the ordinary channels. As a result, the Federation of

  139
  Women's Institutes started a campaign to increase the production of non-perishable vegetables to help replace those formerly imported. The circular issued to the Institutes went on to say:
  "The Ministry's scheme includes the production, collection at convenient points, and marketing of such vegetables."
  I would like to draw the attention of the House to one phrase in the circular, "the production of non-perishable vegetables." It is quite understood that the scheme was not to apply to an increased production of easily perishable vegetables, although I would say that there is an opportunity for an increase in production of perishable vegetables if only Army canteens would do as they did in the last war, and buy direct from the producers in the neighbourhood. I will, however, put on one side the whole question of perishable vegetables; and confine myself to the non-perishable vegetables— carrots and so on. That was the position in July, 1940, when the great campaign to get more non-perishable vegetables from allotments and gardens was inaugurated. Then there was a change, apparently, in the attitude of the Ministry, because the Ministry of Food abandoned the scheme— or retired from the scheme, shall I say?— and it was left to the Ministry of Agriculture, and on 8th March, 1941, the Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture wrote as follows to the county committee in Oxfordshire:
  "It has been decided that the responsibility for the work of the county garden produce committees shall be transferred from the Ministry of Food to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Minister wishes to invoke the assistance of these Committees chiefly to carry out a propaganda campaign to ensure the orderly cropping of gardens and allotments, with the cropping so planned that a succession of vegetables is obtained all the year round,"
  That is quite a different policy. The original policy of my right hon. Friend was to produce more non-perishable vegetables in allotments and gardens; collection and marketing would be arranged. Now, a few months later, the policy is to produce from allotments and gardens sufficient vegetables just for the owners of the allotments or for the village. But all country villages that I have known are a ready self-sufficing in peace-time, and there is therefore no need for any scheme. But they are capable of producing a lot more non-perishable foodstuff, and I feel there is a discrepancy of policy there
  140
  which demands some explanation. The Minister also wrote as follows on 19th April, 1941:
  "It is not the Minister's policy to stimulate the production in private gardens and allotments of surplus vegetables for sale."
  Surely that is a contradiction of the policy of July, 1940. I take it that applies to the non-perishable vegetables, and the Minister will no doubt refer me to an answer he gave on 14th March last, where he said that his policy was not to increase the production of vegetables generally but only the production of non-perishables which could be stored for use during the winter. To sum up, it appeared to be the policy of 1940 to produce extra vegetables on all allotments and all gardens in view of the food situation, while the Ministry would arrange to collect and market them through the various county institutes. The policy now seems to be: Do not produce any surplus vegetables of any kind in allotments or private gardens for sale. I do ask the Minister if we can have some explanation of this apparent reversion of policy,
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The hon. Member referred to what happened last year. He is suffering under some slight misapprehension as to what exactly took place. The county garden produce committees were originally set up by the Minister of Food last summer to deal with surpluses, which, it was anticipated, would arise, of storable vegetables. In fact, only very few cases of that kind of surplus did arise. What we did have was a considerable surplus last summer of perishable vegetables, and there were public demands that steps should be taken to collect these perishable vegetables and obviate what the public thought was a waste. When we came to consider the matter this year— I would like in passing to disabuse my hon. friend of any ideas he might entertain that because we did something last year we must repeat it this year; I should have thought he would be glad if we took advantage of any mistakes there might have been to rectify them— we decided that the important thing was to ensure a supply of vegetables in this coming winter. There is nearly always a surplus of perishable vegetables in the summer because people plant too many cabbages and lettuces, and the ordinary private garden is not large enough to provide a family with a surplus of perishable

  141
  vegetables and also to provide them with sufficient storable vegetables for the winter, and, above all, with sufficient green vegetables— brussels sprouts, kale and so on, in January, February and March, when they are particularly needed. Therefore we asked the Women's Institutes and the county produce committees to do all in their power to try to explain to people that the ordinary garden was not large enough to provide a family with vegetables throughout the year unless carefully cropped, and that it was much more important to grow vegetables for winter and the early spring than to have a surplus in summer. That accounts for the change which has been made this year.
  As the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for production and the Minister of Food for distribution, the obvious good and administrative pro-
  142
  cedure was to put this matter under the Minister of Agriculture and not under the Minister of Food, because we hope, and I still believe it to be right, that the best way to deal with a surplus is to avoid it. It is possible we may find that there is a surplus of storable vegetables this autumn. We have a central committee under the chairmanship of Lord Bingley keeping a careful eye on the position. If that state of affairs arises, and there is a surplus from private gardens and allotments beyond what we think will be needed for the maintenance of the families of the owners in the winter and spring months, my hon. Friend can be sure that this Committee will take that matter into consideration and advise what steps should be taken to deal with it.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE.
  CASUALTIES (EYE TREATMENT).
  CASUALTIES (EYE TREATMENT).
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (VULNERABLE AREAS).
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (VULNERABLE AREAS).
  FIRE SERVICES.
  FIRE SERVICES.
  ADMIRALTY (DIRECTORS GENERAL).
  ADMIRALTY (DIRECTORS GENERAL).
  MEDICINAL HERBS.
  MEDICINAL HERBS.
  WEST INDIAN COLONIES (RECRUITING).
  WEST INDIAN COLONIES (RECRUITING).
  TRINIDAD (DETENTIONS).
  TRINIDAD (DETENTIONS).
  GIBRALTAR REFUGEES.
  GIBRALTAR REFUGEES.
  LAND DRAINAGE GRANTS (MAPS).
  LAND DRAINAGE GRANTS (MAPS).
WAR DAMAGE ACT.
  BOMBED HOUSES (FIRST-AID REPAIRS).
  BOMBED HOUSES (FIRST-AID REPAIRS).
  DISCONTINUED INCOME FROM RENTS.
  DISCONTINUED INCOME FROM RENTS.
  MILITARY SERVICE (MINERS).
  MILITARY SERVICE (MINERS).
  PETROL RATIONING.
  PETROL RATIONING.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  CAMPS.
  CAMPS.
  SYRIA (BRITISH BROADCASTS).
  SYRIA (BRITISH BROADCASTS).
  HOSPITALS, KENT (ADMINISTRATION).
  HOSPITALS, KENT (ADMINISTRATION).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
SCOTLAND.
  EMERGENCY HOSPITAL SERVICES.
  EMERGENCY HOSPITAL SERVICES.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  PIER, ULLAPOOL.
  PIER, ULLAPOOL.
BRITISH ARMY.
  CIGARETTES (SUPPLIES).
  CIGARETTES (SUPPLIES).
  HOME GUARD.
  HOME GUARD.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY.
  CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRY.
POST OFFICE.
  LETTER DELIVERIES, WALES.
  LETTER DELIVERIES, WALES.
  ARMED FORCES, MIDDLE EAST (MAILS).
  ARMED FORCES, MIDDLE EAST (MAILS).
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
  ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  SOFT FRUIT.
  SOFT FRUIT.
  Fish
  Fish
  SURPLUS POTATOES.
  SURPLUS POTATOES.
  EGGS
  EGGS
  CONFECTIONERY.
  CONFECTIONERY.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received; Bill presented, and read 1a.

CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1041.
Special Order, dated 30th June, 1941, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (INCREASE OF BORROWING POWERS) ORDER, 1941.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 25th of June last, be approved.— (The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE GRANTS (FURTHER POSTPONEMENT OF PRESCRIBED DATE) ORDER, 1941.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that it is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. As Finance Bills go, this is not a very long Bill. It contains fifty-two clauses and five Schedules, but it will not be the wish of the House that I should attempt to explain the provisions of the Bill in any detail. In looking through the Standing Orders of this House to-day, I was interested to find that Standing Order No. XXVIII prohibits this House from "taxing speeches," but I apprehend that there the word is used in a different sense from that which we have to bear in mind in discussing the Finance Bill, and I am not entirely relieved from making a few remarks upon the Bill. It would seem to me that it may be of interest to the House if, quite briefly, I attempted in the light of this Finance Bill to make a short survey of our war finances.
This is the fourth Finance Bill of the war, embodying the fourth war Budget, and in order to get the correct perspective we have to look at the successive efforts as a whole. In brief retrospect I think the lines of our war finance from September, 1939, have been very plainly shown. In the first Budget, the emergency Budget which I had the honour to introduce in another place after some three weeks of war, we had an unmistakable warning that the financial demands of this war would be tremendous; but at the same time a recognition that there was need for some time to adjust private commitments and standards of life, all the the more so because even before the war the rate of taxation was exceedingly high. I remember that in the debate which took place in this House on that emergency Budget one or two prominent speakers inclined to the view that there had been too steep and too swift an increase in the rate of Income Tax, which went up to 7s. 6d. in the pound.
Well, my Lords, a severe operation looks very much less alarming in retrospect

645
than when it is to take place in the immediate future. Though it may be that then the taxpayer was scourged with whips, there is no deubt that he now has to endure the assault of scorpions. The first Budget and the second must be read together because an announcement was made at once that the rate of Income Tax would be at 7s. 6d. in the pound for some time—indeed it was enacted for most of 1939. When you come to April, 1940, you complete a plan which involved the imposition and collection of new taxation, additional taxation, amounting to £300,000,000 a year. These figures sound quite puny and frivolous now, but £300,000,000 extra taxation is, in itself, a stupendous sum. By July, 1940, the face of the war had changed. The suddenly increased tempo of war production and expenditure required a correspondingly intensified sacrifice by our citizens, and higher taxation 111 the third Budget, to the amount of £239,000,000 a year, was enacted together with of course, increasing restrictions on the materials and services which were available to consumers.
Now we come to the fourth Budget contained in this Finance Bill. As war production reaches ever higher and higher stages of development, as the volume of war materials to feed it swells, and as the goods available for civilian consumption consequently shrink further, we get closer and closer to grips with what is the pinch of the whole problem—the; problem of avoiding inflation. Indeed I think you may say that the keynote of the Budget to-day is rot so much what amount of money we have to provide, but how we shall provide it, for whatever the amount may be, provided it must be. The real Budget problem is to raise the money in the manner best calculated to protect our economic and social life, now and in the near future, from the insidious and destructive malady of inflation.
Some of your Lordships may recall that in February last we had a debate on this aspect of the matter in which several noble Lords whom I see here took part and in which I endeavoured at some length to deal with the problem. As every well instructed person now understands, for war is a great schoolmaster, the danger occurs in the impact of rapidly increasing purchasing power upon a rapidly diminishing supply of goods and services, and the contribution which the Budget and the
646
Finance Bill and the financial policy embodied in the Finance Bill must make towards averting this danger is—I think I am using the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech—to abate the torrent of purchasing power which would otherwise flow towards available supplies. In other words, the Budget task is to ensure that the vast and increasing total of Government expenditure, so far as it is laid out in this country, does not remain in the hands of citizens as increased purchasing power, and this is achieved when a compensating amount returns to the Exchequer either by way of taxation or by way of loan.
That being the principle that lies behind this enormously important financial policy, let me remind your Lordships of a White Paper, a most notable innovation in the Parliamentary exposition of finance, which was issued for the first time this year at the time of the Budget—it was "Command Paper No. 6261—which analyses the sources from which our vast expenditure was financed in the first eighteen months of war. It is a technical analysis and a complicated analysis, though I think most people would find it a very interesting document. It was on the basis of the material provided by this means that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech was able to say—it was a deliberate opinion which he then expressed—that the difference between total expenditure and Budget revenue had not, he considered, so far introduced inflationary dangers into our system. That is a very important proposition. If it is correct, it is a very comforting proposition. It does not in the least excuse any of us taking our eyes from the constant duty of watching any change in the elements which affect the rise of inflation, but it is particularly interesting to me and to others who took part in the debate last February when, not unnaturally, some prophecies as to the imminence of serious and very large inflation this year were brought to the attention of your Lordships' House.
That is the background and, while I would not dream of inflicting upon your Lordships many figures, possibly two or three figures may be interesting in order to remind your Lordships how these totals now stand—not indeed that any one of us can comprehend what any given total means, but we can at least compare the

