Sitting of 17 June 1941

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.
PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. Leslieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the unanimous recommendation from the administrative and technical representatives of the Whitley Council of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland that, in the best interests of the State, and for the better co-ordination of administration, it is desirable that the filling up of the vacancy in the post of chief technical officer to the Department should not be delayed any longer; and at what decision he has arrived?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood):This question was considered in March, 1940, when my predecessor stated that the arrangements then existing worked well in practice. My right hon. Friend has now reviewed the position and is satisfied that no change is called for in present circumstances.
  Mr. Leslie: Seeing that this was the unanimous recommendation of the staff on a matter of vital importance to Scottish agriculture, will my hon. Friend be good enough to give the reasons why he could not accede to this request?
  Mr. Westwood: That would take too long to be dealt with at Question Time, but executive decisions must be taken by the Government and do not necessarily follow recommendations made by any outside authority.
  Mr. Kirk wood: Arising from the original reply, I would like to ask, seeing that the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was Under-Secretary of State, made great play about the amount of bracken to be found in Scotland, whether the hon. Gentleman will put before the right hon. Gentleman now that he should use all his power to see that as far as possible bracken is eradicated from the hills and dales of Scotland?
  Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: This is a matter of practice, but will he not also consider it from the point of view of principle?
  Mr. Westwood: We have considered it from the point of view of principle, and if there was any case at any time for the appointment of a technical officer, there is less of a case to-day, due to changes that have taken place since.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman put the point I have raised before the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Mr. Westwood: Without hesitation, although it does not arise out of the original Question.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    RAILWAY WAGONS.
    Captain Lyonsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet completed arrangements with the Minister of War Transport to ensure the prompt clearing of coal wagons in sidings by coal merchants, and others, both in towns and rural areas?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): Yes, Sir, and the figures of clearance show that there has been progressive improvement in this matter since the beginning of the year.
    Captain Lyons: Subject to war circumstances, can the hon. Gentleman say what steps will be taken to safeguard the position as compared with a year ago?
    Mr. Grenfell: If by a year ago my hon. Friend means last winter, there has been some improvement. I cannot guarantee that it will be maintained, but there is an abundant supply of empty wagons at the present time, and there is likely to be for some time.
    Mr. Maclean: Considering that in some places coal is being sold at 3s. a hundredweight and that prices above that figure are due to the cost of freightage, can he not have something done in regard to cheapening the cost of transport?
    Mr. Grenfell: I cannot do that.
    Mr. Levy: Is my hon. Friend aware that unless something is done with regard to the distribution of coal, it will not be long before some munition factories have to close down?

    MAN-POWER.
    Captain Lyonsasked the Secretary for Mines, in view of the position of coal supplies and distribution, what arrangement or co-ordination exists between his department and the Ministry of National Service and the War Office for the utilisation in the industry of persons normally employed therein and recommended for retention by him.
    Mr. Grenfell: Reservation from service in the Forces, or deferment of calling-up for the Forces, is regulated by general principles which are decided after general discussion between all the Departments concerned. As regards release of individual men already in the Forces, the Department responsible for their industry may make recommendations, but the final decision rests with the Service concerned.
    Captain Lyons: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any power at all, in cases where he thinks the retention of a man is fundamentally important to the national interest, to take a stand and get the matter adjusted, or is he going to leave the wastage of man-power entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Labour and National Service?
    Mr. Grenfell: I have already given the answer that the final decision does not rest with me.
    Captain Lyons: Has not the hon. Gentleman sought any powers in this matter, because there is wastage in this nationally fundamental industry?
    Mr. Grenfell: I have made recommendations, but I am not responsible for the balance of general considerations, and there are other considerations which might outweigh the recommendation I make.
    Captain Lyons: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in a case which he knows of where the excuse was given that the man was wanted for motor-driving service and in which he satisfied himself that that was quite inaccurate, he had any power to take any steps in the matter whatever?

    RESERVES.
    Captain Lyonsasked the Secretary for Mines what steps he is taking to supplement the coal reserves for the coming winter in view of experiences in preceding winters and the chaos then existing; and whether he is now satisfied that he has all reasonable powers to conserve labour in coal-getting and coal distributing in the requirements of the national interest?
    Mr. Grenfell: The House is already aware of the Government's plans to accumulate large stocks of coal throughout the country, mainly in the hands of consumers but also in merchants' yards and in Government-owned dumps. The fulfilment of this programme depends almost entirely on the necessary increase in output. The House has also recently approved financial arrangements enabling the Essential Work Order to be applied to the mining industry. On other aspects of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer to Question No. 4.
    Captain Lyons: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is quite powerless in the matter, because unless he gets some real authority to take a firm stand, this chaotic position will arise year after year?
    Mr. Levy: Is my hon. Friend aware that some action should be taken—his Reply theoreticaly is just wonderful, but in practice it does not work out—and that the building-up of coal reserves is absolutely necessary? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask whether the industry will not very much welcome this new interest in the mining industry shown by people who have shown no interest in it for over 20 years?
    Captain Lyons: Is not that a highly irrelevant and objectionable remark?

    MINE ACCIDENT, KELTY.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to

    459
    make on the fatal accident at the Lindsay Pit, Kelty?
    Mr. Grenfell: I regret to say that five men—three of whom lost their lives—were buried by a large fall of top coal in a 10-feet seam known as the Lochgelly Splint Seam. The face, which was only started about a fortnight before the accident occurred, was supported by props, bars and wooden pillars—a system which had worked satisfactorily in two neighbouring faces in the same seam; but that system having proved inadequate in certain special conditions which arose on the new face, it must be strengthened, and that is being done. The House will join with me in expressing our sympathy with the families and friends of the men who were killed.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in spite of all that has been said and all the efforts that have been made to provide safety, fatalities are occurring with terrible regularity in the mines, and will he not, in order to take the necessary fundamental steps to get greater safety, forthwith take the mines out of the hands of the profit-making mine-owners?
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing at all to do with this Question.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

    SUPPLIES AND DISTRIBUTION.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in the Bourton-on-the-Water district merchants had only sufficient coal to supply their registered customers one week with ½cwt., and another week with 1½ cwts., while the Country Gentlemen's Association was able to send two trucks of coal, containing more than 20 tons, to one customer, and another firm also sent a truckload to another customer; and whether, until supplies become adequate, he will consider placing some limitation on what favoured customers shall receive?
    Mr. Grenfell: In order to ensure a more equitable distribution of the available supplies, restrictions on delivery have now been imposed in this area and measures taken to control the disposal of truckloads;
    460
    I am glad to say that the latest figures indicate some improvement in the supplies position.
    Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Member see. that at all times when supplies are short distribution is as equal as possible?
    Mr. Grenfell: That is being done. The hon. Member can rest assured that I took up that matter a very long time ago.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary for Mines, whether, in view of the closing down a few months ago of two seams of the Haunchwood Colliery in Warwickshire, and the closing of the Tam- worth Colliery at the end of the present month, he has made any special arrangements to ensure the supply of coal to the counties of Berks, Bucks and Oxon, which have been hitherto supplied from War wickshire, and in which there are now serious fears of a shortage of coal?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, and I am glad to say that the latest reports indicate some improvement in the position in this area. We shall continue to give special attention to its needs.
    Sir A. Knox: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last year—he may remember the many letters I wrote to him—conditions in that area were very bad, and will he do his best to see that such a state of affairs does not arise again?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am sure it will be of comfort to my hon. and gallant Friend to know that the receipts of merchants now exceed their disposals, and that at the present time stocks are rising.
    Sir John Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the requirements of local consumers in Warwickshire will also receive full consideration?
    Mr. Grenfell: There is a further Question on the Order Paper on that subject.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary for Mines whether there is yet any improvement in the quantity of household coal available for the citizens of Coventry?
    Mr. Grenfell: The latest figures available for this area show a slight increase in supplies and a slight decline in demand. The position continues to receive the special attention of the Department's local officers.
    Captain Strickland: Arising out of that answer, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable part of the hold-up is due to the totally inadequate supply of road transport to convey this coal, and that the working of the pool transport is exceedingly unsatisfactory, the wagons not being available to start work in many cases until 10.30 in the morning?
    Mr. Grenfell: I know there are shortcomings in transport even yet in certain areas, due to special cases, but I can assure my hon. Friend that supplies do for the moment exceed demand.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary for Mines what progress there has been with the plans being made by his Department and the Minister of Labour for improving the output of coal in the Warwickshire district?
    Mr. Grenfell: The general situation in the mining industry and the steps that are being taken to increase output were reviewed in the course of the Debate in the House on 28th May. Since that date arrangements have been made for a special survey of all men registered as unemployed coal miners with a view to the re-employment of all suitable men. It is also hoped to secure the return to the industry of a number of men who have left it to go into other industries.
    Captain Strickland: Is the Minister aware that the country is getting sick and tired of these constant references to a survey that is going to take place, and that this shortage has existed for over 12 months and no adequate effort has been made to deal with it?
    Mr. Grenfell: The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that I have myself pressed this matter as strongly as anyone can, and that, in answer to a previous Question, I said that other Departments were involved and that the final decision does not lie with me.
    Captain Strickland: Can we rely on the hon. Gentleman to place before the Cabinet this great need, in order to get concerted action?
    Mr. Grenfell: I can give that assurance, because I have already done so.
    Sir J. Mellor: Last week the hon. Gentleman referred to plans, not to surveys. What plans has he?
    Mr. Grenfell: The plans have been published. There is a specification of them. They are known to this House.
    Sir A. Knox: Is there any real prospect of increasing the number of men in the mines?
    Mr. Grenfell: I hope so.
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary for Mines what quantity of coal was exported from the Warwickshire area in the month of May, 1941; and whether this coal was unsuited for household use in the Coventry district?
    Mr. Grenfell: While it is undesirable to give precise figures, speaking in general terms, rather less than one-third of the production of the Warwickshire coalfield is sent outside the immediate area, and a considerable part of this is suitable for house coal. The tonnage despatched to other areas, however, is substantially less than it used to be.
    Captain Strickland: Is the Minister still aware of the great shortage of coal in this district and of the need to retain a great proportion of household coal, and of the great difficulty that the industrialists of Coventry are having in getting coal supplies?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am fully aware of conditions throughout the country, but the hon. and gallant Member will not claim that Warwickshire should be a separate economic department in the country.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that much of the bad coal production arises from the sabotage of the coal owners, who refuse to have the industry treated as a national industry?
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Maclean: On a point of Order. Is it out of Order to make a reference of that kind?
    Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Maclean: May I state my point of Order?
    Mr. Speaker: I know what it is.
    Mr. Maclean: You cannot know what it is until I have stated it.
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard enough of it to know that it is not a point of Order.
    Mr. Maclean: I want to deal with alleged sabotage by workers.
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about sabotage by workers in this Question.
    Mr. Gallacher: Am I not in Order in raising the fact that the mineowners will not allow the mining industry to be treated as a national industry, but insist on treating it as a county industry?
    Mr. Speaker: Certainly not, on this Question.

    IDLE PITS, WHIT MONDAY.
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Secretary for Mines, whether he. is aware that though the miners in Northumberland decided to work on Whit Monday the Choppington Coal Company refused to allow the men at three collieries to work on that day; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a repetition of this action?
    Mr. Grenfell: I am aware that these three pits were idle for one day during the week ended 7th June. I am in communication with the colliery company in the matter, and will let the hon. Member know the result.
    Mr. Taylor: As the Minister is aware, when a man avoidably loses a day under the bonus system he loses 6s. for that week. In making his inquiry, should he not determine what the penalty should be for a company which deliberately makes 1,500 men idle and loses 2,000 tons of coal in one day?
    Mr. Grenfell: All I can say is that I am making my inquiries. I very much deplore the fact that when men offer themselves for work an employer does not give them the chance.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Should not steps be taken to compel a company to work its pits?
    Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister put the House in possession of the facts when he has them?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, I will do that if the House desires me to do so.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CLOTHES RATIONING.
    Sir William Davisonasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether
    464
    he will consider the provision of extra clothing coupons for women in the London Auxiliary Ambulance Service who are not provided with uniform by the Government and have to provide suitable clothing for wearing while on duty from their ordinary supply of clothing coupons?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): I understand that a uniform coat provided coupon-free through the Government is already available for members of the London Auxiliary Ambulance Service and improved uniforms will be provided, as already announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security. The arrangements to be made regarding coupons for uniform clothing concern many services and are under consideration. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Sir W. Davison: Am I to understand that it will not be necessary for women in this Service to wear their own clothing when doing the very dirty work they have to do at night in garages?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give a specific answer until I know what the uniform provided by the Government will be.
    Mr. de Rothschild: When the right hon. Gentleman publishes these details, will he not forget the evacuated children under the care of foster-mothers throughput the country?
    Mr. Hannahasked the President of the Board of Trade the position in the rationing of clothes about expectant mothers securing cloth and wool for making garments for their babies?
    Dr. Edith Summerskillasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue extra coupons to expectant mothers for the purpose of purchasing wool and material for making the layette?
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether on receipt of a note from a doctor or an infant welfare centre, he will grant extra coupons to the expectant mother, so that she can get the necessary wool to knit the baby outfit, etc.?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have agreed in principle to make a concession to enable ex-

    465
    pectant mothers to obtain additional supplies of coupons. The details are being worked out, but there are great difficulties of administration, and I am afraid that it will not be possible to make an immediate announcement.
    Mrs. Adamson: Will the Minister make the announcement as soon as possible, in order to save expectant mothers from worry and suffering?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The announcement will be made as soon as I can get the details worked out.
    Mr. Silkinasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made for the supply of rationed clothing to persons whose clothing has been destroyed by enemy action prior to the introduction of rationing but who had not actually clothing on order at that time.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The arrangements whereby the Board of Customs and Excise and the Assistance Board may issue coupons to persons whose clothing has been destroyed cover the cases mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Will people whose clothing has been destroyed receive payments under the chattels scheme, so as to be In a position to buy the clothes authorised by these coupons?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Where they are insured, they are entitled to have their claims met.
    Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a case the other day in which payment was refused because it was not considered desirable for a bombed person to buy any more clothes?
    Mr. Lyttelton: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars, I will look into the case.
    Mr. Silkinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give consideration to the granting of a limited number of coupons for rationed clothing to men and women in the Forces who desire to wear civilian clothing when on leave.
    Captain Duncanasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has now issued instructions regarding the issuing of clothing coupons to officers and other ranks serving in the
    466
    Army, to personnel of the Auxiliary Territorial Service and to members of the Auxiliary Services; and how many coupons each of the above categories will receive yearly.
    (2), how many clothing coupons will be issued yearly to newly-commissioned officers and to officers and men on discharge, respectively, in view of the special needs of these two categories of persons.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The question of the arrangements for the issue of clothing coupons to officers, cadets and other ranks of the Services, including the A.T.S., the W.R.N.S. and the W.A.A.F., is receiving detailed consideration in conjunction with the Service Departments. In the meantime, as a temporary measure, officers may obtain supplies of rationed goods by signing a statement on the back of the trader's bill that the articles mentioned represent their essential personal requirements, and other ranks can get supplies by producing a statement signed by their commanding officer and testifying that the goods represent essential personal requirements of types not supplied to them by the authorities. Officers and other ranks recently discharged or temporarily released from the Services should apply by post to the nearest collector of Customs and Excise for extra coupons for any essential articles of civilian clothing they may require. Officers and men on leave will normally be able to use the civilian clothing which they already possess, and I regret that the supply position would not permit the purchase of new civilian clothing.
    Major Milner: Will it be permissible for the adjutant to decide, as is usual, on behalf of the commanding officer?
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the position of suppliers of clothing in certain areas, who are at present meeting a concentrated demand which would normally have been met by stores no longer in business; and whether he will consider increasing the basic rations to such suppliers so that coupons presented may be met?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The problem stated by the hon. Member is mainly one of obtaining a larger distribution of goods to the smaller and medium sized shops, and

    467
    special arrangements have been made to encourage wholesalers and manufacturers to divert supplies to these shops from the larger concerns which are in general well stocked. These initial supplies will not require the surrender of coupons by the retailer.
    Mr. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this Question relates to areas where there has been considerable destruction? Will he make further inquiries?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly; we have made special arrangements in bombed areas. If I am given instances of cases where those arrangements are not working, I shall be glad to know of them, and I will take special measures.
    Mr. Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the adoption of a point rationing system for clothing in Germany resulted in a concentrated demand for the most durable articles and the accumulation of masses of unsaleable articles of less durable and cheaper character; and whether he is taking steps to prevent a similar development in this country?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. The tendency towards more durable articles is not, of course, one to be discouraged. I am considering the problem of articles which may have been rendered unsaleable, in consultation with the clothing and footwear trades.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the appointment of a committee, jointly representative of employers and workpeople, to advise him as to the need for the issue of supplementary coupons for occupational clothing?
    Mr. Mortasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the effect of the Clothes Rationing Order upon men engaged in the steel and tinplate industries will be such that they will not be able to replace their working boots and clothes on the number of coupons allowed; and what steps he is taking to remedy this grievance?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I recognise that workers in certain industries may require more clothing and footwear than the annual
    468
    ration of 66 coupons permits, and discussions are now taking place with representatives of the industries concerned, including the workers.
    Mr. Shinwell: Did not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate any of these difficulties when he prepared his scheme, and does not it occur to him that he is making so many exceptions now that there will be precious little left of the scheme itself?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot accept that statement for one moment. Some of these arrangements required special investigation which could only be made after the event.
    Sir Granville Gibsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in connection with the Rationing of Clothes Order, a brochure, entitled "Notes to Traders" was issued; that on page 5, Section 22, retailers are requested to take coupons in parcels containing 500 coupons to the Post Office and exchange them for vouchers; why two firms, each presenting 10,000 coupons to the General Post Office at Leeds, were informed they could not be accepted as they knew nothing about any arrangements for the exchange of coupons for vouchers and had received no instructions to receive them; who has been guilty of this lack of foresight in not making the necessary arrangements; and whether the Post Office have yet been advised to issue vouchers in exchange for coupons?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I regret that it was not made clear in the "Notice to Traders" that vouchers exchangeable for coupons were not immediately available for issue. A notice was issued in the Press to that effect on 7th June, and traders were asked to defer applications to post offices until 16th June. Vouchers should now be obtainable in exchange for coupons at all the larger post offices.
    Sir G. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend state who is responsible for this lack of foresight?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Board of Trade.
    Mr. Gallacher: Are there no penalties to be attached?

    EXPORT LICENCES.
    Mr. Hannahasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he realises

    469
    that: certain firms which, in accordance with the Government's policy of stimulating exports, have sent travellers to tropical America and elsewhere to explore the possibility of demand for their products with encouraging results, are now granted no special consideration in the allotment of export licences with the result that the fruits of their efforts are likely to be lost to the commercial rivals of this country; and will he see that progressive firms striving to discover new markets for British goods are given every support. by the Government?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Much as I appreciate the efforts of these firms and regret the hardship which a selective policy in exports undoubtedly entails, I fear my hon. Friend's suggestion is not practicable, since it would involve discrimination which would be unfair to other sections of the export trade. Our export policy at present has to be governed by the considerations set oat in the statement which I made on 29th April.
    Mr. Hannah: Are the Government aware that a Bilston firm, at great difficulty and expense, obtained an order for heat-resisting glass in tropical America, in accordance with the Government's scheme for boosting exports, and that now an export: licence is refused?
    Mr. Lyttelton: War brings changes.
    Sir Granville Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the end of last year very large orders were obtained in Lima, Peru, and that those goods are lying in this country at the present time, waiting for the exporters to get a licence? Will my right hon. Friend grant special facilities for the liquidation of those orders?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That has already been done.