647
size of one total with the size of another. What is the total expenditure which it is estimated will have to be met in this current financial year? Using the roundest of round figures the answer is £4,200,000,000, which has to be raised somehow or other. Let us see what can be taken away from that formidable total before we approach the proceeds of taxation or a loan. This element must not be omitted. Some of this enormous expenditure will be covered by borrowing growing balances in this country which the Dominions and other overseas suppliers have accumulated in payment for the supplies which they have made to us. They have in this country credits for a certain amount. That amount need not be raised by domestic loan or taxation, it is available without burden to us, for the time being, and the amount so covered is estimated at about £500,000,000. Let us take away this £500,000,000 from the total, and that leaves us with £3,700,000,000, of what I may call "domestic expenditure"—rather a convenient short phrase that is coming into use to denote expenditure to be covered by domestic loans or domestic taxation.
Towards that £3,700,000,000 how much is going to be got by the yield of taxation? I take first taxation as it stood before the last Budget, when Income Tax stood at the modest figure of 8s. 6d. in the pound. Approximately, the taxation which was ruling in this country before the last Budget would have produced £1,600,000,000 and it was estimated that the rate of savings current at the time of the last Budget would result in Exchequer receipts, as it happens of the same amount—£1,600,000,000. Putting these two things together you had, therefore, £3,200,000,000 as it were in hand or in sight when the bill to be met was £3,700,000,000. Now it is the difference between these two figures—that is, the critical £500,000,000—which is the thing that matters to-day. If you do not meet that by effective means now, then indeed you are on the high road to inflation, and one of the great inconveniences of inflation is that it is like riding downhill on a bicycle without a brake. You may be able to control the machine for a certain distance, but if the slope is steep enough there comes a moment when you control it
648
no longer, and it will run away with you. That is profoundly true of this danger of inflation. When I say savings were calculated to produce £1,600,000,000 I am including savings by public authorities ! and corporations and savings by private individuals. It is perhaps convenient here to say that probably something less than half of the £1,600,000,000 was estimated to be made up out of the private savings and investments of individuals.
Now I return to the £500,000,000 which is the key to the whole matter. I am quoting the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he described this £500,000,000 as a figure which, from the point of view of inflation, is "the potentially dangerous gap, to the closing of which we must bend all our energies." Manifestly, there are two resources to be examined. One is taxation—can we do better from taxation this year than we did last year? Then there is the amount to be raised by loans. The whole country owes an enormous debt to my noble friends Lord Kindersley and Lord Mottistone and others for the continuous work which they have done to bring the country to its sense of duty on this head. In view of the trend of savings figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer judged that there was good ground for expecting in the new financial year, 1941–42, savings to produce £200,000,000 to £300,000,000 more than the previous figures, and substantially, if that increase is secured, it will be found out of the genuine savings of private individuals. The future will show whether that estimate is justified. I believe that I am right in saying that up to the present there is reason to think that it will be jusified, though of course no precise figures are, as yet, possible.
Therefore, facing this £500,000,000 which has to be obtained somehow or other, you have got £200,000,000 to £300,000,000, apart from what is to be obtained by the imposition of further taxation. As your Lordships well know, and as the country as a whole well knows, very stiff extra taxaton has been imposed as well. It seems, perhaps, a little extraordinary that such efforts have to be made to produce what is, as compared with the gross total, such a comparatively small fraction. The truth is that you cannot get out of our population, or out of any population, enormous increases of taxation without the most prodigious

649
exactions. The Budget proposals are designed to produce in a full year £250,000,000 extra. That is the effect of running up the Income Tax to 10s. in the pound, of the increase in what is called the "reduced rate," of the reduction in the allowance for earned income, of the reduction in personal allowances and in the exemption limit, and of the alteration of the basis of assessment of farming profits. That is in a full year; but, of course, as everybody knows, in the first year in which the Income Tax is raised—and this is true of some other taxes also—there is not a full year's yield, and in the year of which we are speaking, the present year, the amount which is expected to be raised additionally out of the Budget taxation is about £151,000,000. If the fiscal year ended in midsummer instead of at the end of March, the figure would be a larger one. I do not know that very great importance is to be attached here to the minutiae; the broad proposition is that the bold proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bid fair to meet this £500,000,000 of deficit which must be met in this year. I will not delay the House on the minor changes in taxation which are proposed.
There is an interesting proposal to credit to the taxpayer after the war the amounts now involved in the reduction of Income Tax allowances. In the same way, there is an interesting provision for making available after the war and on certain conditions twenty per cent. of the Excess Profits Tax which is paid. There is also a most ingenious and remarkable set of provisions, introduced into the Finance Bill not at the time of the Budget but later, which in effect provides that where anyone has by covenant or by bequest, made before the war, provided an annuity in the recipient's favour which is to be paid free of Income Tax, such pre-war annuities are to be understood as covenants or bequests to make the payment free of Income Tax at 5s. 6d. in the pound, and the balance is to fall on the recipient, notwithstanding that the language of the covenant spoke of the payment being made tax-free.
I have endeavoured in these few words to present to the House, in as clear a fashion as I can, a general view of the financial effects of the Bill, without going into details. There is, however, another side to war finance, another side to the
650
Finance Bill, which is just as important as the taxation side. The operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, like the quality of mercy, are twice blessed; and, while we concentrate attention through the Finance Bill on taxation, do not let us forget the complementary effort that the taxpayer, in his other capacity as a saver and a lender, must make in what I may call the Battle of the Budget. If you were to have these enormous sums raised and spent in these islands—at the cost, of course, of tremendous fiscal burdens imposed upon the taxpayer—you would not really meet your problem at all unless at the same time you had adequate arrangements for securing that those who received increased remuneration under war conditions, and some who did not receive increased remuneration, joined in the battle against inflation and against the dangers which inflation holds not only for our social and economic life but consequentially, and it may be at no distant date, for the further intensification of our war effort. The Battle of the Budget, therefore, has to be fought on two fronts, and it will not be won unless the country's magnificent past achievements in saving and lending are not only sustained but improved.
I have been consulting my friends at the Treasury, and they tell me that the savings of private individuals in all forms and by all channels must in fact be increased by a third over those of the latter half of last year. On the average we must get by this means £4 instead of £3, and so on all along the line. It is too soon yet, of course, to say how far that goal will be achieved, but it does appear to me, from what I have seen of the spirit of the country in a great number of War Weapons Week meetings, from the reports which I have the good fortune to read from time to time from Lord Kindersley's Committee, and from the reaction as one observes it in the ordinary man or woman whom one meets, that there is every ground for believing that on this side too the Battle of the Budget can be fought and won. We are dealing in this Finance Bill with figures which are almost past human comprehension. This Finance Bill sets out to exact from the people of this country a far greater sum than they have ever found before in peace or in war. Is there one of us who has the smallest doubt in his mind that it will be done? It is part of the

651
contribution that every one of us is willing to shoulder in order to help to produce victory for freedom not only for ourselves and for our own country but for the whole of the habitable world. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has, I am sure it will be agreed, moved the Second reading of the Finance Bill in a comprehensive speech. I have been told on good authority that the noble and learned Viscount is sick and tired of hearing his speeches described as "lucid," and therefore I shall not use that word, but will say that he has put the financial position before your Lordships with great clarity. I think that this Finance Bill may in general terms be described as a good and courageous effort to meet an unprecedented position, and in my view the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to most of the bouquets which he has received, and he has received a great number. I am not sure, however, that he is entitled to them all. As I see it, the most notable feature of this Finance Bill is that it docs, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and according to what the noble and learned Viscount has said, present what may be called, taking everything into consideration, a balanced Budget.
There has been much discussion from time to time in your Lordships' House about what is called the "gap," the difference between the total war expenditure and other expenditure—the total expenditure of the Government—and the receipts of the Government from taxation, new savings and so forth. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke very frankly about these matters. He estimated that he has bridged the gap, at any rate for the future. That means that he sees his way to meet what he calls, and what the noble and learned Viscount has called—it is a very fair description—a "domestic expenditure" of £3,700,000,000. That really is the figure with which we are mainly concerned. He sees his way to meet that by the yield of taxation, and by new savings and so forth. It may be so, but I must emphasize not once, but again and again,
652
that the estimate of £3,700,000,000 for domestic expenditure is certainly not excessive. In fact, good fortune will be with the Chancellor if it is not exceeded. If it is exceeded, and in so far as it is exceeded, there is only too much reason to fear that some gap (will come into being. The trouble, as I see it, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has left himself very little margin.
I am not going to discuss in detail the taxes of the Budget. The noble and learned Viscount said that he found a rule in your Lordships' Standing Orders to the effect that "taxing speeches" are not permitted. I was under the impression that the phrase was "teasing speeches," but I have no doubt he is right, and that that does not apply to finance. Under the Parliament Act of 1911 power to reject the Finance Bill was taken away from your Lordships' House, but it was made quite clear that the function of discussion was left to your Lordships' House, and indeed it was expected that it would be employed. May I just say a very few words about the changes in the Income Tax, because some very striking figures emerge from that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced some of the allowances which affect all Income Tax payers. He reduced the personal allowance for married people from £170 to £140 per annum; and for single persons from £100 to £80, and earned income allowance is reduced from one-sixth to one-tenth. Actually these three changes alone will bring the Chancellor £125,000,000. The increase in the standard rate of the Income Tax from 8s. 6d. to 10s. will bring him £88,000,000, but these other changes will bring in nearly one and a half times as much in a full year—namely, £125,000,000. I am not sure whether in existing circumstances some of these changes ought not to have been carried further. If that had been done it would have brought in a great deal of money without, in general, any undue hardship on the taxpayer, at any rate with less hardship than vast numbers of people are enduring. People in Germany, I am told, though I cannot confirm it, are paying Income Tax which begins on incomes of 25s. a week—that is, on a minimum of £65 a year as against £110 a year here. There is therefore a very wide difference there.

653
Leaving the Income Tax, first let me say that the Chancellor has been very wise to reject various proposals made to him for what I may all fancy taxes. All taxation should be equitable, economically sound, and productive. The Chancellor wants money in big amounts, very big amounts. It really is not sound finance to impose taxes which, although very attractive in various ways, do not in fact bring in large revenue. In this Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely confined his expectation of additional revenue to direct taxation, and a considerable proportion of it will come from persons who have incomes between £110 and £500. In these days that is as it should be, because many of these persons, owing to munitions work and so forth, arc making distinctly larger incomes than they used to do. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor told your Lordships some time ago—and it is a very remarkable figure—that about two-thirds of the consumption of the country is on the part of people who have incomes of less than £250 a year. If that is so—and it is probably right—the purchasing power of this class is enormous. The additional taxation on those with incomes below £500, and still more on those below £250— because there are so many of the latter—will be an important factor in the fight against inflation.
The noble and learned Viscount spoke at some length about inflation. On the general question of inflation it should be not only admitted but affirmed, and gratefully affirmed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very frank with the country. Actually he has gone a long way to do what he can to ward off inflation. He has spoken with great candour about the gap—that is, as I say, the difference between "he total domestic expenditure and what the Government expect to receive from taxation, new savings, and so forth. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began by facing a gap in the current twelve months, as he saw it, of about £500,000,000. As regards new savings, he looks for an increase, as the Lord Chancellor has told us, of about £250,000,000—he said between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000. The changes in the Income Tax will, in a full year, also bring in £250,000,000 a year so, taking one thing with another, the
654
Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates that the gap or deficiency of £500,000,000, will be filled. That may be so. Only time can show. All figures and estimates must have an element of doubt, especially in present circumstances, and not merely of doubt, but almost of speculation; but, taking the balance of things, it may prove that the Chancellor's estimates will not be very far out. To-day, as far as can be seen, he has been justified as far as new savings arc concerned in the prospect he held out. Therefore, if he is right the gap of £500,000,000 will be bridged.
But let me come back to the very important factor to which I have already referred, and that is that he has allowed the sum of £3,700,000,000 for domestic expenditure, and no more. That may prove to be too low. For one reason or another, the estimates of expenditure put forward by Chancellors of the Exchequer since the war began have generally been too low. If the figure of £3,700,000,000 should be too low, there will almost certainly be a deficiency or uncovered gap which must be, to some extent, inflationary. I want to make this point, and I do not think it was made by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. If there should be no gap at all, it should be emphasized that inflation is not fully guarded against. Even if the national accounts balance, there may still be inflation. Other causes may bring about, at any rate, some degree of inflation, particularly if increased purchasing power is demanding goods which are in scarce supply. The Government have done a good deal to stop inflation of this kind, but more measures will be needed if the position is to be safe. An important step forward in this direction was made only two or three weeks ago by the system of coupons for clothing. I cannot help thinking that it is a great pity that was not done twelve months ago. It was pressed on the Government. Why it was necessary to wait till the war had been going on nearly two years before this scheme was introduced I do not know. I think it ought to have been done earlier.
Another cause which does give rise to anxiety about the gap in the future is the continued absence of a national wages policy. The Budget is framed on the assumption that wages can be more or less

655
stabilised round about the present figures. If that should not be so, and if wages should continue materially to rise, the Chancellor's calculations would be upset. He said so himself; he said in his Budget speech—these are his words:
"It is clear that persistence of the tendency towards rising wage rates, which necessarily increases the cost of production at every stage of the productive process, would compel abandonment of the stabilisation policy."
The fact is that despite the additional subsidies made by the Chancellor with a view to keeping down the cost of living, the wages problem has not been adequately grappled with, and it remains one of the outstanding dangers of the situation. No doubt there would be difficulties in the way of legislation for the purpose of dealing with or stabilising wages, but there is little evidence that the Government in other ways have been taking any effective part in evolving a national wages policy.
It is true the Government have done their best to keep the cost of living down. The cost-of-living index, on which these things are based, is criticised a good deal, and I dare say justly; anyhow, it is the only official criterion we have for the time being to work on, and it is only fair to say the Government have done a great deal to control the cost of living. I think these figures are broadly correct. It is estimated that out of the total of 100 of the cost-of-living index, 60 per cent. of the cost is spent on food, about 16 per cent. on rent, about 12 per cent. on clothing, and about 4 per cent. on fuel. I think these four items come to 92 per cent. of the total, added together, and the Government measures in regard to food and rent, and now clothing, and also with regard to fuel, have done and will do much to keep the cost of living down. But, if I may say so, the Government must not weary in well doing; they must be vigilant in watching these matters from many points of view.
Now as regards taxation, that can hardly be increased at the top, and the chief reservoir as far as the Income Tax is concerned is in the smaller incomes up to about £750 a year. It has to be recognised that many munition workers are getting higher wages than they used to do, some of them much higher wages, and though the Budget will levy its toll upon them it will still leave many of them better
656
off—in a better position than they used to be before the war. It is difficult to understand why this anomaly (if I may so call it) should exist to the extent to which it does. Nearly everybody else in the country is no better off because of the war; many, at any rate, are worse off. Moreover, despite the overtime and so forth of many munition workers, the hardships which they are going through are, on balance, surely less than those of soldiers and sailors. I think the soldier gets somewhere about 2s. 6d. a day and his keep and an allowance for his family. He is separated from his family and he may be abroad undergoing the greatest hardships and dangers. I submit, therefore, it is not clear why munition workers, despite overtime, should be receiving so much higher pay than the soldiers and sailors.
Of course this whole question is bound up with that of a Wages Board, and if from the start there had been a strong Wages Board which had laid down the principles for the regulation of wages, it is very likely the present position would not have arisen. This matter has been pressed upon your Lordships' House more than once during the war, but nothing seems to be done. Also, if I may say so with respect, no adequate reply is given by the Government to the contentions advanced in this matter of a Wages Board or a national wages policy. Looking at it from another angle, I think it is a pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take the opportunity of obtaining a bigger share of taxation from those whose incomes have been increased largely owing to the war. Pressure has been brought upon the Government to institute what is called an excess income tax, but the Chancellor declined to do it, and, if I may say so respectfully, I did not think his arguments against the proposal were very convincing.
In conclusion, may I just make two further points about this matter of the cost-of-living index? The first is that a few points in the rise of the cost of living since the war are due to the Purchase Tax, and surely those points are not to be taken into account if wages are adjusted to meet the increased cost of living. If that is done would it not mean that the Purchase Tax was not in effect being borne by those making the purchases? That would be contrary, as I understand it, to the intention of the tax. The other point

657
I want to make is this: I do not think it should be assumed chat all workers can expect that their earnings should be adjusted to the increase in the cost of living. In short, they cannot all expect their wages to be made up to pre-war conditions. True—I would emphasize this—in the case of the poorly-paid wage earners, where there is no margin above the level o: subsistence, the adjustment should be made, keeping their wages at, so to speak, the pre-war level or its equivalent. But that cannot be expected to apply to some of the highly-paid wage-earners. A large proportion of the better-to-do classes are very much worse off than they were before the war, and I suggest that highly-paid wage-earners should bear, at any rate, some part of the burdens which have fallen upon the wealthier sections of the community. That is all I wish to say except this I hope the arguments which are advanced in these debates in your Lordships' House on the Finance Bill do receive, and will receive, careful consideration from those who are responsible for the country's economic and financial policy.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I took down some words which fell from the lips of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He spoke of the whips and scorpions of taxation as represented by the Income Tax and Surtax. But however bitter may be the blows inflicted upon the population by Income Tax and Surtax, it would be right, if I may say so without impertinence, to point out that there is a much crueller form of taxation, an infinitely crueller form of taxation than that; and it is called inflation. No taxation can do the mischief that inflation can do. Therefore, while I recognise in this Finance Bill that it is not founded on a Budget which is consistent with formal economic principles and axioms upon which most Budgets have been constructed, I feel that the main pivots on which it hinges are these: first to pay for the war, to have the financial weapon with which you can wage the war, and something which next only pays for the war, but which strikes against inflation by restriction of purchasing power against a restricted supply of necessary commodities and luxuries of life.
I would like here, if I may, to make this observation to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I have helped to start a local
658
war savings movement and have done some good, I hope, in getting savings into the National Exchequer, and in so working I have been struck over and over again by the fact that frequently people have come and asked me to explain what inflation means. People do not understand what the word inflation really means. They do not realise that if it goes beyond controlled limits it means, as my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack suggested, that when the brake: is gone from your cycle you go rushing downhill without any stop; the end is that your cycle crashes to disaster. It means famine, starvation and ruin. That is the ultimate result of inflation. I think my noble friend Lord Mottistone would add to his many services to the country if he took steps, in conjunction with Lord Kindersley, to explain to the public what inflation means. I think if he would do this it would also have the effect of reconciling many people to their troubles about rationing. Some people say, "I don't want to be bothered with coupons and with this rationing system." It ought to be explained to these people that one of the main reasons for rationing and for quotas and restriction of supplies is to protect their savings and their wages so that they may be able in future to buy with their currency money that which they need and at reasonable prices. If inflation were to come those savings and wages would vanish as purchasing power out of their hands. I think it should be made plain to the public now rationed that one of the main reasons for the rationing system and all it includes is the necessity to avoid the most cruel form of taxation on themselves which is called inflation. I do not know whether my suggestion appeals to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, but I beg to offer it. If we keep down inflation now, as we are doing, we are rendering the cost of war materials that we have now to buy less dear, besides at the same time protecting the purchasing power of men's wages and savings after the war.
The point which my noble friend Lord Arnold made was a valuable one. He talked about the stabilisation of wages. During the last war hands were thrown up in horror by people who said, "You must not touch wages, you must never touch the wages of people who are entitled to have them." Consequently we created the inflation which caused the high cost

659
of living. I have noticed that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said from time to time that he intends to take steps to stabilize wages, he has touched this thing with very long fingers. Only recently a trade board for the Midlands gave an increase of wages and two of the members of that board who were appointed by the Ministry of Labour as independent judges simply cocked a snook at the Government's policy and put up wages, evidently paying no attention whatever to the policy laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be all very well for the Minister of Labour to say, as he did not say in this particular case, but has said in another case, that he was nauseated. He may refuse to face nauseating facts in this case, but he will not be able to escape the nauseating results by refusing to face facts.
One of the things he has to face is this fact: that if wages are now put up that rise will increase the cost of production, which, in turn, will increase the index figure of the cost of living, which will, again, give rise to demands by people to have their wages increased, saying that their wages are based on the index figure of the cost of living. I had sent to me just before I came into the House a little cutting which I will venture to communicate to your Lordships, because I think it is extremely germane to the discussion which is taking place. This is a resolution passed by the principal association dealing with trade and industry, the Association of British. Chambers of Commerce. It contains 40,000 firms—not a few great firms like the Federation of British Industries, but 40,000 firms, large and small, representing home and export, wholesale, retail, shipping, banking and every other form of industry, commerce and trade all over the country. This is the resolution that this Association unanimously passed, and if I am not wearying your Lordships I hope you will forgive me for reading it. It is as follows:
"That the attention of the Government and of Parliament be drawn to the following four points:

(1) The cost of coal acts and reacts at every step upon the cost of all that we eat and use, and upon the cost of everything that needs any form of transport.