    CIGARETTES (SUPPLIES TO WOMEN).
    Mr. Silkinasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some tobacconists are refusing to supply women with cigarettes; and whether he will take steps to prevent this sex discrimination?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think that discrimination of the kind to which the hon. Member refers is taking place on a wide scale or that any special steps are needed.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that action of this kind is rather a reflection upon men, as it is suggested that they need tobacco to soothe their nerves and women do not?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIP TRANSFERS.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Ship ping how many ships have changed hands between British owners since the outbreak of war, giving pre-war and present values; and on what basis Government charters are arranged?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin): From the outbreak of war up to 31st May, 1941, sanction was given to the transfer of 229 ocean-going and coasting registered British ships from one British owner to another under the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act. This figure does not include vessels of other descriptions, such as fishing vessels, tugs, barges, yachts, etc. As regards the second part of the Question, ships purchased after 8th May, 1940, to replace lost British ships to which the Government Tonnage Replacement Scheme applies, are dealt with in accordance with the terms of the Scheme, of which details will be found in Appendix 2 of the Memorandum on war-time Financial Arrangements between His Majesty's Government and British Ship owners (Cmd. 6218). As regards the last part of the Question, by hon. Friend will find information about the charterparty conditions applicable to requisitioned British ships in the same Memorandum.

    SHIPBUILDING COSTS.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he can indicate the average cost per ton for building cargo vessels, and the price at which ships have changed hands during the last year?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I have been asked to reply. The cost per ton of new merchant construction varies considerably according to the speed, size and equipment of the vessel concerned. It is not, therefore, possible to strike an average cost per ton which would have any significance. I can, however, say that the

    471
    general level of prices for cargo vessels completed to Government account up to the end of 1940 is about 16 per cent, above the prices prevailing in April, 1939. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer to a similar Question addressed by him to my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping.

    SHIP REPAIRING.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill (for Mr. David" Adams)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether, at the port of which he has been advised, steps are now being taken to augment the. personnel at the repairing yards with a view to ending the undue detention of merchant vessels?
    Colonel Llewellin: Efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, through the appropriate authorities, to hasten the repair of ships at the port referred to by my hon. Friend.

    CHINESE SEAMEN (WAR BONUS).
    Dr. Summerskill(for Mr. David Adams)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he has satisfactorily settled the controversy which has arisen over the non payment to Chinese seamen of the full war bonus accorded to seamen of Aryan descent?
    Colonel Llewellin: As has been previously stated, rates of pay, including bonuses, are not a matter for determination by the Minister. The Minister of Shipping discussed the question very fully with the then Chinese Ambassador before the latter left this country. I am glad to say that there have been no recent difficulties with Chinese crews in this country.

  UNITED STATES (FREEZING OF ASSETS).
  Mr. Hammersleyasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in respect of the recent agreement between Martinique and the United States of America, he has made arrangements with the United States of America to prevent the proceeds of the sale of French dollar assets being exported to France?
  The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): This agreement provides that limited amounts of French dollar assets held in the United States of America may be released for the purchase in the American continent of goods which are urgently needed for the domestic requirements of the French West Indian Islands, on condition that they are not re-exported. French assets in the United States have been subject to a freezing order by the United States Government since 17th June, 1940, and hon. Members will, I am sure, have read with great satisfaction the decision by the United States Government to apply a similar freezing order to all German and Italian assets in the United States.
  Mr. Hammersley: Do I take it from that reply that, while my right hon. Friend is aware of the possibility of leakage via France to Germany, he is satisfied that the new arrangement will cover all cases?
  Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am quite satisfied that in this particular case the United States authorities will take great care of this matter. There are naval patrols in the neighbourhood of these islands, and I think there will be no leakage.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SEARCHLIGHT OFFICER.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War the age and previous searchlight experience of the officer who was appointed to command a Surrey Anti-Aircraft Searchlight Regiment on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been informed, in April, 1940; what period had elapsed since this officer had been employed actively; and also how his age compared with the officer whom he superseded?
    The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): The officer in question, an able and experienced gunner officer, was 59 years of age at the time of his appointment. Six years had elapsed since his last active employment, and he was six years older than his predecessor. Lack of practical experience in searchlights, however, showed that, in spite of his many admirable qualities, the officer should not have been appointed to this particular post, and he was in fact relieved of his command after a tenure of two months.

    ANKLETS.
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of hygiene and comfort, he will allow soldiers to dispense with the web anklets during the summer months when off duty?
    Captain Margesson: I have no reason to think that, in general, the wearing of anklets is detrimental either to the soldier's health or to his comfort, but instructions will be issued shortly permitting anklets to be dispensed with by soldiers attending a dance.
    Dr. Summerskill: While I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that small concession, does he not agree that on a day such as to-day soldiers, who are marching in thick socks, heavy boots and thick trousers bound round by anklets, should be given some relief from wearing these anklets apart from when they are dancing?
    Captain Margesson: My information is that which I have given in the Answer today, but I will naturally keep my eye on the position.
    Mr. Kirk wood: Give them kilts.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS (COMPENSATION).
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now decided what compensation will be paid to the widow of William J. Seals, who was killed by an Army lorry driven on the wrong side of the road and without lights, during an air-raid in Portsmouth; and whether, in view of other prosecutions of Army drivers by the civil authorities for driving without lights in similar circumstances to the danger of the public, he will take appropriate steps to prevent such incidents?
    Captain Margesson: A letter was sent to Mrs. Seals on 3rd June explaining that, while the War Department could not accept any liability in this case, they would be willing to consider a claim for an ex-gratia grant on compassionate grounds. A reply to this letter is now awaited. As regards the second part of the Question, the question of lighting on War Department vehicles during air-raids is at present under review, and further instructions will be issued shortly.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that ex-gratia payment means something just for expenses and no more?
    Captain Margesson: That may be so, but in this case the War Office do not admit liability.
    Captain Strickland: If this man had been a civilian driver, would he have been treated with the same consideration as an Army driver?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir, with exactly the same consideration.
    Mr. Silverman: If on the facts stated in the Question the War Office do not admit liability in this case, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us upon what facts the War Office would accept liability?

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Messerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt by members' of the Home Guard at the decision to charge those who attend the week-end training camp at Chigwell 12s.; whether he is aware of the strong resentment felt by officers and non-commissioned officers at the interference by senior officers in the holding of meetings; and what steps he is taking to remedy the grievances?
    Captain Margesson: No charge is made for attendance at approved courses of instruction for the Home Guard. The course to which my hon.: Friend refers was started on an unofficial basis by members of the Home Guard themselves who fixed the charge of 12s. to cover their expenses. The course has now been put on an official footing, however, and the charge has accordingly been abolished. As regards the second part of the Question, I do not know what meetings my hon. Friend has in mind, but, if he will let me have particulars, I shall be very glad to look into the matter.

    WAR DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS (FIRE SERVICE).
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although the Fire Watching Order was issued in the middle of January by the Ministry of Home Security the Army Council's instructions applying the Order to War Department buildings was not

    475
    issued until the middle of May; and whether he will assure the House that the lack of co-operation between the War Office and another Government Department, shown in this case, will not be repeated?
    Captain Margesson: I am aware that there was some delay in issuing these instructions, although it was not so great as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, but it should not, of course, be assumed that in the meantime no arrangements for fire prevention had in fact been made at premises occupied by the War Department. The issue of comprehensive instructions that would cover the many types of building in occupation by military or civilian personnel of the War Department, by the Home Guard or by Territorial Army Associations, was necessarily a matter of some complexity, and this factor rather than any lack of co-operation between Government Departments was largely responsible for the delay.
    Captain Duncan: As my right hon. and gallant Friend admits there was lack of co-operation, will he see that this sort of thing does not happen again?
    Captain Margesson: I want to make it perfectly clear that there was no lack of co-operation. There was delay, and one wants to do everything one can to see that delays do not recur. As I have said, I want the House to understand that there was no lack of co-operation.
    Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins:Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in the case of private houses in residential areas being requisitioned for the military, orders are issued to the occupiers to co-operate with the civilian authorities in their district?
    Captain Margesson: I should like to see that Question on the Paper.

    MEDALS, 1914–8 WAR.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the disappointment among men who served in the Forces during the 1914–18 war, in capacities not carrying the right to wear ribbons, at his decision not to grant a special medal-ribbon; and whether he will consider the issue of a ribbon, marked 1914–18, to satisfy their desire of recognition?
    Captain Margesson: The question of the grant of medals for service during the last war was very fully considered after the conclusion of hostilities, and it was decided that with one small exception such awards should be confined to those who served overseas. The difficulties which led to the refusal of a medal for home service generally have certainly not diminished with the passage of time, and it is clearly impracticable for me to re-open the matter now.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this small concession of allowing these men to have a label "1914–18" on their chests, if they so desired, would give them pleasure and satisfaction, and does he still persist in believing this is undesirable?
    Captain Margesson: After the long lapse of time, I do not think we can re-open the question, which has been gone into very fully during the last 20 years.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the telegram from the International Red Cross at Geneva, stating their inability to deal with the number of parcels received, he will press for the appointment of a British representative at Geneva to look after the interests of our men?
  Captain Margesson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to a telegram of 2nd May in which the International Red Cross Committee reported that certain camps in Germany were receiving more parcels than they required. I do not consider that this telegram affords any ground for re-opening the question of appointing a special representative at Geneva in addition to the existing organisation provided by the International Red Cross Committee.
  Sir A. Knox: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that many camps are not receiving enough parcels and that the telegram referred to the congestion at Geneva? Does not Mr. Stanley Adams press for the appointment of a British representative at Geneva?
  Captain Margesson: The question of a British representative and other repre-

  477
  sentatives at Geneva was most carefully gone into by the representative of the International Red Cross, and the Red Cross Society, and, as I said in reply to a Question a month ago, the matter was pretty evenly balanced, and on the whole we felt that the interests of prisoners were better served in this case than if an appointment were made.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War, whether German prisoners of war in Britain receive parcels from home, or whether they are completely clothed and adequately fed by His Majesty's Government; and whether he will represent through the protecting Power that British issues to German prisoners will be in future dependent on evidence that German issues to our men in Germany are, at any rate, in accordance with the scale laid down by German regulations?
  Captain Margesson: A small number of parcels are received from Germany by German prisoners of war in this country. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Prisoners of War Convention, 1920. requires the detaining Power to provide adequate clothing and a food ration equivalent in quantity and quality to that of the detaining power's depot troops, and His Majesty's Government have fulfilled their obligations in this respect. As regards the suggestion in the second part of the Question, strong representations have been made to the German Government whenever there has been evidence that their obligations under the Convention are not being fulfilled, but the precise form which any further representations may take must be decided in the light of the information regarding conditions in the camps in Germany which may then be available.
  Sir A. Knox: Has not information been received that the Germans do not act up to their own regulations? For instance, none of our men receive any leather footwear during the winter, and a large number are still in the clothes in which they were captured.
  Captain Margesson: That is true. The question of leather footwear was the subject of strong representations from this country to the Protecting Power.

  ENEMY AIRCRAFT LOCATION (APPARATUS).
  Mr. de Rothschildasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent speech by the Canadian Minister for National Defence in which he referred to a device for the detection of enemy aircraft; and whether he has any statement to make on this subject?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. Thanks to the brilliant work of our scientists, great progress has been made in devising means of helping the Fighting Services in their task of locating and destroying the enemy. This contributed in no small measure to our victory in the Battle of Britain last autumn, and there have since been developments of high promise in many directions. Our industries are now turning out increasing quantities of ingenious apparatus which, for its maintenance and repair, demands large numbers of skilled men, especially radio mechanics. Training in this work is being given by the Fighting Services, assisted by the universities and technical colleges throughout the country. The Dominions and other parts of the Empire are also helping us. Canada, in particular, is organising powerful aid. Our need for these craftsmen is increasing rapidly, and we want more and more of them. My noble Friend the Minister of State will therefore broadcast in the Empire programme to-night a special invitation to men overseas with technical experience to come forward and help us in the maintenance and repair of the new equipment which is now passing into the hands of the Services and thus join their skill and knowledge with those of our scientists and technicians in our active endeavours.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will my right hon. Friend cause similar instructions to be sent to the Army, because there is no doubt that some men there have the necessary qualifications and should be released for this work?
  Mr. Attlee: I will consider that point.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: Does not this show the disastrous lack of interest in science by all previous Governments and most of the Members of this House in the past?

  UTHWATT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  Mr. Henry Straussasked the Prime Minister whether, without detriment to the public interest, he can arrange for the immediate publication of the Interim Report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee, even if it is not yet possible to announce the Government's policy thereon?
  Mr. Attlee: As has been stated, the Report is under consideration, and the Government hope to be in a position before very long to announce their attitude towards the recommendations made in the Report. In the circumstances I think it unnecessary that the Report should be published in advance of that statement.
  Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Parliamentary Answer on 14th May indicated that the Report was likely to be in the hands of Members by the end of May?
  Mr. Attlee: It looks as though that answer was optimistic.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (OVERSEA EVACUATION, ASSISTANCE).
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that financial accommodation is arranged for school bodies sent to America and Canada, he will arrange similar facilities for individual children and family groups?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): No, Sir. I fear that I cannot extend to individual children or family groups the special concession made to schools.
    Captain Pilkington: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very undesirable that this unfair strain should be put upon the hospitality of friendly Americans and Canadians?
    Sir K. Wood: This question has been already fully answered.
    Captain Pilkington: Cannot my right hon. Friend look into it again, in view of the facts?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; I have already given an answer.

    PURCHASE TAX (CLOTHING).
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the exemption of all clothing now rationed by coupons from Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the rationing of clothing, he will arrange to remove clothing from the operation of the Purchase Tax?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The rationing scheme limits the quantity of clothing that can be purchased by an individual, but does not limit the amount that can be spent on clothing within the ration. In view of the vital importance of financing our war effort, I cannot in the present circumstances forgo the revenue derived from such purchases.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Minister aware that since clothing is necessary for working people, this leads to increased wages to meet the cost of that clothing and that the Purchase Tax simply raises the quantity of money required without making any difference to the consumption?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to argue that point later.

    WAR SAVINGS WEEK, LONDON.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £120,000,000 contributed to the London War Savings Week was in sums of £100 and less?
    Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Chancellor aware that it is quite improper to refer to this £120,000,000 as savings? Does he agree that the effect of this form of borrowing is to increase the charge on the Exchequer by hundreds of thousands of pounds a year?
    Sir K. Wood:. I cannot accept that.

    TREASURY INVESTIGATING SECTION.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which Departments the Treasury investigation section have applied their work; and in which Departments they have been unable to complete their work because of difficulties arising in the Department?
    Sir K. Wood: The Treasury investigating section has made investigations in 13 of the principal Departments. Investigations of amore limited scope have been made in the case of a number of other Departments. In two cases (a section of the Ministry of Shipping where reorganisation was in progress, and a section of the Ministry of Supply where inter-Departmental discussion was required) the work of the investigating section, has not been completed: arrangements have now been made for it to proceed.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Could the Chancellor define exactly what he means by investigations of a limited scope?
    Sir K. Wood: I should like to think that over very carefully.

    COST OF LIVING.
    Sir Reginald Blairasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolution from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce relating to the recent increases in the costs of coal and transport; and whether he proposes now to take action to ward off the effects of inflation and prevent increases in the cost of living?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir, and I agree that an increase in the cost of coal production, if it led to any substantial increase in the charges to the public for rail transport and other services, would be likely in present circumstances to have an injurious effect. The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter was fully set out in my Budget statement of 7th April. That statement did not imply an immediate and absolute ban on all increases in the price of coal irrespective of every other consideration, but it did express the intention of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to secure the greatest possibly stability in the cost of living. That intention is being steadily pursued. In particular, I have under close consideration, in conjunction with the Departments concerned, the application of the policy to transport and other services. I would point out that there has not been any recent increase in rail transport charges.

  AFFORESTATION.
  Mr. Parkerasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye as representing
  482
  the Forestry Commissioners what was the acreage planted and replanted, respectively, by the Forestry Commissioners in the season 1940–41?
  Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): In the season 1940–41 the Forestry Commission planted 21,191 acres and replanted 5,270 acres, the total being 26,461 acres.
  Mr. Parkerasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what was the acreage felled and thinned, respectively, by the Forestry Commissioners in the season 1940–41?
  Sir G. Courthope: In the forest year ended 30th September last, on Forestry Commission properties there were felled 5,794. acres and thinned 4,835 acres. Fellings now continue throughout the year, and records are kept by forest years.
  Mr. Parkerasked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the Forestry Commissioners intended planting programme for the season 1941–42?
  Sir G. Courthope: The Forestry Commission planting programme for the season 1941–42 is not yet settled but will be approximately 22,000 to 23,000 acres.
  Captain Duncan: Has the planting programme been hampered by lack of labour, and if so, will my right hon. and gallant Friend make representations that prisoners of war should be brought over to do this work?
  Sir G. Courthope: The planting programme is hampered by lack of labour only to this extent, that we regulate the amount of labour we are keeping on our plantations by the fire danger and the number of men required to deal with fires; those men are employed on the forestry programme, which is regulated accordingly.

  EXIT PERMITS.
  Captain Pilkingtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual children or family groups have gone to America and Canada with Government permits?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I understand this Question has been transferred to the Dominions Office, which may be

  483
  able to give my hon. Friend some satisfaction. I would point out that exit permits are not required for children under 16, and therefore, the Home Office has no statistical information available.
  Dr. Littleasked the Home Secretary whether, owing to the need for rest and change after their exacting war-time duties, he will give definite instructions that Northern Ireland doctors and nurses in Britain shall receive travel permits to enable them to spend their holidays with their friends in Ulster?
  Mr. Peake: The restrictions which have had to be imposed on travel between this country and Northern Ireland do not allow of the grants of exit permits or visas to enable persons to visit their friends in either country, and I should not feel justified in making a concession in respect of one section of the community only. Doctors and nurses are granted exit permits to enable them to travel to their homes in Northern Ireland once in any period of six months.

  GRASS, RAILWAY TRACKS (HARVESTING).
  Sir Joseph Lambasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport what arrangement has been made by his Department to ensure that the grass growing in the sides of railway tracks, estimated to be approximately an area of 70,000 acres, is made available for use as stock food in the form of hay during the present cutting periods?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin):The arrangement made with the railway companies last year whereby farmers were allowed to harvest grass on any railway slopes adjoining their farms is being continued this season, and farmers wishing to take advantage of it should apply to the local station master.
  Sir J. Lamb: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a great shortage of labour on the farms, and that farmers have difficulty in getting men who would be suitable to cut grass at the sides of railway tracks, as is done by men already in the employment of the railway companies? Would it not be better for the railway companies to harvest the grass for their own purposes or for sale?
  Colonel Llewellin: I think the farmers in the locality are much better equipped to deal with the hay crop than the railway companies are.

  DOCK LABOUR, CLYDESIDE(PAYMENT).
  Major Lloydasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware of the un satisfactory working of the new scheme for the payment of dock labour on Clyde- side; that not only does this scheme substantially raise costs, but that it is being exploited by certain elements to the detriment of efficiency and speed in the turning round of ships; and whether he is prepared, in view of the unsatisfactory situation, to take steps to improve the present position"?
  Colonel Llewellin: The new labour scheme on Clyde side, which completely alters the former practices in the dock industry, has been in operation for barely two months. I am aware that certain initial difficulties have arisen, but most are, I think, capable of a satisfactory local solution. I have asked the Regional Port Director to meet the parties principally concerned and report to me any action he recommends.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also take note of the situation at the Manchester docks, where there has been trouble?
  Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir; certainly, I will. I visited both places during the Whitsun Recess, and went very fully into the question.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (REQUISITIONED PREMISES).
  Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Aircraft Production, in view of the interpretation of Section II. of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939,. proving different to what was expected, what steps are to be taken to deal with the firms whose premises have been requisitioned to give them a fair deal?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): It is for the courts to deal

  485
  with the interpretation of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. The administrative arrangements for dealing with compensation questions on behalf of my Department are at present under discussion, but I can assure my hon. Friend (hat whatever arrangements are adopted will be designed to give firms concerned a fair deal.

  POST OFFICE.

    SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
    Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Postmaster-General whether he will allow interest on deposits made with the Post Office Savings Bank on the first day of any specified month for the whole of that month, and so make the practice similar to that prevailing in the banks and building societies?
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Allan Chapman): The Post Office Savings Banks Act, 1861, provides that interest shall not commence until the first day of the calendar month next following the day of deposit. In present circumstances my right hon. Friend is not prepared to promote amending legislation in the sense suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Major Adams: Would it not encourage greater saving?
    Mr. Chapman: I think the present record number of 14,000,000 depositors indicates that depositors generally arc satisfied with the present position.

    MAIL FACILITIES (PRISONERS OF WAR).
    Major Vyvyan Adamsasked the Postmaster-General whether he has any progress to report about his efforts to institute free air-mail for next-of-kin between Lisbon and British prisoners-of- war in Germany, by which many weeks' time in delivery would be saved?
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for this opportunity of repeating what my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has recently announced in the Press—that agreement has been reached, through the good offices of the American Government, for the use, free of charge, of the German air service between Lisbon and Germany for correspondence between British prisoners-of-war and civilian internees in Germany
    486
    and their friends and relations in this country. In conjunction with air transmission between Lisbon and this country, which is already available, the further facility provides the quickest service possible. The facility is not restricted to next-of-kin. My right hon. Friend has considered very carefully the possibility of a free outward air-mail service, but has regretfully come to the conclusion that this is not practicable on account of aircraft capacity. It could at best only be introduced with a severe system of rationing which would be most difficult to apply, and which would bear hardly on those who have a particular interest in a prisoner but are not next-of-kin. I am glad to add that my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to issue a light-weight air letter card for use in writing to British prisoners-of-war. By this means it will be possible to reduce the air mail fee.
    Major Adams: Is my hon. Friend aware that these facilities will be very greatly valued, and may I ask him further whether he will reconsider the possibility of granting free outward mail once a week or once a month to one interested person in each case?
    Mr. Chapman: As I have stated in the original answer, my right hon. Friend was very sympathetic to the whole idea, but on examination found that to arrange for a rationing to next-of-kin, even on a weekly or a monthly basis, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, would be so complicated and difficult that it might possibly defeat itself. Besides, it would rule out many who also have very good cause to communicate with prisoners-of-war—possibly even more right than next-of-kin—such as a man's fiancée, who is not yet his next-of-kin, but who certainly has a good right to communicate with him.
    Major Adams: Will my hon. Friend at least assure me that the door is not finally shut to this desirable improvement?
    Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend will follow a distinguished precedent and keep his mind ajar.
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: In view of the fact that many prisoners-of-war are on the Polish border, would it not be possible to arrange for mails to go more quickly through Moscow?
    Mr. Chapman: That is another question.

  EVACUATION (CHILDREN UNDER FIVE).
  Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Minister of Health whether he will make further provision for the evacuation from the dangerous areas to the reception areas of children under five years of age by the establishment and staffing of a larger number of nursery homes, by making fuller use of the Ministry's requisitioning powers, or by any other practical means?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Yes, Sir. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Debate in this House on Thursday of last week. There is no hesitation in requisitioning houses which are suitable for this purpose.
  Sir E. Cadogan: Is not the reluctance of parents to send children under five to safety areas due to the fact that insufficient provision is made to receive them?
  Miss Horsbrugh: I do not think that, on the whole, that reluctance is due to this reason. My right hon. Friend is quite prepared to requisition any houses suitable for this purpose.

  FOOD WASTE (PROSECUTION).
  Mr. T. Smith (for Mr. Thorne)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what action he intends taking against Halley Low, of Dorle House, Ferring, Arundel, for food hoarding, in view of the fact that over four hundredweight of various kinds of food was found in his house, besides 150 tins of milk, syrup and honey?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George):The local Food Control Committee initiated a prosecution under the Waste of Food Order against the person named. A conviction was secured, and the defendant was fined £25 and ordered to pay costs.

  BROADCAST WAR COMMENTARIES.
  Captain Plugge (for Mr. Cary)asked the Minister of Information whether he will reconsider his decision to curtail the British Broadcasting Corporation commentaries by Major-General Collins, and other trained observers, who render
  488
  an invaluable service in keeping public opinion well informed on operational aspects in different phases of the war?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): My right hon. Friend is well aware of the value of such expert talks, provided that they are of a general and informative character and contain no expressions of opinion, either personal or official, about operations which are in progress or in prospect. There is no intention of discontinuing these commentaries.

  CANCER (TREATMENT, LINCOLNSHIRE).
  Sir F. Fremantle (for Mr. Liddall)asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken in regard to the provision of a local clinic or hospital for deep ray and radium treatment of cancer in the city of Lincoln?
  Miss Horsbrugh: Combined arrangements for the treatment of cancer in the three Divisions of the county of Lincolnshire and in the county boroughs of Lincoln and Grimsby are under the consideration of the local authorities concerned. These arrangements include the provision of a centre for X-ray and radium treatment in the city of Lincoln. War conditions have delayed the completion and submission of the arrangements and, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the risk of enemy action gives rise to serious difficulties in the use of radium. My right hon. Friend is, however, in communication with the local authorities and hopes that at least an instalment of their proposals may be brought into operation shortly.

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

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    INCOME TAX—TAX-FREE PAYMENTS, Etc.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move:
    "That provision shall be made for modifying—

    (a)obligations to pay sums free of Income Tax or free of Income Tax other than Surtax or sums so calculated as to leave a specified amount after deduction of Income Tax;

    (b)obligations to pay sums in respect of the Income Tax of another person."

    The matter which we have to deal with first to-day relates to the Resolution, which is followed later on by Clauses, in connection with certain proposals, which I desire to put before the Committee, in relation to tax-free incomes. I should like to explain briefly the reasons for, and the scope of, the proposals embodied in the Clauses, which I propose should be added to the Finance Bill in the event of the Resolution being approved. The proposals are directed primarily to remedying an inequity which results from the carrying out, at the increased rates of tax, now prevailing, of arrangements entered into before the war to make payments free of tax. I have had many representations from all quarters of the House on this matter, and I hope the suggestions which I shall make will receive the approval of my hon. Friends.
    A common type of case, with which I think most of my hon. Friends are familiar, is where an annuity is payable free of tax. The gross income now required to pay an annuity of a given amount free of tax is, of course, much greater than it was before the war, and, in certain circumstances, the payment of this increased amount may inflict great hardship upon other beneficiaries dependent upon the residue of the income available, for example, under a will or settlement. I have had a number of cases brought to me where undoubtedly the intentions of the person who made the will or settlement has not only not been fulfilled, but where considerable hardship has resulted as
    508
    a consequence of the present condition of affairs. Of course, this is due to the increased rate of taxation. Before the war, when the standard rate of Income Tax was 5s. 6d. in the £, £1 of gross income yielded trustees 14s. 6d. net, whereas to-day, with the standard rate at 10s. in the £, £1 of gross income yields only 10s. net. I will put it in another way, excluding for the moment any question of Surtax. An obligation to pay 14s. 6d. free of Income Tax required, before the war, a gross income of £1, while, to-day, an obligation to pay 14s. 6d. free of tax requires a gross income of 29s. The inequity, as I have said, which arises from this state of affairs results from the unexpected and steep rise in taxation, and that requires little or no elaboration. The same considerations apply to the type of case where, for instance, remunerations or directors' fees are payable on a tax-free basis.
    I would suggest to the Committee that it is equitable to readjust matters so that the war-time increase of tax falls upon the recipient rather than upon the payer. I do not think the recipient can complain if he has to bear the same war-time burden as any other member of the community. The nature of the proposals can be summarised quite briefly, and the general proposition is this, that the same gross income as would have satisfied any covenant to make a free-of-tax payment before the war, shall be regarded as discharging the obligation in respect of all payments falling to be made in the year 1941–42 and subsequent years; that is to say, in the ordinary Income Tax case the parties making the payment will, in effect, be liable to make it free of tax at 5s. 6d., and the recipient will bear that proportion of the tax chargeable at the current rate which represents the war increase of taxation. I suggest that the division is fair to all parties, and I hope it will be regarded as unexceptionable. The proposal extends only to pre-war arrangements and not to arrangements entered into since the beginning of the war. The reason for this decision is that, while persons making such arrangements before the war might reasonably have hoped that direct taxation was reaching the peak, that hope obviously ceased to exist once the war had begun. It follows that persons entering into such arrangements after the outbreak of war must be assumed to have

    509
    done so in the light of all relevant circumstances, including not only existing but prospective rates of taxation. My intention is not to interfere with war-time arrangements of that kind which people have made with their eyes open, but simply to remove an unexpected inequity arising in the pre-war type of cases.
    I should like to say a word as regards the scope of the proposal. It will apply to free-of-tax annuities under wills and settlements, to free-of-tax alimony payments, to interest payments at such a rate as after deduction of tax yields a prescribed rate, and to contracts to pay remuneration free of tax. No particular point would appear to arise about these arrangements further than I have indicated, but I should like to say a word or two with reference to types of payment which will be outside the scope of the proposals. In the first place, they do not apply to any provision falling within Rule 23 of the General Rules for Income Tax, which render invalid agreements not to deduct tax. This Rule preserves the statutory right of deduction, for example, in the case of interest payments made by building societies. By long-standing tradition and arrangement with the Inland Revenue these payments are made on a tax-compounded basis, and the building societies account for the tax in bulk to the Inland Revenue. There is, however, nothing in law to prevent building societies deducting tax at the source in the ordinary way, and the new arrangements do not affect them. Mortgagors who under arrangement with the Inland Revenue pay interest to building societies without deduction of tax will be similarly unaffected. To remove any misunderstanding, I might add that in the not very common type of case where a mortgagor has contracted with a building society or indeed with any other lender to pay interest of such an amount as after deduction of tax equals a fixed rate, he will obtain the benefit of my proposals and will be required only to pay the same gross amount as if the pre-war rate of taxation had remained.
    Secondly, the Clauses that I have tabled do not apply to dividends paid free of tax. No question of inclusion arises in the case of ordinary dividends, even though they are sometimes expressed to be paid free of tax. Actually companies are assessed on
    510
    the full amount of their profits without regard to the particular proportion of those profits to be distributed as dividends, and it is immaterial to the shareholders whether the dividend is declared at a gross percentage less a specific deduction of tax or is a net percentage which is said to be free of taxation. The amount of dividend received by each shareholder is the same, which ever method is adopted. There is, however, a special case to which some attention has been drawn in the financial Press, not very common, I think, where preference shares are entitled to a given percentage free of tax. I have considered very carefully whether arrangements of this kind should be brought within the scope of these proposals. Although the amount receivable by preference shareholders is dependent in the last resort upon the existence of profits sufficient to meet the obligation, this factor would not in itself be sufficient to differentiate preference shares of this type from certain types of payment which my proposals cover. What does differentiate them, in my view, is the fact that they are a marketable commodity and that since the beginning of the war, and in the light of war increases of taxation, preference shares have been valued on a basis which has paid due regard to their tax-free privilege. This valuation has been reflected in the values placed upon the ordinary shares ranking behind them. Business has in fact been done in the full knowledge of the current rate of taxation and taxation possibilities, and I can see no sufficient reason in the public interest for penalising those people who have made investments, or dispossessed themselves of investments, without any knowledge or expectation of legislative action calculated to undermine the whole basis of their transactions. Those are the exceptions to the proposal. I have brought it forward after representations from many of my hon. Friends who are here. I think there is general agreement that a step of this kind should be made, and I commend the proposals to the Committee.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very glad the Government have decided to bring in these proposals. I feel that they were very much required, and it certainly will be of great benefit to a number of people and, I think, to

    511
    the general well-being of the State that this change should be made. In the first place, it is interesting to realise that a variety of persons will be affected by the proposal. It is a kind of miscellaneous bag. It reminds me of a dinner party which was proposed shortly after I became a Member of this House, to consist of all Members who had ever, at one time or other, defeated the present Prime Minister in an election. When the project was worked out, it was found that people of all parties and complexions would be included in that dinner party.
    I dare say that each one of us, in considering this proposal, has been thinking of a different type of person who will be affected by the scheme. I was thinking largely, as I said in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, of the case of certain mortgagors who had entered into contracts to pay Income Tax as well as interest on their mortgages. I understand there is another set of people who have borrowed money, not on mortgage, but from solicitors and others, and upon whom, in some cases, extortionate demands have been made. My own reaction to many of these contracts for some years past has been unfavourable. I have often wondered whether the State ought not to prohibit contracts of a kind which really amount to an attempt to frustrate the intentions of Parliament. We, here, determine in what proportion certain obligations are to be met, and if private individuals can contract out of those obligations in advance, that is, to a large extent, in my view, a defiance of the intentions of Parliament.
    Parliament itself in certain instances provides that that must not be done. I think I am correct in saying that in the ordinary case of landlord and tenant the landlord cannot force upon the tenant the payment of Schedule A Income Tax. I understand that a contract of that kind would be ultra vires. I have never understood why that provision should not be extended to other contracts of the kind I have indicated. Under those contracts considerable injustices have arisen. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have taken this opportunity of dealing with the matter. Broadly speaking, with one main exception of which I shall speak later, the Government proposal is to stereotype these contracts on the basis of pre-war
    512
    Income Tax. In fact, I think they are going a little behind the pre-war Income Tax. The rate of tax for these purposes is being permanently fixed, as it were, at 5s. 6d. in the £, or at any rate it is proposed to apply that criterion during the present year. I understand that the Government's proposal does not relate to the two years which have just passed. The person who contracted to pay when the Income Tax was 7s., as it was in the first year of the war, or when it was 8s. 6d. as it was last year, will, I understand, be unaffected as far as those years are concerned. The proposal, I understand, affects only the present year, and I conclude that the scheme will remain in force in future years unless it is altered. Of course, the House will have to consider, in due course, what is to be the future of this matter and whether all these contracts, for all time, are to remain at 5s. 6d. or whether some other figure will be substituted.
    That brings me to the question of the principal exception. I understand that the new arrangement is not to apply to contracts made after the beginning of the war. I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said that this is a perfectly general proposal applying to every form of contract. I am not altogether satisfied about that. I do not know what may be the level of Income Tax in years to come—though I do not know that it can go a great deal higher than it is at the present time—but I see the possibility in the future, as far as these contracts are concerned, that we shall get into the same sort of difficulty as those we are in at the present time and to meet which legislation has been devised. I had hoped that, in this proposal, we were taking the first step to get rid of the whole principle underlying those vicious contracts which I have described. It may be that this is as far as the Government can see their way to go at the present time, and in so far as it goes in the direction to which I have referred, it will be welcomed. But I think the House will have to consider the larger question of whether or not these contracts are in the public interest. My own view, as I have already said, is that people ought not to be allowed to make contracts which, in effect, thwart the intentions of Parliament and place burdens on certain shoulders which Parliament did not intend to bear them. I hope this legislation is a step in that direction, and as

    513
    far as I am concerned—and I think I can speak for those who sit behind me—I thoroughly approve of this proposal.
    Sir Irving Albery: I was very gratified to hear the speech that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has started on the way to deal with this matter, but, frankly, I am disappointed at the limited extent to which he has gone. I share fully the opinion just expressed by my right hon. Friend that these contracts are against the public interest. There may be some ground, but I cannot think of any, which renders them necessary or desirable, even for the people who make them, Obviously, they have great weaknesses, otherwise we should not be about to pass the legislation now proposed. This House takes a great deal of trouble and goes into much detail in apportioning the burden of taxation, and it is contrary to the public interest that contracts should then be made which are calculated to upset the apportionment made by this House.
    That is one big ground on which I, personally, consider that at any rate for the future—I agree that one must deal carefully with contracts already made— it should be illegal to make such contracts. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to take that rather drastic step, which is not only desirable but, I think, almost necessary. I was sorry to hear him say that he is going to leave out the modification of contracts made since the war began. It is true that the people who made those contracts knew what they were doing, but they were also well aware of the position which had already arisen under previous contracts. A very undesirable position had arisen, and I do not see that any great hardship would be inflicted if these cases were included in the present modifications. There is this much to be said in favour of it. I have tried to study the legislation which is being put forward. Income Tax law, with all its complications, has got difficult enough already, and it has become necessary for most people when they make out their returns to seek the assistance of a chartered accountant. In future it will be necessary to have not only a chartered accountant
    514
    but a lawyer before you can make out your Income Tax return.
    Another point about which I do not feel satisfied is the differentiation which the Chancellor is making as regards dividends on preference shares. As far as I can see, the only justification he has put forward—I agree that this is a matter that ought to receive consideration—is that people have bought and sold preference shares on the basis of the large savings in tax which they will get. It is true that they did that with their eyes open, that they were aware of the extraordinary position which exists and the inequity of it, and that probably something would have to be done to alter it. The general basis on which these proposals are introduced is that a position has arisen which is untenable and which creates a great deal of injustice, and the Chancellor has said, "I agree that burdens which have been imposed since the war should be fairly spread and that the people who have made special contracts should not escape the extra burdens which have been imposed on account of the war." I do not see why people who escape through tax-free preference dividends should escape them any more than anyone else. Furthermore, the injustice which exists in cases which the Chancellor seeks to modify also exists as regards ordinary shareholders. I do not say it is general, but there are a good many cases in which, when properties have been sold to the public by the issue of shares, the very people who sold them have largely retained the Income Tax-free preference shares and have sold the ordinary shares mainly to the public. Under these proposals we shall have cases where the people who sold property to the public in the form of ordinary shares will collect the dividends, and the ordinary shareholders will get nothing. That may be an exaggeration, but it illustrates the point I want to make. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider that point.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Will my hon. Friend extend this a little further and agree that the principles which apply to preference shares should apply equally to National Savings Certificates?
    Sir I. Albery: My hon. Friend has put a point which I am afraid I have not