(2) Increased costs of coal and of transport defeat any policy designed to prevent
660
increase in the cost of living, and to ward off inflation.

(3) Any increase in the cost of living, and the effects of inflation, inflict hardship on the whole community, of which miners and transport workers are themselves a large part.

(4) Until these inescapable facts are understood and acted upon it is folly to expect that rationings or quotas can prevent increases in the cost of living or ward off the cruel effects of inflation."

I ventured to offer that for consideration because I think it sums up the position truthfully and temperately. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take his courage in his hands and say to the Ministry of Labour: "If you do not intend to carry out the Government's policy, which includes a proper, honourable and just rate of wages, by means of the stabilisation of wages, then the Government must find someone who will do that."
Taxation of the kind which we art-considering is not economically sound although it is necessary. I support it for war purposes, but it cannot go on too long for reasons which I will try now to explain. I do not think for a moment that this country will ever adopt State Socialism as opposed to honestly run private enterprise. It has seen enough of State control of trade and industry to make it very tired of it. You will never in any case get much fresh enterprise where there is State control. Penalising or excessively high taxation on employers and those engaged in industry discourages those willing to take those risks to their property, their health and their skill which follow enterprise just as a man's shadow follows a man on a sunny day. You will not get them to take those inevitable risks unless you allow them to take their wage in the form of profit. You must have a profit-wage that will encourage enterprise and you will not increase the pool from which taxation for social and other benefits is drawn unless you increase enterprise and increase wealth through enterprise.
It is true that during the war the majority of men, even among the miners, will work without any hope of making anything out of their war profits because of their patriotism. But there are some at the other end of the scale, just as among the miners, who say, "We are not going to work to get any more coal out of the pits if you are going to take

661
some of our wages away from us by taxation." Human psychology has to be taken into consideration. If taxation is penal and discouraging and is not economically justified you will stop enterprise both by the employers and by the workers in the end. In that connetion I think some responsible speakers should go and address the miners and explain that Income Tax is a war weapon and should not be used as an excuse for absenteeism.
We must bear in mind that at the earliest moment the current burden of taxation must be reduced and resort must be made to stronger forms of attracting savings. About that I would say this. We hear people rebuking the Government because they do not reduce their payment to 1s. or half a crown per cent. per annum for loans. If people do not get something for their money they will say that they might as well spend the money as save it. For this reason I say that an inducement—although it seems to be a reversal of our cheap money policy—to greater saving would be to issue much longer term loans with a little better rate of interest in order to attract the savings of people for permanent holding.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said that war is a great schoolmaster, and so it is. There are very many lessons to be learnt. I have heard my noble friend Lord Arnold, when we were together in another place—I forget which of the three Parties he belonged to then—advocate a capital levy. We see a capital levy silently in operation to-day. What man can live on his income without falling back on his capital, with taxation as it is now? Some taxation today is based on spite. You can read that in the speeches of certain members of political Parties. You hear them talking about millionaires, and about a tax of 19s. 6d. in the pound as if numerous persons were liable or that rate. There is nothing in the point. When I study the Inland Revenue Report which has always been very familiar to me—the Revenue Return for the latest year—I find that about 100,000 people are liable for Surtax—people with incomes of over £2,000 and more, and their total assessable income is about £500,000,000 or £550,000,000. The total amount of the incomes of the very rich men who pay 19s. 6d. in the pound—there are under
662
200 of them—is about £25,000,000. If you took the whole, it would only pay for two days of the war.
The men who are really hurt are not the very rich men. The people who are hurt are those—there are about 65,000 of them out of the 100,000—whose incomes are between £2,000 and £4,000 a year. The £2,000 to £4,000 man is in a difficult position to-day when he has to pay Income Tax at 10s. 0d. and then Surtax. It is not a question of reducing his standard of life. It goes much further than that. It does not mean that he must dismiss a servant or give up a motor car or stop smoking cigarettes. It means upsetting his whole scheme of life and his life's liabilities. He has never lived upon only half his income. If he has been prudent he has perhaps lived on at least three-quarters of his income. If you take away half his income or more he cannot bring up his children as he would wish and he cannot engage in industrial undertakings as he would wish. You have paralysed him entirely. He is the man who is hurt and not the very rich, the wicked millionaires who are singled out in speeches. I therefore think that those who talk about a capital levy will have to learn from this schoolmaster of war that if this form of taxation goes on very long the £2,000 to £4,000 a year men—or, if you like, the £2,000 to £6,000 a year men, the majority of the Surtax payers—must sell, if they are not now selling, their capital.
The Government cannot go on paying an airman or a sailor or a soldier with a cottage or a picture, a diamond ring or a share certificate, or a piece of land. These things do not pay for a tank or a machine gun. All these things must be turned into liquid money. And as you turn them into money by sale, if there are a great number of things to be turned thus into money, so you depress prices, so you get by this system of trying to avoid inflation by a taxation so severe that it causes capital to be sold, what is known as deflation. If you get violent deflation you may get unemployment and riot in the industrial cities of the north. We know that deflation a few years back threw men out of work. The one thing we prayed for in the economic blizzard 15 or so years ago was for a rise in prices. Anything which is done by indirect means

663
to bring about a capital levy of any magnitude brings misery on the people. The thing we must do is to take the middle course so as to avoid such taxation as will bring about deflation with all the misery which we experienced in unemployment and bad export trade after the last war owing to deflated prices. There are many things which the schoolmaster of war has taught us. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will remember the controversy about the sugar beet subsidy. Imagine what would have happened if that subsidy had not been granted, and we had not obtained a great acreage of sugar beet.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: We should have had other roots in place of it.
LORD MANCROFT: Never mind the other roots. The money has been well spent. We got sugar. We have got half a million tons of life-giving food and removed the war risk to our seamen in bringing that food in ships. That is one of the lessons which I hope fanatical free traders will have learnt from the schoolmaster of war. Another lesson to be learnt is this. We were told over and over again that we must have a war chest abroad by investing in foreign countries. Many millions were invested and have been lost in South America—in Argentina, in Brazil and Chile and in every country in South America, I believe, except Venezuela. With the exception of a few debentures in Argentine railroads not one of those investments is worth much to us now. It would have been very much better if we had not invested and lost that money for the benefit of bond-mongers. There should be after the war no unregulated investment of our savings in foreign countries—not sterling countries, but foreign countries. It would be very much better to leave these foreign countries to shift for themselves and use the money to develop agriculture here and irrigation and railways in our dependencies like India. In my opinion we must put an end to uncontrolled, unregulated foreign investment in the future which benefits no one except perhaps the issuing houses.
Finally, there is a point to which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well direct his attention. Large numbers of undying, immortal, non-trading institutions hold, and have very properly taken
664
up, large sums of war loans. That is all right, but as non-trading institutions they pay no Death Duties. Large sums of money are now passing into the hands of institutions which are non-trading, undying institutions, which are benefiting by the protection which the country has given them but in respect of which they pay no Death Duties. Those institutions should be made in some way to pay for the benefits of defence which they share with the rest of us. I support this Bill and I only have to say two minor things in conclusion. Do not squeeze and discourage the man who is likely to engage in enterprise after the war. He has had his machinery shaken to pieces, he has had the walls of his factories cracked by overworking, he has had to put in machinery and equipment of a kind which he cannot use after the war. He must have money to re-equip his factory and rehabilitate himself. If you take everything away in E.P.T. and Surtax you do not give him a chance of rehabilitating himself and of rehabilitating the country, for he is the country. I think that that is a matter that should not be overlooked. I am sure that we can bridge our gap troubles by instigating a stronger movement for private savings; that will be the solution of our difficulties. The case for saving should be put to the people not that it is as a punishment but particularly as a means of preventing inflation. "Inflation" should be explained to the public. You will also persuade people to put by their money if you offer some form of security of longer date and with a little more interest than is now given. I apologise to your Lordships for having detained you so long and I thank you for your attention.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I had not intended to address your Lordships, but it has been pointed out to me that it would be of interest to you to know what is the prospect of obtaining this very largely increased sum from the people's savings through the movement for which I as Chairman and Lord Kindersley as President have been responsible for about fifteen years. What are the prospects of success? I have consulted those on whose judgment I have been accustomed to rely, and who have been proved to be good judges, and I can say that given the same measure of generous support which we have received from all classes—and notably

665
from your Lordships in your capacities as Chairmen of county councils, Lord Lieutenants and in other ways—there are good prospects, in their judgment—and I think they are right—that we hall obtain this very great additional sum. It is a fact, as my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has pointed out, that this forms a very large part of the total of £500,000,000 which has to be found, and, of course, it would be a serious thing if we did not come up to the scratch—I cannot think of a simpler phrase at the moment.
I think this thing can be done. I had before me only this morning the final figures for the War Weapons Weeks. They were very impressive. The total amount raised by these weeks was £395,000,000, and it will be within your Lordships' knowledge that Greater London alone contributed some £120,000,000. It was apparent to us all, and especially to me, that there must be a falling off immediately after this tremendous effort, for a tremendous effort it was. There has been a reduction, but not so large a reduction as one might have expected. If you analyse the figures, you will find, when you look into statements relating to the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee banks, that there are indications tending to show that people arc continuing to save in ever increasing degree. But, of course, we have to carry our work further, I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the kind words which he has said about Lord Kindersley and myself and the multitudes of other people working in this cause., and I can assure him, and through him your Lordships, that if we do not succeed it will not be for the want of trying. For the moment we are endeavouring, and we shall continue to to do so during the next four, five, six or seven weeks, to perfect our machinery for this great effort. As autumn cames along, Lord Kindersley and I will be addressing your Lordships—those of you who are Lord Lieutenants or hold other official positions—begging for further support in an intensive drive to make sure that through the autumn and again in the beginning of next year we shall achieve the task which we have set before ourselves; that is to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks: to bridge the gap and to make certain that
666
our finances are sound enough to ensure for us final victory in the war.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft, who spoke just before me, will forgive me if I do not follow him into questions about Free Trade and Protection which he raised, or into the question of subsidies. So far as the question of making plain the dangers of inflation to the millions of people whom we can reach by propaganda is concerned, we, of course, realize that by ensuring that our finances are on a sound basis we may avoid inflation, which indeed might place us in some danger of starvation. I thank him for the suggestion, and we will consider how best to carry it out. Of course, how best to appeal to the 10,000,000 people to whom we are appealing is a highly delicate and difficult art. If you put forward anything in the way of a threat, such is the interesting nature of our countrymen, you may do more harm than good. We shall bear that in mind, for it is a truth which must be carefully considered in connection with any form of propaganda in this country. I thank all your Lordships who have helped us so much in this great cause, and I assure you that we will do our utmost to see that the work produces results which will be a prelude to victory.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I propose to address your Lordships for a very short time only. I should like, if I may, to ask my noble and learned friend to pass on something of what I have to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do so with some trepidation as I know there are some very strict rules with regard to speeches on the subject of finance in your Lordships' House. There are, however, one or two appeals which I want to make through my noble and learned friend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would say at the outset, that so far as this appeal is concerned, I have no financial interest whatever in what I am going to say.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain concessions to companies which are finding themselves in a very disadvantageous position by reason of the fact that they were just coming to maturity—and this particularly applies to some small metal-producing companies such as gold mines—which were just coming into the profit-making zone when the