    515
    considered; therefore, I will not be rash enough to deal with it.
    The Chairman: In any case, I do not think that it arises on this Resolution.
    Sir H. Williams: May I congratulate the Chancellor on facing this difficult problem? I tried to help him by being rash enough to draft an Amendment, but when I came to read it I did not like it; in any case, it would have been out of Order, because it imposed a charge. I heard of a case the other day of a payment which, because of the other means of the recipient, is costing the paying people £100,000 per annum in order to provide a net income of £5,000. That is an intolerable scandal. I wonder whether the Chancellor is right in trying to restrict it entirely to pre-war contracts. I think that there may have been a certain number of cases where the directors of a company sitting round a board decided to grant one another tax-free service contracts. There was nothing to stop their doing that. They would be robbing their shareholders, although not in any criminal sense; it was legal, but improper. We ought to bring to an end a system which deprives people of their sense of responsibility as citizens. Underlying it all is that principle. Nevertheless, when we take a system which has been permitted and seek to alter it, there is a danger that we may inflict a measure of injustice. I have not yet studied this document very carefully. It is not too easy to study, and I am not clear what it all means.
    The Chairman: I can give the hon. Gentleman a little further time to study it, because his remarks should be made on the new Clauses and not on the Resolution. The hon. Member will agree that it will be more convenient to reserve that discussion until we come to the Clauses.
    Sir H. Williams: There is one point which I think is in Order. It is in regard to annuities under wills paid tax-free. The person who made the contract is dead; it is not a contract between living persons. It may be necessary for the Chancellor to examine this problem so that on the Committee stage some Amendment may be made.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: I would like to continue where the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) finished with regard to annuities
    516
    granted by people who are dead. I know of a man who was offered a pension on retirement, and he said he would rather have two-thirds of the pension if one-sixth was continued to his widow on his death. I agree that the tax-free system is wrong, but here is a case where for some years a man lived with a smaller pension than he would otherwise have had in order that his widow should have a pension should she outlive him. I hope that the Chancellor will take that case into consideration and make up his mind what is the right and proper thing to do in the circumstances.
    Colonel Sir George Courthope:Several references have been made to tax-free payments as if they were almost designed for an unworthy object against the public interest. I intervene only to remind the Committee that there are certain classes of tax-free payments which are tax-free by Statute. Statutes were passed to provide that payments should be made tax-free because it was considered in the general interest that they should be so. There will be great complications in those cases, although I am not suggesting that they put the Chancellor in the wrong in his general proposal. May I give an example? I happen by chance to be chairman of the Lands Improvement Company. It is a company paying out for improvements such as land drainage, agricultural improvements, and so on under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture. At the time of the last war the company and some other companies of a similar nature were limited to charge a gross interest not exceeding 5 per cent. At the end of the war money was dear, Income Tax was high and loans could not be obtained at 5 per cent, gross. The Minister of Agriculture was anxious that improvements of this kind should be renewed, and it was generally anticipated that not only would money tend to become cheaper, but that Income Tax would tend to drop. In the public interest an amending Act was passed providing that this company should charge a rate of interest which, after deduction of Income Tax, yielded a sum approved by the Minister of Agriculture. I just wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that statutory dealings of that kind are not necessarily attempts to do anything underhand or against the public interest.
    Sir I. Albery: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that although the transaction to which he refers was done in the public interest, it ultimately turned out to be against the public interest.
    Sir G. Courthope: Not necessarily. It was not contemplated that there would be, in this year of grace, a combination of Income Tax at 10s. and cheap money, and no doubt the whole thing needs revision. But there are some millions not only on loan but on charges assigned to insurance companies and others on this basis, as long-term investments, and there would be very considerable complications. I agree that something has to be done, but there may have to be a close study of the detailed effect of my right hon. Friend's Clauses upon statutory transactions of that kind. I apologise for intervening, but I thought it just as well to remind the Committee that tax-free payments were sometimes not only not sinful but actually in accordance with the law.
    Sir John Mellor: I wish to support what was said by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) about the exclusion of tax-free preference 'dividends. The Chancellor is excluding them on the ground that there have been dealings in such shares during the war, and for fear that he might give a shock to those who have engaged in such transactions, a shock which would be very unpleasant to those who have purchased and perhaps slightly pleasant to those who have sold. I cannot feel that his reason for his action is an adequate one. There have been very few dealings in preference shares which carry tax-free dividends, because they are very rare in the case of public companies. For all I know, such preference shares may be common in the case of private companies. Probably only an accountant or solicitor could tell us to what extent they are common in the case of private companies.
    I do not think the Chancellor has taken the private companies into account. Looking through the Stock Exchange list, one sees that there are very few public companies with tax-free preference issues; but, after all, if those were the only ones which had to be considered, I still cannot sec, why he should distinguish against them merely on the ground that transactions in such shares have taken place since the war began. After all, the
    518
    financial decisions of the Government are always inclined to spring surprises on the community, particularly the commercial community, and I think it would be rather an unfortunate precedent for him to say that he cannot do this or that because it will take some people by surprise. Indeed, everybody can indulge in intelligent anticipation, and, as has already been said, by, I think, the hon. Member for Gravesend, everyone must have realised that preference shares carrying tax-free dividends were in a rather exceptional position and what one might call vulnerable. I do think the Chancellor should give a little more thought to the position of the ordinary shareholders, because by omitting tax-free preference dividends from this provision he is discriminating against ordinary shareholders. A company with a 5 per cent, tax-free preference issue will bear the burden, in practice, of a 10 per cent, preference share. There may well be some cases where the margin of profit is only just adequate to pay the preference dividend and companies may be driven into default in their preference dividends through having to find not only the 5 per cent, tax-free under normal taxation but the 5 per cent, tax-free with a 10s. in the standard rate of Income Tax. It would be very unfortunate if, because the Chancellor wishes to avoid giving some individuals who have dealt in the market an unpleasant shock, we were to run the risk of perhaps forcing some companies to default upon their preference issues.
    The Chairman: I do not want to rule the hon. Member out of Order, but I think it would be unfortunate, from the point of view of the Committee, if we indulged now in a detailed discussion of these proposals. That will come more properly on the new Clauses. The wording of the Resolution is very wide indeed, and it is the better practice to discuss the principle of the Resolution and not the details of the Clause.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged. I was dealing only with the question of public policy raised by the Chancellor himself.
    The Chairman: Perhaps I ought to have added this, that when the Chancellor produces a Resolution of this sort he is practically bound to say what are his reasons

    519
    for moving it, and therefore to outline his proposals, but a discussion upon those proposals comes more properly when we get to the Clauses, so that the hon. Member is in a different position from that of the Chancellor.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged. I will not say anything further beyond asking my right hon. Friend to reconsider the question of including tax-free preference dividends within the scope of the Clauses.
    Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be welcomed by those people who have been placed in great difficulty by contracts made in the past. I would like to refer to the reasons which he gave for the exclusion of preference shares from" this concession. From his remarks I gathered that preference shares are to have this privilege because some people have speculated in them on the ground that they were tax-free. That seems to me a most remarkable reason to give, because that is practically saying that people who are lucky enough to be able to speculate in that way will be protected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir I. Albery: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that almost all the dealings in tax-free preference shares are investments.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the vulnerable share is to rise as a result of speculation in tax-free investments, and there is to be a rise in price as a result of future legislation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it reveals a very substantial profit as compared with ordinary shares in the same company. People who are lucky enough to have bought these shares will be placed in a position of gambling benefit as a result of the Chancellor's new proposals. That seems to me a most improper reason for giving them protection. If, as has been suggested by the last speaker, the consideration was that these preference shares are very largely trustee stock, in order to yield a definite income, that position is protected by the other Clauses which the Chancellor is moving with this Resolution.
    I respectfully suggest that, when it is purely a matter of luck and not of any real necessity, the preference shareholder
    520
    should get no more protection than any other investor or purchaser of shares. There is a good deal to be said for the statement that, in some companies, the balance has been struck in such a way as to give the preference shareholders a claim on a very great part of the company's income, and that the ordinary shareholders who, after all, have financed the company, very often will be completely cut out of any income of the company, which will all go to the preference shareholders. There may be preference shares tax-free which may never have been paid for in cash at all, and which may be a recompense for some non-existent goodwill. The Chancellor may actually be giving a person of that kind very substantial benefits by this proposal. I hope that he will reconsider the proposal in such a way as not to select one small set of people for a particular benefit.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: I am very pleased to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come forward with this proposal, but I am not satisfied that he has gone far enough. The matter is of such extreme importance that it should receive further investigation before a decision is taken. The question of preference shares free of tax has been referred to, but that is only one avenue; there are a hundred and one avenues down which certain holders of: stock are not favoured. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if possible between now and the Report stage of the new Clauses, he should come to a decision that there shall be no income free of tax and that we should all pay, no matter on what standard we may be, direct to the State. That is point No. 1.
    Point No. 2 is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would exempt contracts made since the beginning of the war. How would a case like this work out? A person makes a will before the war and leaves an annuity free of tax. During the war, or during the continuance of this legislation, the party making that will dies. The putting of the will into operation starts after the war, although the provision was made before the war. How will that operate? Point No. 3 is with reference to building societies. I think I am right in saying that they have a general flat rate of about 2s. 6d. or 3s. in the £. Borrowers do not deduct their Income Tax of 10s., so the building

    521
    society receives the interest gross and pays to the State only 2s. 6d. or 3s., leaving the building society with the benefit of 7s., if the rate is 3s. This flat rate paid by the building society was arranged when taxation was 4s. in the £ is it not time for that matter to be reviewed?
    Mr. Radford: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider his proposal to exclude from the operation of his proposals tax-free preference shares. The reason he gave for their exclusion seems inadequate. It was that the shares and possibly the ordinary shares of the companies have changed hands on the ssumption that the preference shares were going to continue to be tax free. Is not the same true of annuities and other similar payments which have been left free of Income Tax? My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I may be wrong, but have not such transactions taken place? Somebody who was entitled to receive an annuity free of Income Tax may have sold his right to some person who was desirous of making an investment. I am not going to give way to my right hon. Friend on the point that certain people, say, residuary legatees and those who have a reversionary interest in estates which are subject to such payments, may certainly have had in mind the tax-free charges in front of them when they have sold their rights. The argument is just as strong in their case as it is in the case of preference shareholders. My right hon. Friend would do well to reconsider the exclusion of these tax-free preference shares. Let them share the common lot of other tax-free payments which he has in mind.
    Mr. Hammersley: The question of tax-free payments is one of great technical difficulty. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated in having gone as far as he reasonably could in the circumstances, and I would not have made any observations had it not happened that my right hon. Friend used words in his speech which might be interpreted as re-establishing the situation of certain tax-free payments. It was most unfortunate. The feeling on all sides of the House and in the country is that tax-free payments ought, if possible, to be done away with. Further, when he said that war-time arrangements were not
    522
    interfered with, it did, in effect, establish a situation in which new people coming along may say, It is clear that tax-free payments are not against the public interest". There is a generality of view that they are against the public interest. I would not like my right hon. Friend to make the mistake of associating with this very good proposal statements which might be interpreted as being retrograde.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My right hon. Friend's proposals have had a very satisfactory reception from the Committee. The main criticism, apart from the preference shares point, with which I will deal later and which is a matter of detail, has been that he might have gone further, or that this form of payment is undesirable. That is a matter on which different views are held. We do not disagree with a great deal of what has been said, but, if one takes the position under a will, nobody in the past thought there was anything wrong —at least, Parliament never said so—in a man going through this form of reasoning: "Very well, I shall leave a widow. I have an estate out of which I can make some provision for her and for my children. I want her to be able to continue to live in this house and to ensure that she has £300, £500 or £1,000 a year to spend. That is the sum which, as far as I can foresee, will enable her to stay here for the rest of her life. If Income Tax goes up, I wish the burden to fall on my children as they will, in the normal course of events, be earning their own living. I want to die feeling that the burden of Income Tax will tall on the residuary estate and not on my widow." That is a point which makes some people feel that it is perfectly reasonable not to forbid altogether this class of bequest. I am perfectly certain that most of those who have spoken to-day have been against this class of settlement altogether, but if my right hon. Friend had sought to abolish it altogether, we should have found ourselves, quite rightly, involved in controversy.
    There are two sides to this question. The general question as to whether this class of settlement should be altogether prohibited at some future date is clearly raised by this proposal, and my right hon. Friend and the rest of us can think about it. No doubt we shall discuss it on a later occasion. At this time

    523
    it would have been impracticable to have taken so sweeping and in some respects so controversial a step. The people who have made these representations were not so much moved by the fact that they had suddenly awakened to thinking that the matter was contrary to public policy—it had been allowed and used on many occasions, in many relationships, for the past generation—but because the present rate of tax was imposing an intolerable burden on payers such as trustees and, in the case certainly of certain wills and settlements, obviously defeated entirely the intentions of the persons who made these wills and settlements. A rich man may have made provision for the payment of £5,000 a year to his widow tax-free, 30 or 40 years ago. He never contemplated that that would eat up £100,000 of income each year. In extreme cases you get fantastic and ridiculous results. Why did my right hon. Friend draw this line "at the beginning of the war"?
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, do I understand him to say that in some cases of tax-free annuities in order to provide £5,000 or £10,000 requires £100,000, because that involves the question of Surtax? In all these annuities freedom from tax includes Surtax. So far as this particular provision is concerned, I understand it deals only with Income Tax.
    The Attorney-General: No, it deals with both on the same basis in not putting on the payer a greater burden than fell on him under pre-war taxes, whether Income Tax or Sur-tax. The beginning of the war has been taken, because it seemed to the Chancellor that one could see quite plainly that the extra taxation which this war has necessitated was something outside the contemplation of people who entered into transactions before the war broke out. No doubt, as the months of 1939 went on we realised that war was more and more probable, but direct taxation and the prospects of direct taxation were one thing before the war; they became a totally different matter once we became involved in the struggle. I find it difficult to believe that many people have entered into contracts of this kind since war broke out. It has been obvious since the first weeks of the war, and the first state-
    524
    ment by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that all form? of taxation would be driven up to their maximum in the course of the struggle. Those who have made these forms of contract or settlement, if any, during the war, have done so with their eyes open. They cannot say that direct taxation has assumed a level which could not have been contemplated by those who entered into the contract or made the settlement. To have made this proposal apply to cases after the war would also have made the matter much more complicated. It is quite clear that we could not have legislation which, as it were, wiped out freedom from tax altogether from a settlement. It could not be said that a will made by a man leaving his widow £5,000 a year free of tax should be regarded as if the words "free of tax" were not there; it would be defeating his intentions completely. If this were carried on to contracts made during the war it would necessarily become very much more complicated. There would have to be special provision for the man who made such a provision when Income Tax was 7s. in the £, for another man who made a contract when Income Tax was 7s. 6d. in the £ for another who did so when Income Tax was 8s., and for another when Income Tax was 10s. We would have to have a multiplicity of schedules for each particular case.
    As I have suggested to the Committee, the passing of these proposals will not prejudice the future consideration by this House of the very important question of whether this form of bequest or contract should be prohibited altogether. I believe that the best way of dealing with the problem that has arisen is to confine our attention to what we are doing to-day, to pre-war contracts and wills, and to deal with them in the way that my right hon. Friend has suggested. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) asked a specific question with regard to wills. He asked what happened if a man made his will before the war and died after the war began. That would have the benefit of this proposal, because the material date in the case of a will is when the provision is made and not when the man dies. The hon. Member also asked about building societies. Of course, the flate rate which has, under administrative arrangements, been in

    525
    operation for a long time, goes up if Income Tax goes up. On the question of preference shares, my right hon. Friend will consider what has been said. There are not a great many of these shares; it does not apply to preference shares generally. Although there may be isolated cases of annuities being sold, annuities are not conferred for the purpose of sale, and normally are enjoyed by the beneficiary. One of the essential characteristics of shares is that they are marketable, and if an investor wants to get rid of his preference shares, he transfers them to someone else. It seems to my right hon. Friend that this is not a very big point. If he set out to deal with these preference shares, it would really create more un-justices than were remedied. There would be cases of people who had sold their ordinary shares and got smaller prices for them because of the preferential position of preference shareholders and there would be cases of persons who had bought preference shares because they were free of tax. I repeat that it is really not a very big matter, and it would probably create more unjustices by applying this provision to this limited class than by doing what we are proposing to-day and leave them out.
    Sir I. Albery: The point I wish to make was that the original contract, made as it were between the ordinary shareholder and the preference shareholder, is on all fours with all the other contracts which it is now proposed to alter, and I suggest that it merits consideration as much as do the others.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think it is quite on all fours. Where a man gets an annuity under a will, that is not a bargain, it is a benefit. With regard to other contracts, however, what I was seeking to say was that in the vast majority of cases the money was intended to continue to be paid to the annuitant or beneficiary, whereas when a bargain is made between ordinary shareholders and preference shareholders one of the things contemplated is that the shares will be marketable and can be sold, whether they arc preference or ordinary, to other investors. In the case of shares, therefore, transfer is contemplated, whereas in most of the other cases with which we are dealing transfer was not contemplated, although, I agree, it was legally possible. It was for that reason that my right hon.
    526
    Friend thought that by bringing preference shares into this scheme more injustices would be created than remedied, although he will, of course, reconsider the matter in the light of what might be said. Transactions in ordinary shares would be quite rightly made the subject of grievances if preference shares were brought in, just as much as transactions in preference shares themselves. These were the grounds which led my right hon. Friend to take the decision he did take.
    Mr. Woodburn: Arising out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, may I put a point for the consideration of the Chancellor? Just as these transactions took place without the knowledge that there was going to be any change, is it not the case that, after the Chancellor's, statement, any tax-free preference shares will immediately become more valuable in the market in regard to transfers? If the Chancellor is not able to reconsider the matter from the point of view of changing the present rule, may I suggest that from the point of view of the Government's benefit he should look very carefully into the question of the transfer of tax-free shares in private companies? I understand that the Income Tax authorities practically allow the proprietors to value their own shares, and if these are going to be transferred by private companies behind the scenes, then the Chancellor should see that he collects increased Estate Duty or Stamp Duty by ensuring that the value of these shares is increased according to the benefit he is now giving.
    Mr. Mathers: The reasoning applied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman causes me to rise to say that there are many other transactions which very closely approximate to those which have been described. What he has been dwelling upon are settlements, payments to individuals that come into operation as the result of a will, after a person has died. What has come into my mind is that there are many settlements in respect of continuing payments which fructify not in the case of death but in the case of arising at a particular age.
    The Attorney-General: They are all covered.
    Mr. Mathers: Then do I understand that payments in respect of superannuation, which have been contracted for by an individual paying over a long period

    527
    of years, will also be protected and will be maintained at their pre-war level, and that individual taxation will not be applied in respect of superannuation payments? I do not understand that from the Clause itself, and I did not take it from the description given. I thought they referred only to cases where there was a will or some such settlement involved. Perhaps the Attorney-General would explain what I have endeavoured to put to him.
    The Attorney-General: I was merely referring to wills on the question of the case against prohibition. But, as my right hon. Friend explained, these Clauses apply to all arrangements of this kind, whether they are contained in a will, deed, settlement or instrument of any kind. In all cases the operation of the Clauses, as my right hon. Friend explained, is to put the increased tax due to the war on the recipient. Therefore, if there was a superannuation payment free of tax, the people paying the annuity would pay tax up to 5s. 6d., but in so far as there was tax exigible in excess of 5s. 6d.—the rate now being 10s that would be borne by the recipient. Of course, if the recipient is a person whose income is so small that he or she is not liable to pay Income Tax at all, he is unaffected, and all the personal allowances, etc., are, of course, taken into account. But having taken that into account, if these proposals are accepted, the person receiving the superannuation allowance will be called upon to pay a share. Supposing the total Income Tax liability of that person were £11 in respect of pre-war gross income, the people paying the superannuation allowance would bear 11–20ths of the total present taxation and the recipient would bear 9–20ths.
    Mr. Mathers: I should explain that my remarks did not apply to tax-free income. I was talking about the limited amount available to recipients of superannuation allowances in having their allowance taxed on the increased scale arising out of the exigencies of the war. There may be contracts prior to the war to bring them in what was then thought to be a suitable income, but which is now being infringed upon.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is at a disadvantage in not having heard the Debate. The only kind of contract
    528
    which we are discussing is the contract under which there is to be a payment free of tax.
    Sir William Davison: Most people in the country would, I think, be in general agreement with the object of the Resolution which is now before us, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Attorney-General, but it seems to me that in carrying it into effect the wording of the Clauses should be crystal clear and that phrases containing fractions and anything of that kind should be avoided, so that in a matter of this importance the taxpayer should know exactly where he stands without having to consult the learned Attorney-General or any other lawyer. It is desirable that at the earliest possible moment a protest should be made against embodying the matters referred to in this Resolution in a form which cannot be easily understood by the taxpayer who is affected.
    The Attorney-General: We have drafted these Clauses so as to tell taxpayers exactly what they have to do, and instead of setting out some elaborate general formula which would have been very difficult to understand, we have told taxpayers that they will have to give up a particular fraction—20–20 ths—and it is not necessary to be a lawyer—you only need to be able to do simple arithmetic —to find out how these Clauses operate in a particular case.
    Mr. Woods: A thing which is still obscure is the position with regard to directors' fees which are paid free of Income Tax. I know they have been mentioned, but there is still some difficulty, because we are not quite clear how they will be affected.
    Sir K. Wood: We will discuss the matter further on the Clauses. I made it perfectly plain when I introduced this Resolution that such contracts would be included in their operation.
    Mr. A. Edwards: The Attorney-General said that it was not a very extensive practice and that, therefore, it was not worth while dealing with it at this time.
    The Attorney-General: No.
    Mr. Edwards: I thought that he said something to that effect. If you do not

    529
    deal with the practice, you will encourage it to develop into a much larger problem. Here is a splendid opportunity to say that these things are entirely undesirable and that they are going to be made illegal. It is an opportunity that may not occur again.
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like the Chancellor to abolish, scientifically and painlessly, all sharps and shareholders and directors fees altogether.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    "That provision shall be made for modifying—

    (a) obligations to pay sums free of Income Tax or free of Income Tax other than Surtax or sums so calculated as to leave a specified amount after deduction of income Tax;

    (b) obligations to. pay sums in respect of the Income Tax of another person."

    Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.
    Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  FINANCE BILL,
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  CLAUSE 2.—(Income Tax for 1941–42.)
  Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "ten," and to insert "nine."
  It does not require much imagination to see that the Chancellor, when he deals with this Amendment, will say that, however much he would like to accept it, our national needs are such that he cannot afford to do so. It behoves me, therefore, if I am to carry the slightest conviction, not only to indicate the disadvantages of this abnormally high Income Tax of 10s. in the £, but to suggest some practical alternative. The first important criticism about this abnormal rate of taxation is that, taken in consideration with the Super-tax and so forth, it cannot, on the higher ranges of income, be paid out of income. Therefore, in effect, we are getting some kind of
  530
  taxation of capital through income. This taxation on capital through income must fall most hardly upon the producer. It does not stop the piling up of a National Debt at a very rapid rate. I notice that the rate of increase of the National Debt last year was in the neighbourhood of £2,500,000,000.
  We are going to he left after the war, in spite of this taxation, with a tremendous National Debt. Hon. Members opposite consider that that might be dealt with by some kind of capital levy, and hon. Members on this side think that there will have to be some kind of major operation—whatever that may be. Quite clearly, this abnormal taxation makes any suggestion of a capital levy ridiculous. With Income Tax at 10s. in the £, it would be absurd to introduce a capital levy on anything like the lines proposed by the Labour party at the end of the last war, for the simple reason that the State would be losing very much more than it gained. The saving on interest would be less than the loss in Income Tax, Super-tax and. Death Duties. That position arises because we have this abnormally high rate of Income Tax. I would suggest that, as an alternative to this Income Tax rate, of 10s. in the £, it should be possible now, while the war is on, to have an annual tax on capital holdings. That tax should be imposed now, and should not wait until after the war. I have roughly calculated that, on a basis of 1 per cent. taxation on capital of between £20,000 and £50,000, and of 1½ per cent, on holdings exceeding £50,000, the yield would be in the neighbourhood of £130,000,000 to £200,000,000. It would be half as much again—
  The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause deals with Income Tax only.
  Mr. Hammersley: I am going to stick very closely to the Clause. I am just pointing out that there may be an alternative. I am not going to argue the merits of the alternative, but just to indicate how, by a method of this character, the Chancellor would be able to meet the loss of taxation. The yield from the suggested annual capital tax would, therefore, not only reimburse the Chancellor for what he loses by reducing the Income Tax to, say, 8s. 6d. in the £, but it would also give him a considerable amount of revenue in addition. It would

  531
  slow down the rate of increase of the National Debt. It would, on the assumption that some part had to be collected in kind, provide national assets to set off against the increasing national liabilities, and would enable the stabilisation of Income Tax to take place at a figure which would not be an insuperable barrier against the necessary post-war changeover from Government to private enterprise. I am not advocating an annual capital tax after the war, such as, I understand is suggested by the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).
  Mr. Benson: I want to protect the right hon. Gentleman from such a fantastic charge as that.
  Mr. Hammersley: I think it is within the recollection of people in this House that the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh proposed an annual tax on capital after the war.
  Mr. Benson: No, during the war.
  Mr. James Griffiths: And a capital levy after the war.
  Mr. Hammersley:I was under the impression that he disapproved of an annual capital tax now, and was in favour of one after the war. After the war it will be of very little advantage, because then it will be the time when the country ought to be building up more capital to replace the capital which has been lost. The mobilisation of private capital now—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is really getting rather outside his Amendment which is merely to substitute the word "nine" for the word "ten." This is a limited Amendment and he is going very wide and dealing with points that are not in Order.
  Mr. Hammersley: I am very sorry, and I appreciate the point and will not deal with that aspect of the matter any further. But I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he reads these arguments—although one appreciates that he cannot accept the Amendment— will carefully consider their relevancy, that I believe that if he does that, he will appreciate that there is something in it.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): As you have
  532
  ruled, Colonel Clifton Brown, that the Amendment is a very narrow one, my reply will also be a very short one, and that is, that, to the surprise of no one, my right hon. Friend is unable to accept this proposal. The hon. Member tried to take us into fields which were out of Order, and as Tie has not been allowed to discuss the merits of his plan, I shall not be in order in discussing its demerits. I would only refer him to previous Debates on the subject, reports of which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, when Lord Simon, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, dealt with a somewhat similar proposal from other parts of the House. The chief disadvantage that would be involved in accepting this Amendment—and we all recognise how heavy is the burden of taxation at a standard rate of 10s.—is that in a fully taxed year it would involve a reduction in revenue of no less a sum than £59,000,000. Having said that, I think that it is a sufficient answer.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)— in page 2, line 25, at the end, to add:
  "save that no tax shall be charged on sums earned by reason of overtime or Sunday work."
  is not selected, and the following Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)— in page 2, line 25—dealing with British subjects resident abroad, is out of Order.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Gallacher: My Amendment has not been called, and I want to oppose the Clause on the ground that, as it stands at present, it perpetrates most widespread robbery of the masses of the workers. The workers have been encouraged and urged to work harder than they have ever worked before and to spend their evenings in the factories working overtime, and yet the Income Tax is arranged in such a manner that most of the overtime payment is taken completely away from them through taxation. I have before me the case of a lad who wrote to me. He is in the first stages of his profession at office work and has £110 a year, and so he is free from taxation, but during last year, because of the congestion of business, he was asked to work night

  533
  after night and he thus earned during the year £10 extra in overtime. With the addition of the £10 overtime to the £110 a year he is brought in under the taxation scheme, and £7 10s. is what he has to pay in Income Tax. That means that for 160 hours of overtime he actually receives only £2 10s. instead of £10.
  Mr. George Griffiths: How much is he paid per hour?
  Mr. Gallacher: I have not the letter with me. He had £10 of overtime money. His pay is around about is. per hour, and [Interruption]
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should not carry on a conversation with other hon. Members, but should address me.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wish they would use their intelligence. The lad worked something like 160 hours overtime, and £10 was the overtime payment. Thus his total wage for the year was £120, and he has been taxed to the extent of £7 10s., thus leaving £2 10s. for his overtime. That is sheer robbery, and that is the sort of thing that is applied to workers generally throughout the country. There has been a good deal of talk in this House in connection with the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax to the effect that unless it is cut down there will be no incentive to employers to speed-up or to carry on production. It should be understood that this 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax is put on because profits are earned in respect of which the employer spends no extra energy. It comes as an extra profit as a result of the character of the war production. The employers expend no extra energy of any kind in order to get this profit, and yet it is suggested that, if they are not allowed more profit than they are getting, they will sabotage production.
  In the case of the worker it is not a matter of simply getting extra money because of war. The worker has an extra strain put upon his physical and nervous strength. He has to pay for it in physical and nervous energy, without considering the consequences in the later years of life. I have had much experience of it. These workers who have been asked to put forward extra energy and pour out their strength in order to get increased production are being placed into situations in which most of
  534
  the money so earned is being taken away from them. How is it possible to expect workers to exert this extra energy if such a thing as that is done? It would be far better and cleaner to say to the workers, "We want you to volunteer for overtime without payment." You would then get a far better response, I am certain, than by expecting the workers to work overtime and then to drag all the money away from them by taxation of this kind. Consider this phase of it. In a particular factory the workers have worked overtime six months. They spend this money as they earn it. Yes. Workers have a habit of distributing the money as they get it. I know that that was always the case with me, and it is pretty general with all workers. There are many directions in which the money can go. Then the overtime stops, and there comes the collecting of the Income Tax.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: The money is stopped; they do not get a chance of handling it.
  Mr. Gallacher: The tax is collected from their wages after the overtime has stopped, and the workers are left in most difficult circumstances. The Minister of Labour, in urging the workers to put forward their greatest effort, made a solemn pledge that their earnings would not be interfered with. He asked them to work as they had never worked before and said that their full wages would be paid them. There is no comparison between the worker who gives his physical and nervous energy in working overtime and some of the Members here who talk so much about workers and absenteeism; incident ally they do not show the workers very much of an example. Look at the show they are making here to-day. They talk about absenteeism and slackening. I would like to see some Members of this House work in a factory for six or seven days a week, and then be asked to work overtime. How would they feel if practically all their overtime payments were taken away? I know that if some Members on the other side were faced with anything like that, they would raise a yell which would burst the heavens wide open. It is shameful that this tax should be imposed on the workers. I would like to go to a Division against this Clause; —
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Get your Whips on.
  Mr. Gallacher: I would like to go to a Division in order to make a real protest against this shameful robbery of the working class. It is not a question of workers getting something for which they have not given of their best. It is not a question of employers pocketing profits or aristocratic landowners taking rents and land values robbing the community right and left; it is a question of the workers giving of their best on the promise that they would be paid for what they did and then having this extra money taken away from them. I cannot understand Members on this side tolerating such a clause going through until overtime payment has been excluded. The principle has already been agreed upon in connection with the means test to old age pensioners and the unemployed. Money earned as overtime must be excluded from the calculation of the household income. if the principle is conceded there, then it should be conceded here, and I say that there should, be a Division with every member of the Labour movement voting against this Clause until that concession in granted.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: I do not intend to join my hon. Friend in a Division, and I do not want him to regard me as one of his Whips, but I think there is a great deal of truth in what he has said to-day. I am pleased that there is little overtime done in coal-mining, but there is a bit, and it is a great discouragement to men who do overtime to know that it will be taxed. If it were possible, I would like to see the attendance bonus disregarded for taxation purposes. I want to mention to the House an instance that occurred last Saturday at a pit at which I used to work. It is one of the most outstanding disgraces of which I have ever heard. A man put in his six shifts and came out at 12 noon on the Saturday to do a bit of bowling in West Yorkshire. Instead of being paid 6s. bonus, 2d. was stopped on the Saturday.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That has nothing to do with taxation. It has to do with wages.
  Mr. Griffiths: It was taxed at the source. I saw the man's pay ticket on the cricket ground, and he frothed at the mouth. However, I can see you looking at me, Colonel Clifton Brown, and I will just
  536
  say that if this attendance bonus was disregarded for Income Tax purposes, people would feel that they were helping to increase output. I agree with 95 per cent. of what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said. Some men work 60 or 72 hours per week, yet on all hours over 47 they must pay Income Tax. What an encouragement it would be if, as is done in connection with the means test, it was said that this overtime should not be taxed. I hope the Financial Secretary will say that we have made out a good, case and that he will make the proper recommendations to the Chancellor.
  Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): There is one point on which I hope the Financial Secretary will give us some enlightenment. It was raised by myself on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it is the problem of the collection of Income Tax from workers after the period of earnings has passed. I can give an example. In an armaments works people have been working 12 hours a day. Now the supply of the particular products on which they were working has satisfied the demand, and the workers are back on eight hours a day, with the result that they are having to pay their Income Tax on 12 hours income out of the money they received for only eight hours' work. That is all right for people who keep books and accounts and have reserve stocks from which they can draw for Income Tax payments, but for workers who have to calculate their spending from week to week it is a very serious handicap when the demand comes long after the income has been earned. Some workers might have a big income during one six months' period and a very low income during the following six months' period. That is bound to raise problems of collection, as. leading Members of Parliament, who have become Members of the Government and then become ordinary Members again, have found when they had no income to come after Income Tax was deducted on their previous year's income. I respectfully suggest that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary should go into this matter, because workers would much rather have their tax deducted from their income as they received, it. That could be arranged, and it would be far better to pay a bonus

  537
  on other taxation than expect them to pay it out of a smaller income.
  Although morally there may be no justification for arguing that anybody earning an income should not pay his contribution towards the cost of the war, there is a question of expediency involved —how far does the payment of Income Tax on overtime and Sunday earnings discourage production? I think it ought to be stated, to the credit of the workers and everybody else in the country, that there has been very little holding back by any workers on the ground that they have to pay Income Tax. Indeed, some workers have worked an extra day in the coal mines in order to earn enough money from the coalowners to pay their Income Tax, so that to that extent the payment of Income Tax has been an incentive for extra work to be done. However, I should like the Chancellor to look into the incidence of the taxation on overtime and Sunday work, because it may become such 3 hardship as to have a deterrent effect. That is a matter on which we need more accurate and definite figures than those which have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
  One thing which has to be noted in this connection is that too much overtime and Sunday work result in a definite decrease in production, and consequently, to the extent that Income Tax deters workers from doing too much overtime and Sunday work, it is a contribution to increased productivity and efficiency. It has been definitely proved, in the last war and in this war, that if men work 72 hours a week their energy decreases to such an extent that production falls. The work should be arranged in such a way that not more than 60 hours a week is worked, for otherwise, there is a fall in production. I ask the Chancellor to look into the point I have raised about the collection of Income Tax, which I suggest should be collected from the workers' wages when they are earned. Otherwise, problems will arise for both the workers and the Department if, in the following year, when overtime and Sunday work have stopped, the workers have no income left from which to pay the Income Tax.
  Mr. Hammersley: I do net Want to be controversial, but the speeches of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) were on the thesis that
  538
  the more a person works and the harder he works, the greater his reward ought to be.' I have never heard that case put with greater vigour on the most Tory platform. It is interesting to note that the slogan which we heard so much about of work for service and not for profit has now been entirely repudiated.
  Mr. Gallacher: This is the first time I have heard that Tories believe in Working hard. Let us have aft exhibition of these Tories. Ate any getting lip? If Tories are prepared to work hard in order to get the highest reward, I am prepared to find them work.
  Captain Crookshank: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite unable to accept the suggestion which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made by implication in his speech, which was itself directed against the whole Clause. I think all hon. Members will realise that I must ask the Committee to leave the Clause in the Bill, because it represents an estimated sum of £756,000,000 in Income Tax, and if it disappeared, then by implication the next Clause, which represents £80,000,000 in Sur-tax, would go also. I am sure that very brief reflection will show that we could not accept that situation. As to the point made by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) about the administration and the legal position concerning deductions, I will take note of what the hon. Member said. I cannot say off-hand whether or not anything can be done at present about the matter, but the difficulty arises, and it is inherent in the Income Tax system. A person is taxed on his income of the previous year, there may be a drop in his income, and it may be very difficult for him to pay the tax. The prudent man puts aside what he can, while he is earning the money, for the purpose of paying the taxation which will fall due in the subsequent year. That is advice which it is easy to give, but which it is seldom possible to carry out in one's own case.
  It was interesting to hear the vigorous adjectives about robbery by the State which fell from the lips of a Communist Member. I can only say, in reply, that it would not be possible to judge anybody's Income Tax liability from the point of view of whether or not he earned the income at a particular hour of the day or night, or on a Sunday as opposed

  539
  to a week-day. That is a sort of division in the assessment of income which it would be quite impossible to apply. The hon. Member said that it is a great hardship to workpeople who earn overtime as the result of their efforts during the war to find that some portion of the overtime pay has to go in tax. That does not apply only to overtime. There are other ways and walks of life where effort in the past has brought increased income and it has been taxed. However, it must be a consolation to the hon. Member to realise that, by the proposals in the Finance Bill, the amount which he gave in the case he stated, namely, £7 10s., will go as a post-war credit to the payer. The hon. Member has either forgotten or ignored that arrangement which was outlined by my right hon. Friend. Although the money will be taken from the worker now and used for the purposes of the war, it will be credited to him after the war, and he will not have lost it. He merely defers the enjoyment of the fruits of his increased labour, and during the period of deferment the State enjoys the use of the money. I think that when the hon. Member reflects upon that and the full implications of taking out of the Budget a sum of £836,000,000 needed for carrying on the war effort—although he may not perhaps be so anxious about that part of our policy—he will see that it is out of the question for me to do anything except press the Committee to leave the Clause in the Bill.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 4.—(Alteration of certain reliefs.)
  Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, to leave out "one-tenth," and to insert "one-fifth."
  I take it that it will be convenient to discuss together this Amendment and the two following Amendments in my name, since they are inter-related. These Amendments have the effect of reversing the Chancellor's proposal to decrease the already meagre differentiation between earned and unearned income, and to put the differentiation back at its original figure. I think it will be of the highest importance to the future of this country that we should rely—as I believe we shall
  540
  be forced to rely—less on rentier interest and more and more on the producer's interest. The Amendments have the effect of giving a special, though very limited, advantage of one-fifth of the income to the person whose income is earned as against one-tenth, which is the Chancellor's proposal. There is, of course, an over-riding limit to the amount of the allowance under the Bill. It is proposed that that over-riding limit should be reduced from £250 to £150; and in my Amendment it is proposed that the limit should be £200. The arguments of the case are well known. Although one realises the necessity for the Chancellor to obtain the maximum amount of taxation, I believe it is unfortunate that this little appreciation of the situation of the producer as against the rentier should be whittled away. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendments.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): My hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) will not, I know, expect me to accept this Amendment. I have made my Budget proposals after very careful examination, not only of how the contributions can be fairly made, but in the light of the amount of money I have to find. I do not think I am exaggerating the position when I say that while people greatly regret the effects of heavy taxation, it has been generally regarded that the allocations have been made in an endeavour to be fair to all classes of the community. As far as the first Amendment is concerned, it would mean the loss of revenue to the extent of £75,000,000. I could not possibly accept such proposals.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out "one hundred and forty," and to insert "five hundred."
  The fate of this Amendment will determine the fate of the other Amendments standing in my name. There was a very well-known Member of this House who once stated that no man was worth more than £500 a year. I do not know whether I agree entirely with that, but I would say that it was an over-payment for present Members of the Government.