667
war started, and, in fact, in some cases, since the war began. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain concessions with regard to these companies, there are some of them, particularly metal-producing companies, which have short lives, and which find themselves in this position, even after the concession has been made, that not only will they be unable to pay any dividends during their life of operation, but certainly, in one case of which I know, half the capital will not be returned to the shareholders when winding up takes place. I feel, and I hope, that I am in order when I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again, to go into some of the instances where this is going to happen, and, if he would, to permit a deputation to wait upon him with reference to this subject. That is all I have to say on that question.
My second appeal is this. I notice that there is to be given a concession to what are termed the weekly wage-earners who come under Income Tax regulations. I think it is in Clause 23 of the Bill. There are some people who are in exactly the same position as weekly wage-earners, although they may be paid monthly. Let me give an instance. There may be two individuals living in the same street, one a weekly wage-earner and the other being paid by the month, but both receiving exactly the same remuneration. Owing to the war, both their homes are bombed and they both, being friends, seek accommodation elsewhere and find it ten miles away. This means that instead of living near their work they have to incur extra expenditure for travelling to and fro. In the case of the weekly wage-earner, £10 a year of his remuneration is exempt from Income Tax because of this extra expense, but that is not the case with the skilled draughtsman, or whoever else it may be, who is paid monthly; he has to meet this extra expense without any kind of help. I cannot believe that that is really what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, because to have this spirit of discrimination between one worker and another in these days, when we want unity and good feeling among all, is bound to give rise to annoyance and to a sense of unfairness.
I have put these two points quite shortly, and I hope that as a result of my appeal this allowance of £10 will be given to all those who receive a certain salary,
668
no matter what work they do or how they are paid. I also hope that the case of the companies which I have mentioned will be gone into further. Lastly, I hope that I have not transgressed in dealing with a Finance Bill, which I know is a touchy business. I trust that my noble and learned friend will put these matters before the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to reply to two or three matters which have been raised in this short but interesting debate. First of all, with regard to what was last said by my noble friend Lord Teviot, I would assure him that I am myself a stout supporter of the Parliament Act, but there is nothing in it which prevents your Lordships making suggestions or raising complaints on any item of taxation; and it seems to me that your Lordships perform a very useful function in being able to make those criticisms and suggestions from the point of view of your own experience and reflection, while at the same time you can disclaim all responsibility for the consequences! I shall certainly not: fail to communicate to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer both the points raised by my noble friend Lord Teviot, the first connected with Excess Profits Tax and the second in relation to the clause which provides for an allowance of as much as £5 a half-year from the wages assessed in the case of weekly wage-earners. I thoroughly understand the force of my noble friend's observations, and I shall do my best to convey them faithfully to the Treasury.
My noble friend Lord Arnold, as we have become accustomed to expect, has made a thoughtful and interesting contribution on this occasion. I would almost call it a stimulating contribution, if, properly speaking, a stimulus is a goad. There has been a certain painful sharpness in some of his reflections, but his main object was to encourage us to go on as we are going on, only more so. It is in that spirit that I receive his speech and shall do my best to convey it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite true, as my noble friend said, that you cannot, in examining the figures in this Budget, find a great deal of spare ground before you come close up against the actual presence

669
of inflation. That may well be so, although I would observe that if, as he warns us may be the case, the expenditure is even larger than the estimated figure, such expenditure will very largely take the form of additional payments to various classes of people in this country, and will mean that they have increased incomes, which in turn will have its effect on the produce of taxation. I agree, however, that we are steering a narrow way between difficulties. The fact is that we are in the middle of a great war, a war of life or death, and we have to face all sorts of risks. The best that we can hope to do in this matter is so to plan our financial arrangements as to reduce this danger to a minimum. I do not think that we are living in times when we can keep the bogey of inflation at so great a distance that we need not think about it any more.
Not for the first time, my noble friend raised, in connection with the Budget debate, the subject of a wages policy. He will not expect me to deal with that vast, complicated and difficult subject now. I would only say—and here I also address myself to my noble friend Lord Mancroft—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has before him the resolution which my noble friend quoted., and that the House may at any rate be quite sure that this very important aspect of the general financial problem is one which is being very vigilantly watched and considered by His Majesty's Government.
There is one other observation which I should like to make about Lord Arnold's speech. I do not think that he disapproved of the reductions made in this Budget in the allowances for Income Tax; I think he applauded them. Their effect is, of course, to produce a vastly increased sum of Income Tax from the wage-earring population, from those at the lower end of the scale. There is one thing, however, which I find is always omitted in considering these changes, and which I shall take leave to mention now. No doubt it is present in the noble Lord's mind, but it is not stated. Take for example the reduction which has, now been made for married persons, so that the personal allowance is now £140 instead of £170. That, of course, does not mean that somebody gives them or allows them in account either £140 or £170; it means
670
that the figure named may be deducted from the assessment liable to tax. If the tax is comparatively low, the amount of actual relief in taxation from such allowances is small; if the tax is high, the actual relief from taxation afforded by such allowances is great.
For example, when the Income Tax is 10s. in the pound, but the married allowance is reduced to £140, what really happens is that the married taxpayer gets off £70 of tax (half of £140) because the tax is 10s. in the pound; but, if the tax was 5s. in the pound, then, even though the allowance made to him was £170, he would get off only one-fourth part of that £170. There is therefore a certain reason for revising these allowances in a downward direction when the rate of tax becomes very high. As any simple calculation will show, it really means a relief from a larger amount of taxation when the tax is high than it would be when the tax is low. That is only one consideration. It is a consideration which has often been in my mind in the years I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not find, as a rule, that it is allowed for in discussing these subjects.
I must not yield to the temptation, severe as it is, to discuss in the most friendly way with my noble friend Lord Mancroft some of the topics he touched on delicately in his interesting speech, for that would take a long time and I should be sorry to get into any controversy. With regard to his main point—the point that it is the danger of inflation which is the real peril always to be remembered and to be faced in our financial arrangements—I feel, if I may be allowed to say so, he is perfectly right. I do not think my noble friend Lord Mottistone and those who work with him by any means omit to emphasize that in their innumerable public meetings. Certainly on the occasions I have been there, I have explained it with penetrating clearness, though whether when I have finished I have increased the amount of contributions to the loans I do not know, for it is not an interesting subject to an ordinary audience. At the same time there is no question on which it is more important for us to direct all our energies in guiding and instructing our fellow citizens. I thank your Lordships for the kindness and patience with which you have received the Finance Bill, and I now put the Question to the House.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

GOODS AND SERVICES (PRICE CONTROL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to insert after paragraph (a):
"(b) Subsection (1) of Section eleven shall not apply to Scotland."
The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments standing in my name. This is one of those tiresome occasions when any intelligent remarks can only be made in respect of the second one. Your Lordships, under these conditions, usually agree to take both Amendments together, and I trust that that may be your pleasure on this occasion. The Amendments deal solely with practice in Scotland. The object which I wish to secure is one which I am quite certain will have the sympathy both of the House and of the Government. It is to make prosecutions easier and speedier to institute.
The Amendments will affect procedure in Scotland which at present is laid down in Section 21 of the Prices of Goods Act, 1939. In order to make the matter as brief as possible, I shall only say to your Lordships that the relative section there provides that where it appears to a local price-regulation committee that there has been a contravention in their locality, they have to make a report, after making proper inquiry and giving the offender the chance to be heard, to the Central Price-Regulation Committee. If the Central Committee is of the same opinion, they report the matter to the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade consider it a fit case in which to institute a prosecution, they pass it to the Lord Advocate. If the Lord Advocate agrees, he instructs the Procurator Fiscal in the area, and the prosecution may then take place. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that, with all these stages to be gone through,
672
it sometimes happens that the limit of six months, which is elsewhere provided in the Act, has expired before the Procurator Fiscal has put the machinery of prosecution into operation. Consequently, a prosecution, however urgent and necessary it might have been in the public interest, cannot happen at all. It does seem to those who have had experience of the working of this process that that procedure is unnecessarily cumbrous and that it would be a very good thing if we cut out some of the stages.
The Amendments I have put down will have the effect of cutting out both the Central Price-Regulation Committee and the Board of Trade. This is only, of course, in so far as prosecutions in Scotland are concerned. The effect would be that the local committee, who are responsible people and know what they are about, if they are satisfied that a prosecution should take place, would be able to communicate direct with the Lord Advocate, who would put the machinery of the law in motion. Otherwise, the machinery remains unchanged. I venture to hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
LORD SNELL: The effect of the Amendments would be, as the noble Lord has said, to cut out reference to the Central Price-Regulation Committee and to the Board of Trade in all cases of contravention in Scotland of the provisions of the Act. The noble Lord has no doubt in mind the complaints that the procedure dealing with prosecutions in Scotland is unduly cumbersome, and the intention of his Amendments is to seek to simplify it. It is true that there is one more step in the institution of prosecution in Scotland than there is in England. The local committee report a case in which they think prosecution is desirable to the Central Committee, and if they concur the Central Committee recommend the Board of Trade to take proceedings. The Board, if they think fit, then require the Lord Advocate to institute proceedings.
The proposal that the Scottish Committee should be enabled to send cases direct to the Procurator Fiscal to report to the Lord Advocate instead of submitting them through the Central Price Committee