  541
  I do know, however, that one cannot conceive of a man, wife and family living in decent surroundings and being provided with an adequate standard of living on less than £500 a year. The late Member for Shettleston put down £1,000 a year as an absolute minimum for a decent and adequate standard of living. Now, when there is all this talk about what is to happen when the war is over, can anyone imagine less than £500 being an adequate income for a man, his wife and his family? I should like to see some of the hard-working Tories having to work for a year and to find ways and means of living on £500 a year. That would be really hard work for them. Of course, the masses of the workers are receiving far less than £500 a year, which should be conceded as an absolute minimum. They have struggled to live, battling against adversity, year in and year out. We want to see them lifted up and not battered down, and therefore £500 and less should be completely free from any taxation. To tax an income of less is robbery; do not let us make any mistake about that.
  I have laid it down as axiomatic on several occasions, and it should be accepted by every Chancellor of the Exchequer who has any sense of human decency or any passable standard of morality—and there is no Tory who would oppose this proposition on a public platform; he would not dare to do so— that while there are people in the country who have a surplus, it is a shame and a scandal to tax those who have not got sufficient. I say that anyone who receives less than £500 a year has not got anything more than a sufficiency. Will any Tory Member on the other side get up and say that a man with £500 a year has more than a sufficiency? While there are people with a surplus, it is a shame and a scandal that those who have only, or less than, a sufficiency should be taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that if taxation is limited to incomes above £500 a year he will be faced with difficulties. Of course he will. It means that he will have to hit his own friends, which is a thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like to do, and a thing which hon. Members on the other side do not wish him to do. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to this Amendment, and the principle
  542
  that there should be a recognised minimum for an adequate standard of life, I am prepared to advise him on how he can raise all the money he wants, and how he will be able to obtain more money than he would lose by this concession.
  Let me tell the Committee what is going on. The miners made a demand for an increase in wages and were offered is. a day. The money to pay that increase in wages is taken from the public, but the mine-owners take £1,500,000 of it for themselves.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment, which has nothing to do with the wickedness of other people.
  Mr. Gallacher: I wanted to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a variety of ways by which I could advise him to get the money. I know that it would not do for me to go too far into illustrations, or to draw attention to the fact that agricultural land valued at £50 an acre before the war is being sold at £5,000 an acre, and that the money is going into the pockets of some of the friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would not be in order in referring to that. The point I wish to make is that there is no question whatever of the possibilities of raising money. When I spoke during the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill, I made certain propositions which would provide the Chancellor of the Exchequer with £10,000,000 a day. Why do we talk about common sacrifice and sharing alike, when all the time the masses of the people are being pushed further down, and there is never any question of interference with the privileges, property and powers of the ruling classes? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not agree that £500 a year is the minimum for a decent standard of life for a man, his wife and family. If he agrees to that proposition, and also that there shall be no taxation on incomes of £500 or less, then I am prepared to assist him with the advice at my disposal—and it is good advice—on how he can raise all the money he wants.
  Sir K. Wood: I am afraid I must devote myself to the Amendment on the Paper, though I would warn the hon. Member that there is great danger in offering to give me advice and assistance in any cir-

  543
  cumstances. I do not know what his friends will say to him when they read that statement of his. I could not, of course, accept his Amendment as it Would not only reduce the war-time taxation of many people below the peace-time level —and obviously that could not be contemplated—but it would also involve a very serious loss of revenue, which I am afraid would not meet my purpose at the present time.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for the crediting of certain amounts of Income Tax.)
  Mr. Liddall: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, after "be," to insert: "forthwith notified to the individual and."
  I move this Amendment in the confident hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, at any rate, appreciate and accept the principle. I am sure he will agree that anyone who, under this Clause, is entitled to any relief should be notified forthwith of the amount credited to him on such date as may be fixed by the Treasury. I hope my right hon. Friend will see how reasonable that proposition is.
  Sir K. Wood: I am in general agreement with the aim that my hon. Friend desires to achieve. The Amendment deals with post-war repayments, and he is desirous that notification shall be given to the individual so that he shall be aware of the sums which will be credited to him. I do not think the actual form of words proposed will be quite suitable, and I suggest that we should have some such words as "notified as soon as possible." There are certain processes which must be carried out before notification could be made. It is my intention that, as soon as is possible and convenient, the individual concerned shall be notified of the amount standing to his credit. If my hon. Friend will leave the matter in that way for the moment, I will either move or suggest to him a form of words which will better carry out the intention.
  Mr. Liddall: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's very satisfactory statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 7.—(Farming and market gardening to be charged under Schedule D.)
  Sir Ernest Shepperson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out:
  "as a nursery or garden for the sale of produce"
  and to insert:
  "by persons carrying on businesses of nurserymen and market gardeners."
  This Amendment is intended to clarify the position under this Clause. Subsection (2) states that
  "market garden land' means land occupied as a nursery or garden for the sale of the produce."
  That seems, on the face of it, easy to understand, but unfortunately it has not been understood either by the courts or by the Commissioners. For a great length of time nurseries and market gardens "have come under Schedule D, whereas agricultural land has always been under Schedule B, and still is up to the limit of £300. These words were first used in 1806. A case recently came before an appeal court and a judgment was given which has since been confirmed by the House of Lords. The difficulty is that the General and Special Commissioners do not agree as to the interpretation of these words. In Lincolnshire on one side of a river the Commissioners hold that the growing of carrots is a farming operation and that on the other side of the river it is a market garden operation. In certain cases it has been held that the growing of potatoes in a market gardening and not a farming operation. My whole purpose in moving the Amendment is that all these past difficulties should be removed. Many cases have gone to the courts in the last 10 years. If my Amendment were accepted, there would be no doubt as to the interpretation of the words, and the whole of the difficulty would be removed.
  Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter forward. I will examine it to see whether there is any necessity to deal with the point. The Clause does not affect the existing scope

  545
  of market-gardening land or the existing basis of charge. If there is any necessity to meet my hon. Friend's case, I think it would have to be done in another part of the Bill. I will examine the matter before Report with a view to examining the cases he has referred to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out "other than," and to insert "including."
  This Amendment is so far unique in that it is an attempt to fortify rather than to rob the Treasury. Its effect is to bring profit from hops under Schedule D. This Clause, which I am glad the Chancellor has introduced, begins to remedy a great anomaly, the assessment of farmers under Schedule B instead of Schedule D. To continue to give farmers the opportunity to choose two methods of assessment with regard to a crop like hops is indefensible. Of all the crops on which a farmer should not be allowed to chop and change in this way, hops is the crop, because it is highly speculative. It is an expensive crop to grow, and it gives a high gross return. That means either a high loss or a high profit on the growing of hops. The result is that if a farmer has a bad year, he comes under Schedule D, and if he has a good year, he comes under Schedule B. Before the fixing of the Hop Quota hops were selling at as low as £3 a ton, which was unprofitable. There is a fixed price for 1941 of £15 a ton. It is probable that this will be a profitable crop. If it is, the farmers under this Clause can be assessed under Schedule B, and they will pay a negligible amount of tax. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be an unprofitable year, the farmers will avoid Schedule B and come under Schedule D. In any case,. they will pay practically no tax.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I do not know as much about hops, perhaps, as my hon. Friend. If a man grows hops by themselves or with other crops and his holding exceeds an annual value of £300, the Clause provides that he comes under the provisions of Schedule D. The words with which the Amendment deals occur in the existing Income Tax code. It has for many years been laid down as & principle that the growing of hops is treated as ordinary farm cultivation and not as market-garden
  546
  cultivation. The reason for that is obvious to anyone Who knows what hop cultivation and ordinary market-garden cultivation are like. It would be inappropriate in this Clause, which is really dealing with a different subject matter, namely, the bringing under Schedule D of holdings of a certain kind, to make what would in effect be an alteration in the principle that has been laid down as to what is properly regarded as market gardening and what is ordinary farm cultivation. If at some future time it becomes necessary to review the line that has been drawn in the past between farm cultivation and special forms of cultivation, such as market gardens and woodlands, that would be the time for my hon. Friend to put his case about hops. It would be beyond the general scope and intention of the Clause to alter these words.
  Mr. Benson: I must take exception to the Attorney-General's phrase when he refers to principles laid down as to what are and what are not market gardens and other forms of agriculture. The courts have been busily trying to decide what a market garden is and what it is not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not argued the point whether hops should come under Schedule D, and the fact that this might not be a suitable place for my Amendment is no reason for rejecting it. If it is a good proposal, the mere question of its position in the Bill ought not to have any weight in considering whether it should be accepted.
  Mr. Spens: As representing an area in which are some of the largest hop gardens in the world, I am somewhat confused about this Amendment and the answer which has been given. Hop gardens are ordinarily farm land for the purpose of taxation, and this Clause provides that where the Schedule A assessment exceeds £300, which it will do in the case of nearly every good hop garden, hop gardens have to be assessed under Schedule D. Therefore, the Clause brings in compulsorily every hop garden where the Schedule A assessment, including the farm house and oast houses, exceeds £300. The hon. Member seems to have put down his Amendment on the basis that somehow or other they were getting out of that position. I became optimistic and hoped that that was so in the case of some of them. On the other hand, I

  547
  agree with him in principle that if ordinary farming is to be included compulsorily under Schedule D, hop gardens ought also to be included. As I understand it, they are clearly included, and I gather that to be the answer of the Attorney-General.
  Amendment negatived.
  Sir E. Shepperson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out from "operation" to the end of the Subsection.
  This Sub-section deals with the assessment of new businesses. I am glad that the Attorney-General is here as well as the Chancellor, because I am confident that they will be able to explain the meaning of the Sub-section. The last words are:
  "the period of computation for any year of assessment may, in the case of farming, be a period falling wholly or partly within a year or years of assessment for which the person, partnership or body of persons carrying on the farming was not chargeable under that Schedule."
  I am confident that both the Chancellor and the Attorney-General understand that paragraph, but I must say that I do not. The purpose of my moving the Amendment is to get an explanation of the meaning of these words. The usual time for taking over a farm is Michaelmas Day, or early in October, and the usual accounting year in agriculture is from July to July, which is the cereal year. If a farmer goes into occupation on the nth October, 1940, upon what basis will he be assessed for the year 1940–41, his accounts being made up to the end of July? Further, I should like to know what will be the basis of assessment in the year 1941–42.
  Sir K. Wood: I should like an opportunity to consider the particular point which my hon. Friend has put to me, but I will give him an explanation of the effect of the Clause itself and what would happen if his Amendment were carried. The words which he proposes to delete— although it may not be clear from the phraseology either to my hon. Friend or myself—I am advised, result in farmers who are brought under Schedule D for 1941–42 by the present legislation being assessed by reference to the preceding year's profits, although those were the profits of a period in which farmers in general were chargeable under Schedule
  548
  B. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried and those words were omitted, the whole Clause would be unintelligible and unworkable. So far as the exact dates which he has mentioned are concerned, I will look into the position in that particular case, and let him know what it is; but I have described the effects of the Clause, and would assure him that his Amendment would operate very adversely indeed and not in the way in which he desires.
  Sir E. Shepperson: My only purpose in moving the Amendment was to get an explanation, for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir E. Shepperson:I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, after "farming, "to insert" and market garden lands."
  I am moving this Amendment because market gardening is not included in this particular Sub-section, and I think the intention was that it should be included.
  Sir K. Wood: I appreciate the reason why my hon. Friend has brought this point forward. It is a difficult matter to follow, and I hope the explanation I propose to give will be of value to him and to others who are interested. Subsection (5) provides for the carrying forward of losses in cases where farmers are compulsorily charged on their profits under Schedule D. The Amendment seeks to extend that provision to market garden land, but my advisers tell me that that is unnecessary, because under existing law market gardens are entitled to carry forward losses. Therefore his case is already met.
  Sir E. Shepperson: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out Sub-section (6).
  This Sub-section is an example of what, in military parlance, may be described as the part of the defence in depth which is erected between the farmer and the payment of Income Tax. It is rather a, complicated case. A farmer, whatever happens to him, always has the best of every possible world so

  549
  far as taxation is concerned, and this Sub-section is really an unwarrantable extension of an originally unwarrantable privilege which was given under Rule 6 of Schedule B. If a farmer anticipates a bad year, he goes on to Schedule D. He can get on to Schedule D by giving notice within two months of the beginning of the year of assessment. In addition to that he has another protection. If he finds it necessary or desirable, he can claim to pay tax on the out-turn of the current year. Sub-section (6) continues that provision from Schedule B to Schedule D, so that a fanner can at any time claim to be taxed not on Schedule B or Schedule D but on the actual out-turn of the current year. The current year may be a perfectly legitimate and just basis of taxation, but it is not a legitimate and just basis of taxation when it is given as an alternative to other forms of taxation. If we are to have equitable taxation as between members of the community, they must all be assessed on a similar basis, and if a fanner can chop and change about among three or four bases of assessment it means that he is always able to choose that basis of assessment which is calculated to attract the least tax.
  Under Clause 6 a very similar concession is given to the ordinary business man, say, a manufacturer. If, owing to certain circumstances, he has suffered a very large drop in income, he can ask to be assessed on the basis of the current year, but very careful safeguards have been inserted. He has to show that the drop in his income is due to war conditions, and there is the further safeguard that the actual year and the ordinary assessment year are taken into consideration, linked up, so to speak, so that the year of assessment is not altogether out of consideration. Why should not that Clause apply to the farmer? If we delete this Sub-section (6), it will apply to the farmer. If we leave in Subsection (6), we give to the farmer a more favourable basis of assessment than we give to the ordinary business man, and frankly I can see no justification whatever for doing it. The farmer should have the protection of Clause 6, which is what other business men have, and there is no reason why we should give him additional protection.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think my hon. Friend has appreciated that this principle is intended to operate only in the transitional year, 1941–42. Viewed in that way, I think he will agree that it is not an unfair provision. If a man is under Schedule D all the time, he knows that if he has a good year, the Tax which he will have to pay next year will be based on the large profits which he is making. If you bring a man suddenly into Schedule D—I know that was talked about last year and, as far as Parliament is concerned, he is being brought in now— he might say, "It is rather hard to tax me on the profits of last year."I did have a good year, but, as things then were, I thought that Schedule D was always to be optional, and I did not make the provision which people are supposed to make in certain circumstances." When my hon. Friend apreciates that position, I think he will find that most of his objections are met.
  Mr. Benson: There is nothing in the Clause to suggest that.
  The Attorney-General: Quite true.
  Mr. Benson: If that is so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to add:
  "(7) Rule 5 of Schedule B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall read as if at the end there were inserted: —
  "But thereafter for so long as he shall occupy the said lands for the purpose of husbandry he shall be charged to tax in respect of the profits or gains thereof under Case 1 of Schedule D."
  The Rule gives to the farmer the option of being assessed under Schedule D. The defence put up in respect of Schedule B has always been that Income Tax returns for farmers were appallingly complicated and that it was too big a burden for the small farmer to ask him to make complicated returns. That argument might be true for farmers with very small farms but it is not true for farmers paying far less than £300 a year rent. But no matter how small a farmer, if he can make a Schedule D return in a bad year he can make one in a good year. Having elected to be assesed on Schedule D to avoid even Schedule B taxation I see no reason why he should be allowed

  551
  to revert to Schedule B to avoid his liabilities.
  Sir K. Wood: There is a good deal of substance in what my hon. Friend has said. The only reply I would make to him now is that I have deliberately taken this course with regard to farmers this year. I am making certain changes in the position, so far as large fanners are concerned. I have done this after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. I promise my hon. Friend that during the forthcoming months I will have regard to the consideration which he has mentioned. I will consider it, with a view to seeing whether further action can be taken in the next Budget. For the present year, I feel I must adhere to the proposal which I announced in the Budget.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I did not wish to intervene, but as my right hon. Friend is showing himself rather weak-kneed with the Ministry of Agriculture, I would point out that if he were to look a little more closely into the troubles of the small farmer, he would have more sympathy with them than with farmers whose operations are larger. I hope he will realise that there are people in this House who are watching him, and, although we are not usually of a suspicious turn of mind, we hope that he will not continue to give away things and inflict further burdens upon a class of the community which is carrying appalling burdens at the present time in the shape of interference of various kinds from Government Departments. The number of Government Departments interfering with the farmer to-day is almost inconceivable. I warn my right hon. Friend that if he goes very much further in that direction, some of us will have to take a very severe interest in his philanderings with other people.
  Mr. Woods: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not give away too much out of sympathy for the small man. There are many small men who are quite worthy of the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there are other small men who are exploiting the present situation. Some of them make fabulous profits by adapting themselves and growing certain crops. Take leeks, for example. I imagine, considering the present price of leeks,
  552
  that a man with an acre of leeks might have made £5,000, neglecting everything else. Similarly, a man who has been enterprising and has got in a good crop of onions, may have made a fortune and retire for the rest of his life, by selling what are called spring onions at about 1d. each. While it will be well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the problems of the small man expressly, I would point out that there is a good deal of resentment at the way in which some of these small men have held up to ransom the whole of the public. I hope that these people will not get away With it because they pose as small.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir E. Shepperson: I would like to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) as to the reason why agriculturists should get preferential treatment. It is not the small man only but the big man that this Clause affects. I would like also to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer about them. Agriculture is a very uncertain operation. It has not a steady income from one year to another. The receipts of the activities of agriculturists depend almost entirely upon the weather. If we have the present sunshine for another month, agriculture will make good receipts, but if we have the weather that we had last week, raining every day, receipts from agriculture will be very low. I have known the receipts 6f agriculture in a damp or bad year to be only half what they were in a fine year. The position under Schedule D is that when the farmer has a good year he does not treat it exactly as profit but he puts the surplus by as reserve to meet the bad year, and he lives only on the average. Under the present proposal-, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with take half the receipts of the good year away, and will prevent the agriculturist having any reserve with which to meet the bad year. I Suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the returns for Schedule D should be taken over three years instead of a single year.
  Mr. Spens: As I understand it, the first year's tax, that is tax for 1941–2, will be

  553
  assessed on profits for 1940–41, and the assessment will depend on whether the farmer kept books accurately for 1940–41. In fact, I am told by accountants in the country that a number of farmers did not keep books for 1940–41 and that it is a real practical difficulty to write up accounts accurately now. I do not see in the Clause any machinery to deal with such a difficulty It may be that there is some machinery in the Income Tax; Acts somewhere to deal with this matter. But I was asked to raise the point in order that machinery may be inserted if required.
  Mr. Woods: I feel that the speaker below the Gangway ought to be replied to. The small man is by no means as dependent as the big man on the seasons of the weather. The big man has to cultivate the open country, whereas many of the smaller men, by the use of small frames and glass-houses, can raise these so-called salads almost irrespective of weather, and can have their own market gardens so fitted up that they can provide their own water if the rainfall fails. It is these people who are making profits. I would like to point out to the Chancellor that our food specialists and dieticians emphasise the importance of the vitamins we normally get in fruit and of which children are expected to have a compensatory quantity, They can only get them by having this type of food in which the smallholder largely specialises. These smallholders are not so much the victims of the weather, and I hope that the Chancellor, in spite of the plea made for the small man, will take into account not so much the size of the agriculturist as whether he is holding the community up to ransom and making people pay fabulous sums for insignificant commodities. Since I last spoke I have been told that spring onions cost 2½d. each and not 1d. That is sheer barefaced robbery, and if the Ministry of Food take no action, I hope the Chancellor will see that the country gets some return, at any rate by heavy taxation, for such treatment. It would be impossible to exaggerate the dissatisfaction this sort of thing is causing throughout the country.
  Mr. Shinwell: I intervene in order to correct any impression that may have been created that we on this side were unsympathetic to the farming com-
  554
  munity. [Interruption.] I do not know the reason for the hilarity on the Government Bench, but I am always willing to sit down and allow the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain.
  The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I cannot allow the proceedings to be interrupted merely for the purpose of a little irrelevant humour.
  Mr. Shinwell: If it is a question of humour, that is a different matter. I was not clear that it was intended as such. Everyone to his taste. We on this side are anxious to promote the wellbeing of the farming community, whether large or small men, nor do we believe for a moment that if profiteering is rampant and high prices are being charged—and undoubtedly high prices are being charged —the farming community are to blame. It is largely the fault of the middleman. If we are to seek a remedy, it is in that direction that it must be found. At the same time, I want to say that the farming community, whether large or small men, must make a contribution to the national revenue.
  Mr. Levy: I, as representing a Yorkshire constituency in which we have a number of small farmers, consider that a gross slander has been made in this House on the integrity of the small farming community. It is not fair, and it is not right to say that they are all profiteering. The small farmers to-day are to a very great extent the backbone of our food production in this country, and, as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell;) very properly said, if there is any profiteering, it is the middleman and not the small farmer who is to blame. To say that the small farmer is responsible for all the iniquities that take place within the food control is something which I, as a representative of small farmers in my constituency, resent.
  The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will not pursue that point further, whether with regard to large or small farmers.
  Mr. C. Williams: I think the Chancellor is completely and absolutely right in seeing that every section of the community, as in this particular case, bears its full share of taxation. I certainly wish for no particular section of the community to avoid its share of taxation. I would like

  555
  to add one sentence. I feel deeply and humbly satisfied that at last we have had such a remarkable demonstration of sympathy towards the farming community from the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I congratulate him.
  Question: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 13.—(Disallowance for income tax purposes of certain payments in respect of war injuries to employés.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir Herbert Williams: I wish to say a brief word on this Clause. It has created a certain amount of anxiety among many people, both employers and workpeople, in that it is a discouragement to employers to take out policies of insurance to give to their employés greater benefits, in the event of injury from enemy action, than they would get under the Government's Personal Injuries Scheme. I do not understand why the Chancellor has taken this view except on the grounds that His Majesty's Government, and those who advise them, seem to think that they are not merely sleeping partners in industry, but that they own the whole show, and that all the expenses of businesses are the spending of Government money. They have now got this mental outlook, which is the outlook of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen behind me, that everything a business owns belongs to the Government, and that the Government allow you to keep 10s. in the £out of it. I understand that the main objection to this being treated as trading expenses was that it was claimed that it would be subsidising insurance to the extent of 10s. in the £That would not have occurred to the Chancellor in the days when Income Tax was is. in the £.
  Here you have this outlook, that expenses that one incurs are being subsidised to the extent of 10s. in the £ by the State. That, I think, is a dangerous outlook. Here are people desirous of doing the right thing by their workpeople, and, after all, if they indulge in certain other amenities they are not challenged as trading expenses, but this particular
  556
  amenity, for reasons I do not understand, is being challenged as a trading expense. I find no warrant in principle for this Clause and its effect, particularly in these days when many firms have not as much money to play with as they might like. The effect of the Excess Profits Tax and the high rate of Income Tax means that people have to be much more careful than otherwise they would have been, and a large number of people will find it difficult to incur the expense involved in insuring their workpeople if every penny of that expense is to be regarded as coming out of profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this is a convenient way of getting in a little more money for the Exchequer. He said that without any conscience; he is a charming man outside, but neither he nor his advisers have any conscience at all, and here he is doing something gravely detrimental to great masses of employed people in this country. I have spoken quite briefly because, for one reason, I have to attend a meeting of the Select Committee in a few minutes time, and also because there are others who want to speak. After the Chancellor has heard the very substantial number of others who wish to speak, he will perhaps realise that this is something which has given rise to a good deal of indignation and that he must make some concessions.
  Sir K. Wood: It will perhaps shorten the discussion if I say a word now. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has given a wrong description of the matter, and I think that when the Clauses are examined by the Committee there will be none of the apprehensions to which my hon. Friend has just referred. All this Clause in fact does, which I think is perfectly reasonable, is that in cases such as are mentioned in the Clause where employers desire to effect insurances on behalf of their employés in respect of war injuries, is that, at any rate so far as Excess Profits Tax is concerned, the State shall not pay the whole of the sum which it would otherwise have to pay if this Clause was not in operation. In other words, if this Clause was deleted, no firm would effect these insurances at its own expense and on its own account; it would be at the expense of the Exchequer and the Treasury. All we say is that if a firm desires to do that it must be at their own expense out of their own profits.
  Sir H. Williams: But suppose a firm has not earned its standard for the purposes of Excess Profits Tax. Then my argument will apply.
  Sir K. Wood: I was going to deal with that case. In the case of the trader not liable to Excess Profits Tax, if it was not provided as in the Clause, the Exchequer would have to pay half, and the view of the Government—there are no politics in this—is that if these firms desire to insure, they must pay for it in the ordinary way out of their own profits and not out of the Exchequer. Another reason for that is this: The Committee will, of course, remember that in order to deal fairly with employés in the matter of war injury I announced in the House, at considerable cost to the Exchequer, a further increased scale of compensation which the Government itself was going to pay for, and anybody who looks at this matter from the point of industry and of the workpeople will agree with me when I say that it is in the interests of the workpeople and of the prosecution of the war that there should not be some firms giving extra compensation, payable at the expense of the State, but that the fairest thing in this war, in which we are all involved, is that there should be a uniform rate of compensation which the Government have undertaken to bear.
  Apart altogether from this Clause, which simply prohibits the cost coming from the State alone and not really being paid by the employer, there is the very much larger question of principle, which we need not as a matter of fact discuss here to-day, but which I mention in case anybody has any misapprehensions. That is that there is a great deal to be said, apart from the implications of this Clause, for all receiving compensation if injuries are sustained on the scale which the Government are providing. Considerable difficulties will arise in trade and industry directly one particular section or firm has increased compensation in comparison with another.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: I wish I could believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained the full implications of Clause 13 of the Finance Bill. I speak from this back Bench in order to make it clear that I am not speaking for the Labour party. I am, however, speaking for a very considerable number
  558
  of trade unions, my own union included; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I put the wrong interpretation on the provisions of this Clause. If hon. Members will turn to the top of page 11 covering part of Clause 13, they will see that there is no relief for Income Tax in respect of:
  "any payments by way of benefit made by any person to, or to the personal representatives or dependants of, any employés of his on account of their incapacity, retirement or death owing to war injuries."
  Let me explain how all this may work out in actual practice. The Co-operative movement employ approximately 300,000 people, and the majority of these people are covered by trade unions, my own included. Now, before this legal provision emerged the Co-operative movement, as employers, entered into an agreement with their employés' trade unions that, where an employé met with an accident after he agreed to work during alerts, his employers promised to make up his wages to the full for eight weeks. When the Co-operative movement as employers saw this new provision a few days ago, they found that they had entered into that agreement under a misapprehension. It may be, therefore, when they calculate their gains and expenses under this Clause that they may be compelled to review the agreement as a consequence of the passing of this legislation.
  May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this further important matter? A few moments ago I heard several Members say "Hear, hear" of approval when compensation for war injuries by the State was mentioned. I want the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney-General to remember one thing, that shop assistants, warehousemen and clerks are domestic servants under Common Law, and they are ordinarily entitled to full wages during sickness. The manual worker is not entitled under Common Law to that privilege and what the employer of shop assistants, warehousemen or clerks ordinarily does, therefore, is to make up the wages to the full as a matter of custom when their employés are injured by enemy action, just as if they were paying wages during sickness.
  The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that State compensation is adequate for war injuries. How much is that State

  559
  compensation? If a man getting £4 a week, employed by a co-operative society, is injured by enemy action while working during an alert, he will probably get 30s. a week compensation from the State. The employer, the co-operative society, is willing to pay him an additional £2 10s. a week for eight weeks, by agreement with his trade union. I am very much disturbed, and the co-operative movement and the trade unions are very much concerned, because this provision is in effect breaking through what we have always understood to be the Common Law of this country. If this becomes law, what is to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from saying that wages paid during sickness under the Common Law must be regarded as benefit paid by the employer, and that, therefore, he shall not be relieved from liability to taxation in respect of that benefit. There would be no objection from the. trade unions if State compensation were adequate; but it is not. The right hon. Gentleman knows that compensation under the war injuries scheme for civilians is not by any means equal to the wage of the average workman. If the employer is good enough to pay, by arrangement with a trade union, anything in addition to that inadequate war injuries compensation, why should he be discouraged. He should rather be encouraged to add something to it. I am not supporting the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H Williams) in his desire to delete Clause 13 altogether; all I ask is that, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is always willing to consider the claims of agriculture, the railways, and the banking interests, he should say here and now that he will consider this problem also, before we reach the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
  Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; I will certainly see whether there is anything in the point that the hon. Member has made. I always endeavour to do that in connection with any proposals which are brought forward here. But I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Clause operates merely as I have stated.
  Sir. Leslie: The workers in every industry have been urged to remain at work after the alert has sounded. Under an agreement entered into with the cooperative movement as a whole and with
  560
  the Co-operative Wholesale Society by no fewer than six trade unions, including my own union the Shop Assistants' Union, the National Union of Clerks, the union represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the Transport and General Workers' Union, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, all those unions advised their members to remain at work after, the alert and the co-operative movement decided to make up the difference between the amount that the State would pay the workers in the event of injury and the amount they would normally have earned. I have a letter here informing me that the C.W.S. have been refused any allowance to meet the cost involved under this arrangement. That means that the agreement may be broken. Need you wonder if the workers will say, "When an alert sounds we are going to shelter"?
  Sir K. Wood: I think the best course would be for my hon. Friend to get into touch with the co-operative movement, and I will see him before the Report stage. This is the first I have heard about the matter.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: Where compensation is paid by a firm to its employé that compensation is deductible in calculating the net amount upon which Income Tax is chargeable.
  Sir K. Wood: This Clause merely says that, so far as firms coming in for payment of excess profits are concerned, the whole amount must be paid not by the State but by the individual.
  Mr. Levy: Is it not a fact that where this payment is to be dealt with, and where these disallowable payments are made, it often reduces the standard to such an extent that it penalises the employer? It is not fair to say that where an employer is prepared to provide insurance that will be of benefit to his employés, he shall be penalised. We hear a great deal about good employers and bad employers. We try to do what we can for the good employer and to punish the bad employer; but now the Chancellor is proposing to penalise the good employer.
  Sir K. Wood: I would hardly describe people as good employers, doing a great deal for their employés, when, in fact, the Exchequer has, in the case of Excess

  561
  Profits Tax, to pay the whole lot. If my hon. Friend will give me a case, I will go into it, so far as the standard or anything like that is concerned; but I do not think that some of my hon. Friends have appreciated the difficulty of the position. Apart from this Clause, there is a great deal to be said for prohibiting arrangements of this kind altogether, because we get very gross anomalies, and some people in a very much better position than others. It was that which led the Government to increase the compensation under the scheme.
  Mr. Silverman: I think the Committee will sympathise very greatly with the Chancellor in the point he made where this matter affects E.P.T. It is idle for an employer to claim credit for generosity in respect of a payment which is not made at the employer's expense. But where it is not E.P.T., but the standard rate, that is involved, the case is rather different. The Chancellor says, "If the employer wants to do that, he ought to pay the whole amount himself." But why should you distinguish that kind of legitimate expense, voluntarily undertaken by an employer, from a great many other forms of expense which are voluntary and which, but for this Clause, would be deductible? If the thing is put on the broad ground of principle, that there ought not to be any differentiation at all, that it is a bad thing for the employers to raise the compensation to the level of wages, even for so short a period of eight weeks, that is another matter. But it should be decided in principle by the Committee; and it has not been so decided.
  I have great sympathy for the argument that a distinction between one class of worker and another is wrong; but if you are to have equality, and if you say to employers, "It is a bad thing for you to give anything away, and we are not going to encourage you to do it," you must be sure that the general level down to which you are going to keep everybody is adequate. I do not think anybody would suggest that a man with a family, earning £4 or £5 a week, is getting adequate compensation under the State scheme. The defence for that is that the State cannot afford to pay more. But if you say that you are keeping the figure down to 30s. a week because you cannot
  562
  afford more, your argument for preventing employers who can afford to pay more, or who are persuaded by organised labour to pay more, has gone by the board. It is only a short period which is involved, and in the case which has been mentioned it is only eight weeks. I hardly think that the Committee will be greatly affected by the argument that there is something anti-social to be discouraged on grounds of principle when the employer says, "We will soften the blow to you and ease the difficulties and give a little more than the State feels that it is in a position to give." I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the opportunity of reconsidering the matter from that point of view.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how the Treasury differentiates for taxation purposes as between wages ordinarily paid for work done, wages paid during sickness, and part wages paid consequent upon incapacity arising through injury owing to enemy action?
  Sir K. Wood: I do not think that that arises out of this matter. There is no need, in fact, to make such differentiation. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the statement that I made which may possibly meet the point to which my hon. Friend referred. I did not adopt the argument which the hon. Gentleman has put forward. The Government, shortly after coming into operation, put forward a new compensation scheme and increased the scale, and when announcing the improved civilian scheme, I made it clear that the Government as" a whole were opposed to systems of group insurance against war risks in which employers undertook to provide benefits in respect of war injuries. With the extension and improvement of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, it was felt that the requirements had been adequately covered by the liabilities thereby assumed by the State.
  I pause to say that you might very well argue that that compensation was not sufficient, but that is another matter. That might very well be argued, but I am taking up quite a different argument this afternoon, which, I think, is shared by most trade unions in the country. It is to seek, if we possibly can, to avoid differentiation in this matter. You may

  563
  say that the sum is not sufficient, but that is a different matter from the point of differentiation. I also made this statement:
  "It is not intended however to prejudice the rights of persons where the existing contract of service and conditions of employment provide for supplementation."
  That is why I suggest that people should come and see me, because I would like to examine their case to see whether they come within that proviso which excepts cases whose existing contracts provide for payments in respect of death, pensions in respect of disablement, or sickness benefit in respect of injuries and all payments made by a trader towards such benefits. These will continue to be allowed for taxation purposes, even though the death, disablement, or sickness may be due to war injuries.
  The Clause is directed only against special war-time arrangements providing special benefits in respect of war injuries over and above the ordinary benefits in respect of any injury, however caused. The Clause does not invalidate any such arrangement. Therefore any right which the employee may have to receive any benefit is not impaired; the Clause is directed solely to securing that the Exchequer does not bear the cost.
  Mr. Silverman: I understood that where the payment made by the employer is not voluntary but contractual it will be deductible from the standard rate.
  Sir K. Wood: I do not know whether it goes as far as that.
  Mr. Broad: The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to see no discrimination in the amount of maintenance a person may get as a result of war action, but this is rather the reverse. He is accentuating and continuing the class discrimination which exists to-day. There are some people in the larger concerns who are paid salaries at the annual rate or monthly. They are paid in any circumstances. The salaries are deduct-able.
  Mr. Hammersley: Not necessarily.
  Mr. Broad: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to make his argument presently, but I want to continue my own argument in my own way. In the public
  564
  authorities, the Civil Service, the big corporations and large firms people are appointed as salaried persons and not as wage-earners. In their case they can be paid. The hon. Gentleman for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) mentioned those who are in domestic service, or those who by their ordinary contract of employment are paid wages. I want to speak particularly for the workers, of whom a great many are also working in the co-operative movement as well as in other employment, who are classed as hourly workers and do not get any consideration. The services of a salaried person in a secure job are dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances. Usually in times of slackness he is kept on, and if he is temporarily absent, the firm will usually employ a substitute whose salary will be admitted as an expense of the business for these purposes. The hourly wage-earner, when there is slackness, is put off and told to come back to-morrow to see whether the stuff has come in. I resent the allegation that the lack of output during the war' is the fault of employés.
  The Chairman: I think that the hon. Member is getting rather wide of the Clause.
  Mr. Broad: I will try to bring myself to the point. I am pointing out that there is this discrimination to-day and that if this Clause goes through, instead of there being equality, there will be a continuance of a great injustice, which has continued right the way through, especially in the case of war injuries. If a manager takes his share—which he rarely does—in fire watching, or an under-manager or a salaried member of the staff, he can be paid his full wages.
  The Chairman: All these are things to which I am objecting as having nothing to do with the Clause. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own views and to express them at the right time, but I am afraid that these questions do not arise on this Clause.
  Mr. Woods: I hope the Chancellor will review this matter before the Report stage, because I can assure him that this Clause is causing a good deal of misgiving. The phraseology is rather vague, because, as is seen on page 11, it might be argued that the position is safeguarded

  565
  where it is a practice. But it is difficult to say what is a practice in war-time. Experience of the last war is very little guide to experience in this war. The position of the co-operative movement and many employers of labour is that they are supremely anxious to secure such degree of harmony between management and service as is conducive to the maximum output and highest efficiency. In so far as previous speakers have said that a definite agreement has been come to between employers and the unions, I can. assure the Chancellor that it was not done in a spirit of charity. It was done because it was felt to be the legitimate responsibility of the employer, not only to the employed person but, through him, to his dependants. There is no argument whatever for saying that expenditure is not deductable as against Income Tax returns. I would like to point out also that if this is not made clear, trouble will not only arise, but there will be a considerable extension of present difficulties, which will be disruptive of the best harmony as between employers and employed. I hope the Chancellor will make the matter clear before the Report stage.
  Sir K. Wood: I think the lion. Gentleman had better come to me with the many people concerned, so that we can discuss this matter between now and the Report stage.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 14.—(Trades affected by certain arrangements for concentration of industry or business.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke): On behalf of the pottery and cotton industries in particular, and also on behalf of other industries, I want to ask a few questions on this Clause in order to obtain, if possible, a statement from the Chancellor which will allay the feeling which exists in these particular industries. The effect of this policy will be to bring economic devastation to these industries, and the first question I want to ask is: What will be the position of firms who cease manufacturing but whose premises are used for storage purposes? The Government are taking more and more factories for storage purposes, and no definite agreement
  566
  has been arrived at between firms and the Government. In addition, these premises are being used for other storage purposes. The next question is: What will be the position of firms who cease manufacturing but whose plant is kept intact in order that they can launch into productivity immediately the war ceases? The third question is: Will nucleus firms be affected in any way by this change; and the fourth question is: What has been decided about compensation? When the Chancellor does make a statement about compensation, how will firms be affected with regard to their relation to taxation?
  Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentle man read out his questions so rapidly that I did not have time to write them down, let alone think of answers. But I will certainly see that he gets a full answer on these specific points if there can be answers. Actually, this does not deal with the general question of the policy of concentration or its effects —
  Mr. Smith: I am not raising that.
  Captain Crookshank: It deals only with the purely Income Tax position and nothing else. There I can say that the general arrangements which arise from the closing of factories and the transfer of their production to what we will call nucleus firms is to be carried out, generally speaking, in such a way as to preserve the goodwill of both. The displaced concern whose factory is shut down will be kept ready to start again as soon as possible after the war. That is the general theory of the policy, and, therefore, the Income Tax arrangements will have to be fitted as well as may be into that policy. With regard to that position, we are concerned with the wear and tear arrangements and allowances, a matter which, as hon. Members connected with industry know, is most complicated. The effect of this provision is broadly this: The previous year's basis of assessment will continue to apply, and the concern which has had losses or an accumulation of wear and tear allowances which could be carried forward to be set against future profits will not be deprived of the benefit of the carry-forward as it would be if it were left to be dealt with under ordinary Income Tax arrangements for discontinued businesses.
  That is to say, although factories in the concentration scheme will not be pro-

  567
  ducing during the time that the concentration exists, they are not to be treated for Income Tax purposes as if business had ceased and begun again. That is the important part of this Clause. The nucleus concern, I repeat, and the displaced concern will be both treated as carrying on the same trade as previously. If they cease doing it, that is another matter, but I am talking for the moment as if they were beginning again when the concentration arrangements had come to an end. When the hon. Gentleman talks about compensation, I would like to know, before I could give him an answer, whether he was talking about capital compensation or some form of annual payment. Obviously, they are different. However, if he will let me know, I will go into the matter. As regards payments of a non-capital nature, if no payments from which Income Tax is deducted are made as a result of arrangements about the concentration, then payments which are made by the nucleus concern to the displaced firm will be treated as if they were trade expenses. That is, broadly, the adaptation of the Income Tax arrangements for the general policy of concentration. It is important to remember that the general plan is to treat the matter as if displaced concerns were still continuing entities.
  Mr. Hammersley: I want to draw the Chancellor's attention to a small but important point in connection with this Clause. It concerns the compensatory annual payment which may be made by one concentrated firm to another. These are sums which, in respect of one concern, will be allowed as a trading expense, and, in respect of the other, will be taken as a receipt. In Sub-section (3) of this Clause, there are the words:
  "any sum becoming payable. …"
  I think there may be some danger in that wording, which is very broad. As to whether the wording ought to be changed to "any reasonable sum," I do not venture to express an opinion, but as the words stand at present they may create a situation in which one company pays quite excessive annual compensation to another company, and in that way the purposes of the legislation may be frustrated.
  Sir K. Wood: I will examine the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for
  568
  East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) has raised. With regard to points that were put to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), may I suggest to hon. Members that if they have points of that sort which they wish to put to my right hon. and gallant Friend or to me, they should do so beforehand, so that we may be in a position to answer them in the Debate.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 15.—(Allowance for exceptional depreciation.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Benson: I am not entirely happy about the proposal in this Clause concerning depreciation allowances, as I feel that some curious anomalies will arise under it. I am referring now to the depreciation on buildings. The effect of the Clause is that buildings which have been acquired for a trade after 1937 are placed on an entirely different basis for depreciation from buildings acquired before 1937. Any building acquired before 1937, unless a mill or a factory is excluded from having depreciation on it charged against tax; and it is only mills, factories and similar buildings which have the benefit of any form of depreciation. That depreciation is limited to one per cent., or an allowance equal to the Schedule A allowance for repairs. Therefore, the depreciation allowance for buildings acquired prior to 1937 is by no means generous, although I do not say that it is mean or meagre.
  In 1939 the Armaments Profit Duty was introduced, and the form of words used in this Clause seems to derive from the Armaments Profits Duty, because in that case buildings provided after 1937, if they were provided for the purpose of fulfilling an armaments contract, were given a special depreciation allowance as against the Armaments Profits Duty, but not against Income Tax. When the Excess Profits Duty was substituted for the Armaments Profits Duty, and applied not merely to armaments factories but to the whole of trade, the basis of the new depreciation was carried over to all industries—and not merely armaments industries—in so far as the premises were acquired after 1937. There again, it was