673
to the Board of Trade, was in fact considered when the Bill was being drafted. In subsection (4) of Section 8 of the principal Act it is expressly provided that "it shall be the duty of the Central Price-Regulation Committee to secure uniformity in the manner of the discharge of their functions by local price-regulation committees." This is a general provision which Parliament considered necessary in 1939, and there is no ground whatever, on the basis of our experience, for departing from it in 1941. Whether it is a prosecution under the old Act or under the new, this provision is essential in order to secure uniformity of practice and to preserve the safeguards for the trader against unfounded prosecutions. Likewise the Board of Trade must remain the prosecuting authority, but the Board are permitted to delegate their functions to anyone authorised by the President to perform them, and they do intend to authorise the Chairman of the local committee to request the Lord Advocate to institute prosecutions, on behalf of the Board. Cases in which the Central Committee recommend a prosecution would then normally be sent straight to the locality where they originated, for proceedings to be taken.
I hope that explanation on behalf of the Government will give some comfort to the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment. It will be seen that as the law now stands it is sufficiently flexible to deal with what the noble Lord has in mind so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, but hitherto it has not been thought necessary to modify the procedure. It is true that some cases have taken a considerable time to prepare, but this has not been due to the necessity of referring them to tile Central Committee and the Board of Trade, but to the complicated investigations that are often required before sufficient evidence of contravention of the Act could be obtained. I hope that after that explanation the noble Lord will feed that his point is in part met and that he will not press his Amendment further.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I must admit that there is force in the contention of the noble Lord that uniformity must be preserved, and I think that then; is, force in his argument that therefore the Central Committee's function ought not to be cut out. I do
674
derive great comfort from the noble Lord's statement that the intention is to authorise the chairman of the local committee to request the Lord Advocate to institute prosecutions. That is an assurance which does take us a very considerable part of the distance which I had hoped the Government would go by accepting this Amendment. I think it would have been arguable that the function of the Central Committee was more important under the old Bill than under this, but I do recognise the force of the contention. I think perhaps it is a pity the Government did not discover this short cut which was in the original Bill and did not use it long ago, and if the submission of this Amendment has had any effect in stimulating their imagination I am very glad. But I do not want to appear ungracious; therefore I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the statement he has made and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES TO CHANNEL ISLANDERS IN HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to draw attention to the discrepancy between the rates of family allowances paid to Channel Islanders serving in His Majesty's Armed Forces whose wives and children are still in the Channel Islands, and the family allowances paid to Channel Islanders serving in His Majesty's Armed Forces whose wives and children are in Great Britain; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I think it is perhaps somewhat unusual to raise from these Benches the question of Army pay, but the circumstances are exceptional. The Channel Islands are in my diocese, and I have a large number of friends both in the islands and among the islanders who are now in Great Britain, and, through correspondence and interviews, a difficulty has been brought before me repeatedly in connection with the allowances which are paid to families of men who are serving in the

675
Forces. In the last war a large number of men from the Channel Islands served in His Majesty's Forces, and in this war also from all the islands there have come a large number of men. I do not know the numbers; if I knew them it would be unfitting to give them.
For the purpose of this question these men may be divided into two groups. There are those who have their families on the mainland, and there are those whose families are left in the islands. There are the men who were able to arrange for the evacuation of their families before the islands were occupied by the Germans. They are relieved from any pressing anxiety about the safety of their wives and children. They are able to see them from time to time. They can correspond with them freely and they know that they receive the ordinary maintenance payment which is made to all those who are serving in His Majesty's Forces in accordance with certain conditions. I take only the case of a private: a private pays 1s. a day, 7s. a week. He receives maintenance allowance for his wife of 18s.; 7s. 6d. for the first child, 5s. 6d. for the second child, and 4s. for each subsequent child. But there are many who had to leave their wives and families in the islands. Your Lordships remember the stress and strain and to a certain extent the confusion at the time when the Germans were about to occupy these islands. Many of the men came away understanding that their wives and families would follow them almost immediately. I have no doubt it was firmly believed that this was possible. It has not proved possible, and though they are serving in the Forces many of them are in this island, and their wives and children are still in Guernsey, Jersey and Sark, and it is impossible for them to see them. Communication with them is most difficult. I wish something could be done to expedite communication with the Channel Islands. It takes longer for an answer to be received from a letter addressed to the Channel Islands—far longer—than to receive an answer to a letter addressed to a prisoner of war. It is quite true that a number of brief answers have been pouring in during these last weeks. Most of them are in reply to letters which were written months ago.
In addition to all these anxieties which these men have about their families in the Channel Islands, there is the financial anxiety. At first they found it impossible to receive for them any kind of family allowance, but last January the Government made an important concession by which 13s. a week was to be put aside and paid into an account for the men whose families remained in the islands. But it is from this that there arises a very real sense of grievance. Take two men, both of them islanders serving perhaps in the same battalion, with exactly the same number of family dependent upon them. There is a man with his wife and two children, and he has them in Great Britain. He receives £111s., but the unhappy man who has his family in the Channel Islands receives 13s. I am told also—and I know this is a fact—that many of the Channel Islanders have large families. A family of five children is nothing unusual in the Channel Islands. A man with a wife and five children who are in England receives £2 3s., a man with this family in the Channel Islands receives to his credit 13s. I do not think it is surprising that there is a sense of grievance about this.
Perhaps I might read a letter which I have received, but of course I cannot give the name of the writer, although I know him very well and know that he is a man serving in the Forces. He says:
"Men contribute in all cases roughly half their pay. It therefore follows that soldiers whose wives and families are in this country derive far greater benefit from the same contribution than do their unfortunate comrades, who, through no fault of their own, are separated entirely from their wives and children. Is this fair?"
This does cause a great deal of distress and anxiety. The men are terribly anxious as to what is happening about the maintenance of their families and what will happen at the end of the war. Probably two things are happening. In some cases the wife is using all the savings. The Channel Islander is prudent and saves, and the wife of such a man is quite naturally drawing upon all the savings that they have. Or the difficulty is met in another way. It is possible—this is not certain, although I see it was stated rather definitely as the case in one of our daily newspapers—for the States to know what the maintenance payment is. If the States—that is the Parliament of the Islands—are making this payment the difficulty is, that they are making it according to

677
Channel Island law—and I speak cautiously on this, and I think perhaps the Lord Chancellor might speak a little cautiously about Channel Island law. I understand that according to Channel Island law the money, if it has been paid by the States, will be demanded back from the man as soon as it is possible to make a demand, so that these men who are serving the Crown here are afraid that when they are able to go back to the islands they will find that all their savings have been spent and that the States are demanding repayment of the money which has been advanced to their dependents.
That is my case which I am putting before the War Office. I know there is another side, and that it is not quite so simple as I state it. There is not really discrimination especially against the Channel Islands. The War Office are applying a rule which applies to men who have their families anywhere in occupied territory or where they are outside the sterling group, and of course there is a very natural care that if you make an exception you will not know where to end making exceptions. Personally I am never afraid of making an exception to a rule, if it is an exception that does not start a dangerous precedent, and I venture to say that here is a case for an exception which does not start a dangerous precedent. I would say that the case is exceptional. Here you have men coming from islands which for nearly 900 years have shown unswerving loyalty and fidelity to the Crown, and therefore I think there is a case for having some exceptional treatment for him. It will also be said, I have no doubt quite correctly, that this allowance is paid to a man when he is maintaining his family and that it is impossible for the men who are separated from their families in this way to maintain them. But I would point out that they are separated from them through no fault of their own.
It will be said that it is impossible for money to reach them, that it is still quite uncertain what kind of treatment they are receiving, and what their actual financial position is, and that, as the money in any case could not reach them at the present time, it is very difficult for the War Office to lay down some new principle dealing with this particular case. Well, there may be great difficulties in dealing with the matter at the present
678
moment, but what I would venture to urge is that the Government should make such a sympathetic reply as to show to the men who are serving, and all those who are concerned with the islands, that when the war is over this matter will be given the most sympathetic consideration. What I would ask for is this. If you cannot at once put the men who have their families in the islands on the same basis—I wish you would—as the men whose families are in Great Britain, at any rate cannot you make some promise to them, give some reassurance that when the war is over the men whose families are left in the islands will not be. in a worse financial position than men whose families have been in Great Britain all the time?
I would end with rather a general observation. I know that a large number of the islanders are feeling that we do not always quite sufficiently realise the tragedy of their position. Amidst the many cares and interests of the war, it is not possible for us to concentrate our attention all the time on one particular aspect of it, but there are large numbers of the islanders who feel that perhaps we are not showing to them all the sympathy which they have a right to expect. I am quite certain all of us are deeply concerned about the islanders and that the Government and all of us are eagerly looking forward to the day when the islands will have their freedom restored to them, when those who are exiles will be able to return. If the noble Lord who is to reply can give a sympathetic answer.—I am certain he himself is most sympathetic in this matter—it will reassure and encourage large numbers of islanders with whom we have every sympathy. I beg to move.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that we understand very easily the concern of the right reverend Prelate in regard to these most loyal members of the British Empire who happen also to live within his diocese. I can assure him that it is our desire in every respect to be sympathetic because it has been a tragedy to us to realize how many of the wives and children of men who are already in this country are still left in these islands under enemy

679
occupation. I want, however, to stress, if I may, the particular principle on which we have to base our action. Family lodging allowance for officers and family allowance for soldiers are payments made to the personnel concerned by the State, towards the current cost of maintenance of the officer's or soldier's family. If, in fact, the officer or soldier is not maintaining his family, then the allowance is not paid. In the case of the Channel Islands and all the other cases where it is not possible to make remittances through normal channels because the family is in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, these allowances are not issuable. As a special concession, however, it has been agreed that a grant at a lower rate than the normal allowances may be given, which, together with allotments from the officer or soldier, shall be "banked" until such time as it is possible to release the accumulated sum—in the normal event after the war. This grant is in fact not a current maintenance payment but a grant made to meet special circumstances.
Finally, I want to make it quite clear that Channel Islanders whose families are still in the Channel Islands and all other British officers and soldiers whose families are in enemy-occupied territory are treated in exactly the same way as regards allowances. Even if it were possible to find some means whereby allowances could be paid to families in occupied territory, the payments would mean a loss of exchange to ourselves to the benefit of the enemy. I have seen in the papers a statement which suggests that where family allowances were in issue to soldiers' wives in the Channel Islands prior to the occupation by the enemy, payments equivalent to these allowances are being made. The source of the payment was not indicated, and I cannot confirm the statement. If payments are being made, and if any claim for recovery is eventually presented to the soldier, the War Office will take into account the fact that family allowance has been withheld. I will only say one thing further, and that is with regard to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate concerning the difference between two soldiers, one who has his family in the Channel Islands and the other who has his family in this country. One must take into account the fact that where the
680
soldier's wife and children did escape to this country, he undoubtedly will have to incur very considerable expenditure, which probably may exceed the difference in the allowance. I do not say that in any unsympathetic way, but we must realise that.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and especially for his statement that at the end of the war, if the local authorities in the Islands have been making these payments, the Government will take that circumstance into full consideration. I wish, of course, that he had been able to go further, but I am sure the Channel Islanders will appreciate his sympathetic reply. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOSPITAL RATIONS FOR MERCANTILE MARINE.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended to class merchant seamen as "Service" casualties or sick when undergoing hospital treatment and thereby place them upon an equality, as regards rations, with naval ratings; if not, what are the reasons for differentiating between seamen of the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy in this respect; and move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think it necessary to apologise to your Lordships for bringing up this subject again after an interval of only six weeks, because I judge from the sympathetic way in which you received my remarks on the previous occasion that you would not wish me to let the matter drop while the present state of things exists. On the previous occasion I connected with this question of the rations of merchant seamen under the Emergency Hospital Scheme their participation in the distribution of duty-free tobacco and cigarettes by the Red Cross and St. John organisations. On that particular point the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord were both courteous enough to inform me that that had now been allowed; so that matter is happily ended. The same happy result, however, has not materialised as regards rations.
I wish to make it quite clear, if I did not do so previously, that I am not alluding to the medical treatment received by merchant seamen in hospitals. I am perfectly sure that they get: exactly the same treatment as every other patient gets—that is, the best that physicians and surgeons can give them. But even physicians and surgeons have to deal with the material they get, and it they get two patients, one of whom is well fed and nourished while the other is the reverse, then the one who is better fed and nourished will recover sooner than the one who is under-nourished. Before I go further, I should like to tell your Lordships what are the differences in the rations, because they are not trivial but are very large. As regards meat, the Royal Naval rating receives in a week 2⅝ lbs., whereas the merchant seaman only receives 1s. worth of meat, which is less than 1 lb. As regards butter, the naval rating gets 10½ 0z., and the merchant seaman only 6 0z. The naval rating gets 1 lb. 8 0z. of sugar, and the merchant seaman only ½ lb. In the matter of bacon, the naval rating's ration is 9 0z., and the merchant seaman's 4 0z.
The noble Lord, Lord Croft, when he replied on a previous occasion, said that the Government were satisfied that both classes of patient were getting the food that current supplies allowed and that their medical condition required. In view of the figures which I have given I think ore can only come to the conclusion that one class of man is getting much too much, or the other much too little. I take it that before that statement was made the Government got the opinion of their medical advisers on this particular subject, but I think it will be agreed that we ought to have a unanimous opinion by medical men as to whether the merchant seaman is getting enough. Medical opinion is not unanimous. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read a short extract from a letter from a physician who gives up his spare time to caring for sailors of the merchant service. This is what he says:
"It has, during the past year, become increasingly clear that extra food allowances are highly desirable in the Seamen's Hospital, since a considerable number of my patients are admitted in a debilitated state as a result of long voyages and, in a certain number of cases, prolonged exposure in open boats. Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that no small number of the conditions which we
682
are called upon to treat are the outcome of faulty and deficient diet on board."
He also says:
"There is no doubt that the increased dietary offered by Service hospital rations would enable physicians and surgeons to get their sailor patients back into service more quickly."
It is a national need that these men should get well quickly. We are making a great drive through the country to get seamen, and it is a necessity that when these men are in hospital they should get back to work quickly. Merchant seamen have always been at a disadvantage in this respect. The merchant seaman's food has never compared well with that served to the man in the Royal Navy. The merchant seaman only gets just enough to satisfy the regulations, and it is badly cooked and not well served. In the Royal Navy the ratings get ample food, there is great variety, everything is of the first class. Officers are appointed to see that everything is first class, and cooks are trained to prepare and serve meals. I suggest that these men who are being stinted in this way are the men who have the hardest job of all in the war. Quite apart from the risks of war, their ordinary navigational risks are increased in such times as these.
Most people when they think of merchant seamen think of the men serving in some great liner in which they have had a joy ride. They never realise what life is like for men in the small ships. Just think of the conditions under which these men live. They spend practically the whole of their time on duty, and the only accommodation for them is in the forecastle, or in some cramped quarters. They cannot go home in the evening to their families. They cannot spend a couple of hours at the pictures. All they get by way of disturbance of their routine is some alarm which brings them up on deck whatever the weather. I suggest that whatever the danger may be of increasing these allowances for merchant seamen, even if it does set a precedent and lead other people to come forward with demands, we should put these men on a level with the ratings in the Royal Navy. Men who risk their lives to bring food to this country should not be stinted of that food when they become sick or are casualties as the result of the dangers to which they are exposed. The shores of the Seven Seas are now strewn with

683
the wreckage of boats in which British sailors either starved to death or perished from thirst. I suggest that men such as these who become sick or casualties should not be treated as outcasts, and should not be less well treated in the matter of food than men of the Royal Navy.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I feel sure that there are very few, if any, members of your Lordships' House who are not in entire sympathy with the Motion which has been moved so feelingly by the noble and gallant Earl who sits opposite. I hope it may be possible for the Minister of Food, when he replies, to tell us that he will do his utmost to ensure that in the future there will be no differentiation in the treatment, so far as rations in hospital are concerned, of the men of the two great Sea Services. From whatever angle it is viewed, it is unfortunate, to say the least, that there should be preferential treatment in any way, and I cannot but feel that the Minister of Food, who has done such wonderful work in his own Department under most severe strain and difficulties, must share this view with us. When we consider the type of work men of the Merchant Service are now doing, and the risks they are running in order to ensure that we get the food and munitions which we require, and in fact without which we could not live, it is inequitable that they should be treated less favourably than are naval ratings when they are sick.
As regards the difference in rations which the noble Lord quoted I have been at great trouble to find out whether or not that scale is correct, and I am informed that the difference in treatment is not great, that it is in respect of meat only, and that as regards other rations treatment is identical. With regard to meat, the naval rating is entitled to a ration of 2s. 4d. worth as against 1s. 2d. worth given to men of the Mercantile Marine. If my information is correct, one would imagine that the authorities of the hospitals could, by some system of pooling or averaging out, bring about an equality of rationing for both Services so that each of the seamen patients would receive the same. I hope that the Minister will take the necessary steps to see that this is done. At the same time, if a ration of 1s. 2d. worth of meat is sufficient
684
for the merchant seaman patient, which, I suppose, can be determined by the doctors in charge, surely it must be a sufficient ration for the naval rating patient, whose ration should, accordingly, be reduced to that level. If, on the other hand, the ration is considered by the medical profession to be insufficient for the sick or injured merchant seaman there should be an increase, if necessary at the expense of the civil population, who, I am sure, would willingly accept and bear such a burden.
I do not wish so much to lay stress on this particular difference in meat rationing; it is the general and important point of principle which I wish to emphasize. Our merchant seamen have not in the past received, and are not yet receiving, that: generous consideration and treatment at the hands of the Government which they undoubtedly deserve in view not only of their loyal and devoted service to the country, but also of the arduous and dangerous nature of their work. It is impossible for us to do too much towards repaying the debt which we owe to the Merchant Navy, and it is more than gratifying to know that the Government, in several instances, have decided to treat officers and men of the Merchant Navy in the same way as officers and men of the Royal Navy are treated, a notable example of this being the Merchant Navy War Pensions Scheme. I trust that this equality of treatment will be extended. I hope also that any improvement in the status of merchant seamen that has been introduced during the war will not be abandoned immediately hostilities cease. Praise and lip service are often given and given quite easily, and are just as easily forgotten, so that the men are not helped materially. I ask the Government to see to it that our ships and our seamen, who are so prominently in their minds during the war, shall have a no less prominent place in their thoughts in times of peace.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before a reply is given on behalf of the Government, may I just say a few words? I must apologise for addressing your Lordships twice in the same day, but my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Cork and Orrery begged me to support his Motion, and, knowing a great deal about him and about his past history, I gladly agreed to do so. It is indeed, as has been previously remarked, a wonderful thing

685
to see an Admiral of the Fleet pleading the cause of the merchant seamen with so much vigour, and he must have touched every heart. During the time that he was Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth he realized the importance of this question, and he went into it most thoroughly. If ever there was a case of a man knowing the subject of his speech from A to Z, we have it here to-day.
I support the noble Earl not only for that reason but also because I can, perhaps, put before the Minister of Food this thought: it is a mistake in a democratic country to fight a case which, as a Parliamentary case, is absolutely water-tight. As the noble Earl has said, there should not be this differentiation between these two classes of seamen, especially in time of war. I would suggest to the Minister of Food, who, if I may say so, is, I think, doing his job extraordinarily well, that he should at once say that there shall be no such differentiation, and that if there is any he will remove it. If he says that, the trouble will cease, but if he does not do so I can promise him that this is the kind of thing which will never be allowed to rest. I do not suppose that my noble and gallant friend who moved this Motion, having got his teeth into it, will ever let it go. If the Minister wants to sleep quietly in his bed, when he gets the chance to do so, as he deserves, let him accept this Motion. I know that it is wise and just and I would beg my noble friend opposite to accept it in principle and in fact.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Earl who raised this question for giving me an opportunity of removing what is apparently a misunderstanding. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for the Parliamentary advice which he has given me, and of which I am constantly in need, although not in this instance, for I have no intention of fighting a battle on this subject, and in any case I do not think that I should be anxious to fight a losing battle on a matter which was not one of principle. Who is there in this country who has more reason for gratitude than I have to the men of the Merchant Service for the work which they have done? It would have been quite impossible to feed the people of this country if it had not been for the heroic and persistent continuance in well-doing shown by the Merchant. Service.
686
The noble and gallant Earl, therefore, can have no doubt about whether he has my sympathy in the point of view which he has put forward. I hope, however, that he will acquit me of discourtesy when I say that he moved a little from the Motion which he put down when he spoke also about the feeding of the men when they are at sea and when they are well. I make that point merely because I have not, in view of the terms of the Motion, inquired into what are the conditions at present under which merchant seamen are working in the matter of food. All that I can say is that I have not heard of any complaints on the subject, and my Ministry is indeed one which has to have very wide open doors to complaints, and they have to be very large doors, because complaints pour in the whole time. If there are any complaints on that issue, I assure the noble and gallant Earl that I will very willingly and very speedily go into them.
Coming to the precise terms of the Motion, I am sorry to say that the noble and gallant Earl is a little behind the clock in the matter of the figures which he quoted. Until comparatively recently, there was a considerable difference between the rations of merchant seamen in hospital and those of naval ratings.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, those figures were handed to me by the secretary of the seamen's hospital this morning, as representing what he was allowed to do.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am sorry, but the truth is that with the consent of the First Lord of the Admiralty we altered the rations six weeks ago, when a large amount of publicity was given to the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, was correct when he said that the only difference which exists at the present time concerns the meat ration; in the case of all the other commodities which are rationed, the two Services are treated in precisely the same way. But let us come down to a purely factual level on this matter. People who are ill in hospital do not have their rations brought to them as individual cases; the rations go into the common pool of the hospital and each man gets what is necessary for him to have from the point of view of his medical attendant. If there is any shortage of food for merchant seamen, or for any other class of seamen

687
who are being treated in the hospitals of this country, I will without any hesitation secure that that is put right. I have had no such complaints.
I had one case brought to my notice by Mr. Cross when he was Minister of Shipping, when he asked me whether it would be possible to increase the rations at a certain hospital where people were being treated for fractures. In that case, as in all such cases, I secured medical advice from the most eminent body of medical opinion which is at the service of His Majesty's Government, the Medical Research Council, and they told me that there was no reason why people who were being treated for fractures should have any larger quantity of food than others who were being treated in hospital for other reasons; and on that account only I did not agree to the request which Mr. Cross made on behalf of that particular hospital.
The noble and gallant Earl has brought to our notice the opinion of one physician, whose view he respects, who says that these men are not getting enough to eat. If I thought that that was true I should indeed be very gravely concerned, but I have had no complaints or representations made to me from any of the hospital authorities on this subject. I have been assured that the rations are all right; but, if the noble and gallant Earl will permit me to say so, because he, with his very great reputation and the debt which we all owe to him, has brought this subject up in your Lordships' House, I have referred the whole question of the amount of food which is being used in hospitals which are treating merchant seamen once again to the Medical Research Council, and asked them to advise me whether it is sufficient. If in their opinion it is not sufficient, I will at once increase it. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said he was sure that civilians would willingly give up whatever was necessary. It is not necessary for them to do that; the amount of extra food which these men would want is quite insignificant in comparison with the general consumption in this country, and, if it is necessary, I will most willingly see that they get it. But, if I am advised on such eminent authority that it is not necessary, I hope that the noble and gallant Earl who has raised this
688
question will be satisfied that everything which ought to be done has been done for the people in whom he showed an interest which is so great, and an interest which I beg him to believe I share with him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have followed with much interest the reply which the noble Lord has given, but there is one point on which I am rather puzzled. I understand from what the noble Lord said that there is in practice no differentiation in hospital between the men in the Royal Navy and the merchant seamen as to what they get, if ordered by the doctor. I cannot understand, therefore, what is the purpose of keeping this nominal difference in rations, and why the men in the Royal Navy get—on paper—double the amount of meat that is given to the merchant seamen, who have precisely the same claims for consideration from the Government and from the whole country. Perhaps the noble Lord will say why this distinction is maintained.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that the answer to the question is that we are not taking any notice of the fact that people are in hospital? When a man who is a member of the Navy comes in, the hospital gets certain allowances. When a man who is in the Merchant Navy comes in the hospital gets certain allowances. We have avoided one of the most difficult and contentious subjects that surely ever could be raised, and that is the distinction between civilian workers who may claim that their work is more arduous and their need is greater. I do not know whether that reply will satisfy the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite see that, but the effect of the regulation on public opinion is another matter.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his sympathetic reply, but I feel in justification to myself I cannot agree with him. I have been on the board and am now Vice-Chairman of the Seamen's Hospital Society, which deals almost exclusively with seamen, and I received these figures only this morning from the secretary. I asked for them this morning so that: I should not make any misstatement to your Lordships' House. We have five hospitals and two convalescent homes,

689
and this information which the noble Lord says was widely advertised has not reached these hospitals. The opinion that I gave was by one of the members of the staff. It was endorsed by the senior physician, a very well-known physician who has for twenty-five years given up his time to look after seamen. With regard to feeding at sea, I merely introduced that in order to show that there was no chance of the merchant seaman being as fit as his brother in the Navy if he went into hospital. Our merchant seamen are not so well looked after at sea as they are in the Navy. We have in this group of hospitals two convalescent homes, and it makes a great difference whether we can get extra sugar and jam. The doctors maintain that if they could give better and more varied diet the men would be able to get back more quickly to their work. I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for the information on the particular point that now then: is going to be no discrimination in hospitals between Merchant Navy sailors and the Services. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ALLIED NATIONAL ANTHEMS.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, who decides which allied national anthems shall be played on Sunday evenings before the nine o'clock news; what is the reason why the Russian national anthem was no: played with the others on the evening of 29th June; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. If I might just remind your Lordships of the fact, it has been the pleasant custom of the British Broadcasting Corporation to play the anthems of the nations fighting with us against Nazi tyranny before the nine o'clock news on Sunday evenings. On June 22, at dawn, our Nazi enemies made a wanton and murderous attack on the territories of the U.S.S.R., and that evening the Prime Minister made his great speech over the ether in which, I venture to say, he gave a lead not only to the peoples of the Empire but to the whole world, declaring our firm resolve to fight with Russia to victory and to give all possible aid. With reassuring promptitude a British Military, Naval, and Economic
690
Mission was sent to Moscow, and I very much hope a Russian Mission is on its way here. It might be able to give us some badly-needed advice.
On June 29, the following Sunday, Herr Hitler having followed his usual practice of attacking a neighbour on a Sunday, the national anthems were played as usual, but the Russian national anthem was omitted. I happen to know that this created a great deal of surprise among a large number of people. Nor indeed was it played last Sunday. I submit that there are two hundred reasons for playing this anthem with the others, and they are the two hundred or so Russian divisions fighting at the present time against the enemies of mankind. I do not know what the official apologia is on this matter. I understand my noble friend Lord Snell will give the official reply, and he may argue that we have no formal alliance with Russia and therefore the Government of Russia is not an Ally. I have not heard of a formal alliance with the Government of Luxembourg, but I have been very glad to listen to the Luxembourg national anthem played over the ether. It may be argued that the national anthem of Russia, which is "The Internationale," is not a national anthem but an international song. It is perfectly true that some years ago it was fairly common for "The Internationale" to be sung at Labour Party gatherings in this country.
I have heard the present Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, singing it with great gusto and evident enjoyment. I have even heard, more than once, my noble friend Lord Snell singing it with great efficiency. If my noble friend Lord Addison had been here, T should remind him that I have seen him going through the motions of singing it. Apart from that, those of your Lordships who visited Russia in the post-revolutionary days will have good cause to know that it is indeed the national anthem of that country. It is played there on every possible occasion, much more frequently than we play the British national anthem here. One important exception was when my right honourable friend the present Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, visited Moscow before the war, and "God Save the King" was played. I understand that after the speech on the Russian wireless by M. Stalin a few days ago, the playing of "God Save the King" followed.
There may be another argument, and that is that the words of the anthem are objectionable. You can take certain words from their context in "The Marseillaise," and if you sent them to certain quarters in this country they would say without hesitation that they were subversive. Lord Swinton's Committee, for instance, if some of the words of "The Marseillaise" were brought to their notice without explanation, would say, "Who dare utter these sentiments?" It is only a little more than a hundred years since Englishmen were deported or imprisoned for singing "The Marseillaise." Many of the national anthems we hear with pleasure on Sunday evenings, especially those of countries constituting the Succession States of the old Austrian Empire, were born in revolutionary times, and if you read their words literally they may be rather disturbing, but they have become the recognised anthems of these States. I do not think that that argument is at all a sound one.
If we recognise the full implications of alliance, with its symbolic aspects of which, of course, this is one, it does not mean that we embrace the principles of Communism here, as the Prime Minister in his magnificent speech on June 22, pointed out. Noble Lords in your Lordship's House before the present war used to advocate a closer understanding with the Nazi Government, but I never heard it said that they were advocating the principles of Nazism in this country. I therefore venture to put this Motion on the Paper, which I beg to move, in order to explore the situation. I would ask my noble friend Lord Snell, who is responsible in a case of this kind? The only light I have found on the matter is a cutting from the Sunday Despatch of the 29th June. According to this, the enterprising editor had got in touch with the Foreign Office authorities and with the B.B.C., and both declined any responsibility, the B.B.C. saying that it was a matter for the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office saying that it was a matter for the B.B.C. If my noble friend tells me it is the Ministry of Information that is responsible, then I am very delighted to hear that the Ministry has been given some responsibility in at least one direction. Powever, it would be of interest to
692
know whose responsibility it is, and if my noble friend could explain why this particular anthem is left out, I, for one, would be grateful. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not propose to comment upon what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite, partly because in this Chamber it was almost as difficult to hear what he said as it was to see across it. No doubt there will be many opportunities of discussing it later on. I therefore only desire to ask one question, and that question is: Has this question on the Paper been put down at the request of the Soviet Government? I can hardly think that that is the case. I am inclined to believe it is due to what I might call the sympathy of the noble Lord opposite with his Soviet friends. In any case, I venture to suggest with great respect that the answer should be very carefully considered and not lead to any difficulties. It seems to me that at the present moment of all others, in view of the fact that Hitler is now trying to agitate the world against Bolshevism, it is a most urgent matter that we should not identify ourselves with Bolshevist principles or action generally. I am quite aware that this view has already been expressed by the Prime Minister, and I think it ought to be repeated upon the present occasion. No doubt there will be plenty of other occasions when the opportunity will arise for discussing this particular question.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Lord asked the general question as to who decided the anthems that were to precede the nine o'clock news on Sunday evenings. I will try to explain as shortly as I can precisely how these anthems have been selected and the reasons why some, at the present time, are left out. The playing of the national anthems of the Allies before the Home Service news at nine o'clock on Sundays began in the spring of 1940, when the only Allies involved were France and Poland. The Norwegian national anthem was added in April, 1940, the Dutch and Belgian in May, and the Czech national anthem in July, 1940, the Greek in October, that of Luxembourg in December, the Yugoslav in April, 1941, and the Ethiopian in May, 1941. The various countries were added as and when their Government refused to subject themselves to German

693
control. The Danish and Rumanian Governments have never fulfilled this condition, and consequently the national anthems of these countries have not been added to the list. The Czech national anthem began to be played as soon as the Government of Dr. Benes had been recognised by His Majesty's Government. In somewhat the same way the Ethiopian national anthem was not played, in spite of pressure to the contrary, until the Emperor actually re-entered Addis Ababa.
There have been other competitors for inclusion in the series. Those have included the "Star Spangled Banner," which I imagine all of us would welcome if we heard it, the national songs of the Dominions, and even those of England, such as "Rule Britannia," and those of Wales and of Ireland. The reasons why these have not been included are fairly obvious. There is first of all the time factor. The number of Allies has become so great that the time needed to play their anthems in full is considerable enough to run the risk of boring some listeners. Accordingly various suggestions have been considered, such as playing shortened versions of these anthems, a course which might give rise to some soreness on the part of the nationals concerned, and of playing only a few each week.
The responsibility, which the noble Lord asked about, the decision of policy in this matter, rests with the Ministry of Information, which, however, consults the Foreign Office where suitable, and feels obliged to follow its views, for example, as regards the playing of anthems of countries not officially allied to us. The question whether the playing of national anthems of a seemingly endless series of Allies, all the victims of Germany, exercises a depressing or a heartening effect, has been considered on several occasions by the Ministry, and on balance it has
694
been decided to retain the feature, at any rate for the present. The anthem of the U.S.S.R. was not played because, as was indicated in the Prime Minister's speech on June 22, the U.S.S.R. is not at present in the accepted sense of the word an Ally of this nation. That fact was recognised by the noble Lord in his opening remarks. I have no feeling about it myself other than if it were played I do not doubt I should feel my usual thrill of satisfaction at hearing it.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend. Your Lordships will agree he has given us some very interesting information. I thank him and I am sure your Lordships would wish me to thank him on behalf of the House. I do hope that these national anthems, whatever the decision may be about Russia, will not be dropped, because I have reason to believe they are a very popular feature. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, I think was trying to enliven our rather hot proceedings this afternoon by a little joke when he suggested that this question had been inspired by the Russian Government. Of course it had nothing whatever to do with any outside source at all. The only person consulted when this question was put down was my noble friend Lord Addison, whom I always consult before putting down any Motion, and he immediately agreed. However, I dare say my noble friend Lord Newton did not seriously intend what he said. As for alliances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I before very long will be walking together in Unter den Linden, and we can then cheer Russian and British tanks going in procession down that great thoroughfare. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.