  569
  a calculation of depreciation which applied only to the Excess Profits Duty and not to Income Tax. It is in this Clause that, for the first time, the post-1937 concession is applied to Income Tax, and it seems to me that, as it is now applied it is an entirely indefensible anomaly to provide that buildings acquired after 1937 shall be treated in any way differently from buildings acquired before 1937. I am not arguing which form of depreciation is right, and I am not suggesting that the new depreciation allowance is too extravagant or that the old one was too mean; but I can find no valid and logical reason for the differentiation between pre-1937 and post-1937 buildings. I can see how the differentiation arose historically, but I cannot see how it arose logically.
  Probably there was valid reason why the higher form of depreciation should have been given as against the Armaments Profits Duty and the Excess Profits Duty. Those were new and very stringent taxes, and in their case the incidence was unquestionably a good deal heavier on new businesses than on old ones, since new businesses have no reserve and probably no adequate established standards. Consequently, there were considerable grounds for arguing that, as against those taxes, unless very wide provisions were made for depreciation, the entrepreneur was rather in the position of gambling with the odds against him. But Income Tax is not a new tax; it is an old-established tax; and what is more, the incidence of Income Tax is identical in the case of all firms. Therefore, there is no justification for giving a very much higher rate of depreciation, and a very considerable possibility of future depreciation, for a building acquired after 1937. Hon. Members will note that the Clause does not necessarily mean a building that was built after 1937, for it says quite clearly:
  "have been provided for the purposes of a trace."
  There are under this Clause a large number of anomalies, quite apart from the question of buildings acquired before and after 1937. The old depreciation was given only to a mill or a factory, and it was given on the ground that premises in which there are machinery and industrial operations are liable to very serious depreciation and get worn out more rapidly than, for instance, an office
  570
  block. In this Clause, however, the wording has been changed, and instead of there being a reference to mills or factories, the word "buildings" is introduced. If a mill was put up in 1936, it comes under the old and lower rate of depreciation, but if a large emporium for ladies' hats was started in 1937, it comes under the new rate of depreciation. There is no justification for that. Again, if a firm changes its premises after 1937, it immediately comes in the higher rate of depreciation, whereas if it stayed where it was, it would be on the old rate of depreciation. Or again, if two firms swapped their factories, they could come under the new rate of depreciation, whereas if they had stayed where they were, they would have been on the old rate. I can see no possible justification for this variation in depreciation rates. Either all firms ought to receive this benefit or none—I am speaking now entirely as it affects Income Tax and not E.P.T There is no justification for saying that a firm, having acquired premises after 1937, should receive considerable benefits.
  Moreover, I am rather afraid that this may open loopholes for soaking the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under the Clause, if a building is sold for less than was given for it, and the cost of the depreciation arises out of war conditions, then the drop in price between the purchase price and the selling price can be offset against profits. With that possibility I can visualise some buildings being purchased at very good prices. I can visualise deals being carried out where very high prices are paid in transactions in which the vendor is the friend of the purchaser. It seems to me that with Income Tax at its present level, the chances of putting it across the Chancellor of the Exchequer are, under this Clause, very big. Apart from that, my main argument is that the Government are creating an anomaly and an injustice which cannot be justified; and I hope we shall either have, as far as Income Tax is concerned, all trades put down on a pre-1937 or post-1937 basis.
  Captain Crookshank: Of course, what this Clause is doing is to bring under Income Tax the same sort of considerations as have already been agreed in the case of the Excess Profits Tax. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson)

  571
  asks why the date of 1937 was chosen. He gave us an historical review of why he thought that had been done, and he may not have been far wrong, because, broadly speaking, and very broadly speaking, that is a dividing line before and after the possibilities of war were envisaged. When he said that before that date the depreciation allowances were very carefully defined—and then he spoke a lot about mills and so on—there again we have to take a fairly broad view, because the extra allowance is to be given for extra wear and tear during the war.
  Mr. Benson: You have not said so.
  Captain Crookshank: It is only part of depreciation which may be attributed to the period 6th April, 1939, which will be allowed, and it is a special war-time allowance. In these days all sorts of uses have come to be war uses. They could not be anticipated, and they cannot be categoried in a long list. No one is more concerned in providing against the possibility of any leakage at the expense of the Exchequer, and, if there might be a ramp generated against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure we will look around very carefully to stop it. So long as this was accepted in the No. 2 Finance Bill, 1939, it seems only reasonable that it should also be accepted in the sphere of Income Tax. The hon. Member shakes his head, but I think most people would agree with that, and I hope the Committee will stand by the Government on this point. If there really is the possibility of some bad leakage, as the hon. Member fears, we shall see if we can stop it, but I do not think it applies at present.
  Sir Frank Sanderson: I should like to say a word or two in support of the Government on this Clause, and what I have to say may be of interest to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). There are really two types of case to which this Clause refers. Firstly, there are firms which have very materially increased their output by running three shifts, whereas normally they would have been working only one shift. It is obvious that where three shifts are working under war-time conditions the increase of wear and tear is very considerable. In a case of that kind it is necessary in the interests of the country that there should be a
  572
  reasonable increased allowance for wear and tear.
  Mr. Benson: I am quite prepared to accept that argument, but does the hon. Member realise that under this Clause 90 per cent. of those who are doing this war work will not receive any increase?
  Sir F. Sanderson: I am referring to the principle to which this Clause applies. The other case is this: The Government have required many industries to double their plant, and that building and plant are merely standing by in the event of their premises being destroyed by enemy action. It is being built to meet the requirements of the Government, and it is obvious that unless there was a very substantial depreciation allowance for such mills, which will have no value whatever after the war, it would not be possible to expect industries, out of their own resources, to respond to the Government in the construction of these increased mills required only for war purposes.
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brown (New-bury): I understand that agriculture has now to return Schedule D. As this refers to Schedule D, and it is quite possible that there will be increased wear and tear to tractors and other machinery, I should like to know whether it covers any extra wear and tear caused by the war in the case of agriculture.
  Captain Crookshank: As a matter of fact there is provision with regard to agriculture in Sub-section (5). Needless to say, it does not appear on the surface, because it never does in these matters. The relevant words are on the top of page15—
  "deductions allowed or deemed to have been allowed."
  The importance of the words "deemed to be allowed" is that they refer to farming. My hon. and gallant Friend's point is, I think, met, because farmers who are assessed under Schedule D can claim wear and tear deductions in respect of their farm machinery; and, if a farmer remains continuously under Schedule D, paragraph (6) of Rule 6 of the Income Tax Acts would normally apply. He may in fact be charged on an annual value under Schedule B for one year or more and in that case for the purposes of paragraph (6) of Rule 6 he is under the existing law, the Finance Act, 1925, deemed to have

  573
  been allowed the appropriate wear and tear allowance for that year. By the use of this method it can be brought in if the other conditions are fulfilled.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 16, 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 19—(Provision for the repayment after the war of certain Excess Profits Tax.)
  Mr. Levy: On a point of Order. I assume, Sir Dennis, that you are calling the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)—in page 16, line 38, to leave out from "After," to the end of line 2, page 17, and to insert:
  "any accounting period after the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-one."
  The Chairman: No, I am not calling it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Levy: The object of the Clause is that out of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax there shall be what my right hon. Friend described as a nest egg of 20 per cent., from which 10s. in the £ will be deducted provided the Income Tax remains the same, though it would be less proportionately if Income Tax went up. The majority of industrialists do not place very much, if any, value upon this so-called nest egg which is to be available after the war. What they desire is to eliminate the colossal waste and extravagance now going on in industry, because the employers have no incentive whatever to be economical. There is a large number of employers who are patriotic and are economical, but in vast numbers of instances the waste and extravagance which are known to all of us are nothing new. I am not overstating the case when I say they are appalling, and they ought to be avoided. If I am asked how it can be avoided, the answer is that if you have an incentive, however small, it would be exercised by the majority, if not all industrialists. The Clause affects industry throughout the country. Instead of creating a maximum war effort, in a number of cases it is having the reverse effect. It is a great pity that my hon. Friend's Amendment was not selected by the Chair.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member has no right
  574
  whatever to say that. He must not comment on any selection from the Chair. I might also inform him that the Amendment is completely out of Order.
  Mr. Levy: If I have said anything that I ought not to have said, I am prepared to withdraw it, and will ask you please to attribute it to my ignorance of the procedure of the House. If the Chancellor could see his way even now to making some alteration which would be to the benefit of the war effort in this respect, I think he would receive from industry a greater effort than he is receiving even now.
  Sir F. Sanderson: I rise to support my hon. Friend up to a point, because I do not agree with the conclusions at which he has arrived. I do not agree that industry is being run extravagantly. On the contrary, my personal experience is that if anyone engaged in industry requires a larger income, he has to fight for it to-day every bit as much as he had before the incidence of Excess Profits Tax came into being. That is as it should be. No industry has a right to conduct its business on the principle that the incidence of direct taxation is so high that it is immaterial whether his industry is conducted efficiently or otherwise, and my experience is that every consideration is given to maintaining the high standard which industry held before the Excess Profits Tax was introduced.
  I suggest that some modification is due on two grounds. My first is that I think my right hon. Friend will find, when he attempts to put the Clause into operation, that it will create an endless army of officials. In order to arrive at the amount of allowance which should be paid there will be accountants and engineers, and a whole host of men will be required to get out the complex figures and substantiate their case at a time when they are required on far more important work. My second ground is this: I made considerable reference to it on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and I do not propose to reiterate the arguments I used on that occasion. I will summarise them by saying that my right hon. Friend is aware that there are many industries which have wasting assets, and to that extent they are entitled to expect some consideration. I believe that in the national interest it would prove to be an advantage if, in-

  575
  stead of this complex means of repayment after the war, we had a clean-cut scheme whereby my right hon. Friend refunded the 20 per cent.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) built up an indictment against British industry which many of us on this side are not prepared to accept. He made a number of wild, irresponsible statements which do not apply to British industry. At this stage of the Finance Bill we reach a fundamental cleavage between many of us on this side and the Government in regard to war finance, and I want to show that there is no such thing in operation as a 100 per cent. tax. We also had down an Amendment which we are not in Order to comment upon. Before dealing with the Excess Profits Tax I would like to ask a few questions on the administration of the 20 per cent, of the excess profits. As I understand it, 20 per cent, of the excess profits is to be recorded and on the termination of hostilities, the amount recorded shall be repaid in such conditions and at such a date as shall be determined by Parliament. If we allow this Clause to go through, it will be equivalent to voting the Government a blank cheque on this matter, and I am surprised that there is not more interest shown by the Committee in such a proposal.
  I want to ask the Chancellor what kind of policy the Government have in mind about this repayment. Upon what principles and basis will the repayment be made? Sub-section (2) deals with the procedure for the ascertainment and for prescribing the regulations. Will those regulations be submitted to Parliament, and, if so, will it be open to Parliament to amend them? The people, for the last two years in particular and for the last five years in the heavy industries, have been making Herculean efforts in order that this country could arm itself to deal with the situation in which it found itself. The Chancellor came to the House after Dunkirk and agreed that great efforts were being made. Our men and women were working night and day and were putting in the maximum of effort, and many of them were wearing themselves out in order to equip the country in the way that they did. The Government knew at that time that, in order to encourage the spirit
  576
  and effort that were being shown, it was necessary to give the workers the impression that no excess profits were being made while they were making that great effort.
  There was an incident in the North only last week about which I have first-class knowledge, and it would never have taken place had canteen and other reasonable facilities been provided for the men. The Dunkirk spirit exists among the men and women whom we represent, but there is a growing uneasiness that as a result of leading articles which have appeared in many newspapers, of inspired statements that have been put about by Lobby correspondents, and of statements at nearly all annual meetings of companies this year by the chairmen of boards, pressure has been brought to bear upon the Chancellor in order to get him to agree to a policy of this kind. They have used the Press, the wireless and every avenue open to them to bring this position about.
  I want to state the case on behalf of the men and women to whom these avenues are not open and to plead with the Committee that there should be a real 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax put upon manufacture in this country, especially for war purposes. I do not want to do that without producing concrete documentary evidence, so that every statement I shall make can be checked in official records and in the company statements that are issued from time to time. On 17th December, 1935, the "Economist" gave an informative report and an extended study of three decades of profits in this country. It would take too long to deal adequately with this issue to-day. What I want to do, within the limits of my time and having regard to the need for keeping in order, is to produce evidence that there is no real 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax. The "Economist" stated:
  "The ingenuity of accountants is used to hide rather than reveal the true state of affairs. The statistician can do little more than throw in his hand and take as his definition of profits what directors in their wisdom and in their knowledge of commercial and criminal law choose to declare."
  In spite of that we find on page 597 an analysis of profits made by trades, and I want to put this in as evidence of my case. On page 600 of this publication we get a table of profits and capital from 1908 to 1937, which shows great increases in the amounts paid out, particularly in

  577
  preference dividends. Six months have been spent on producing the situation which the Government have now accepted. There is a growing uneasiness, particular!' in industrial centres, that the game is not being played with the workpeople and that while they are making great efforts the financiers and captains of industry are not making a proportionate effort.
  Mr. Hammersley: If the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers are for 1935, they have no relevance to the Excess Profits Tax.
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had been good enough to have been listening, he would have known that the figures were those of 1937.
  Mr. Hammersley: They would then relate to profits made in 1936, and again they would have no relevance.
  Mr. Smith: They have some relevance, as I shall prove. I shall also produce figures dealing with the basic years 1937, 1938 and 1939, and shall attempt, if allowed, to prove that the basis for the fixing of excess profits is all wrong and unfair to the people. I know that the interests I am speaking against now are well represented in this House, but I am speaking for the people as a whole. According to the "Economist," the dividends on ordinary capital were: In 1908, 8.3 per cent.; in 1914, 13.72; in 1919, 19.92; in 1937, 15.85. Now I come to the point that the hon. Member was good enough to make, because it has been helpful. Over the period of 30 years the trend of absolute profits has been upwards, on the whole, and during the years which the Chancellor takes as his basic years for the Excess Profits Tax the profits in the heavy industries in this country were higher than they have ever been in our history, except during the last war.
  Mr. Hammersley: My hon. Friend is making a statement which is really contradictory of what he said a minute ago. He suggested that he was talking for the whole of industry, and in point of fact the years which he has taken were, in the cotton trade, very bad years.
  Mr. Smith: I admit that, but to pick out one industry does not disprove the case I am making. I am speaking in particu-
  578
  lar about heavy industry, and the hon. Gentleman, who is associated with a certain section of it, knows that the statements I am making are correct. If he has any doubt about them, let him consult the files of the "Economist," and official publications, and he will be able to check them up. The "Economist" quarterly report deals with 2,260 companies. Their net profits—remembering what "net profit" means, and I want to emphasise that — in 1938 were £216,000,000. In 1940, after the deduction of tax—and I want to emphasise that —their net profits were still £208,000,000. Putting it in another way, the same companies' net profits were: In 1936 96.5; in 1937, 103.2; in 1938, 120.7; in 1939.110.8; and in 1940, 106.6. Here we get proof that the basis chosen by the Chancellor for collecting Excess Profits Tax is a complete farce. Let it be remembered that since 1928 there has been a great increase also of capitalisation in industry, with all that that means to the people of this country. I remember speaking in the House at 11 o'clock one night and an hon. Member coming to me afterwards and saying he had had great experience on the Stock Exchange and could assure me that the fluctuations in the value of shares and a number of other points which I had raised did not concern the workers. That was only proof that he knew nothing about the effects of all this business upon the workers employed in industry. Those of us who were engaged in the heavy industries during the period when the Dudley Dockers were manipulating companies in the way they did, when Americans and others were trying to dominate certain sections of our industry, when they were sending up the values of shares, knew to our cost what we suffered at that time.
  The average rate of dividends paid on ordinary shares has been as follows: In 1935, 7.9; in 1936, 9.2; in 1937, 11.2; in 1938, 10.6; in 1939, 8.2; and in 1940, 7.2. [An HON. MEMBER: "The rate is going down."] If any hon. Member wants to interrupt I am quite prepared to give way, because this is an unanswerable case and it can be checked up.
  Mr. Denman: On a point of procedure. May I ask whether a general discussion on Excess Profits Tax such as we might expect on the Third

  579
  Reading of the Finance Bill is appropriate to the limited purposes of Clause 19?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I myself was considering whether or not to stop the hon. Member, because he is discussing the Excess Profits Tax as a general proposition and not what is in this Clause.
  Mr. E. Smith: I am saying that before we part with this Clause this Committee ought to know the facts, and not rely upon some of the statements which have been made at company meetings which prejudice the issue. I am stating facts which can be checked up. Greater efforts than ever before have been made in industry to increase the output of aircraft, anti-aircraft guns, detectors, instruments, and many other things. Industry is being called upon to make still greater efforts.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is proceeding too far. He is discussing the tax generally and not what is proposed under this Clause.
  Mr. Smith: If I am prevented from putting the facts before the Committee, I cannot help it, but I propose to deal with the Excess Profits Tax itself in order to show what a farce it is. Excess profit, as I understand it, is the amount earned by a business in excess of its earnings in a standard year. The standard year which a business may select for itself is the average of the years 1935 to 1937— [Interruption]. It is the average of the years 1936 and 1937 or the profit for the years 1935 or 1936. Is that correct? Those were the boom years for most of the businesses in the heavy industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, that is right. Some of us have been talking in this House for the past six years, and if the Official Report is looked up hon. Members will be able to conclude who have proved to be the friends of this country and who have not. I do not want to be provoked into saying too much about that. Those were the boom years for heavy industry in particular. Those were the years when rearmament got going in this country. In 1937 rearmament was beginning to get into full swing. This meant more employment, more wages, and a bigger civil demand.
  The Deputy-Chairman: It is time to ask the hon. Member to address himself to the Clause, which is a proposition to repay the tax down to 80 per cent. after the war and not to the merits of the tax itself.
  Mr. Smith: I am endeavouring to show that this step will give the Government a blank cheque. I am endeavouring also to point out that the basis for fixing excess profits is all wrong, and I am producing evidence for that purpose. In 1937, profits were the highest ever recorded by British industry in peace-time.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The basis for fixing excess profits was decided before, and must not be gone into now.
  Mr. Smith: Before we agree to the proposal in the Clause, surely we ought to have regard to how the profits are calculated. If we can produce evidence to show that the Excess Profits Tax, as it is administered at the present time, is not a real 100 per cent. tax, surely that is in Order when dealing with the proposal contained in the Clause?
  The Deputy-Chairman: Not on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It would have been in Order upon the Second Reading, and it might be in Order on the Third Reading, but it is not in Order now.
  Mr. Smith: If it is in Order on the Third Reading, I shall certainly remember that. The profits that are being made in a number of industries which I cited are giving great concern to the people, and it is very interesting to watch Amendments and proposals coming from certain directions when there is no possibility of their being ruled out of Order. [An HON. MEMBER:" Do not say such things."] One is bound to have regard to that matter. I suggest that the basis for fixing the excess profit is all wrong and that this Committee has no right to vote the Government a blank cheque in the way which is proposed. Seeing that it is not in Order to pursue this matter any further at this stage, I shall take the opportunity of raising the same thing on the Third Reading, in order that the case for the people in the heavy industries may be put before this House.
  Sir H. Williams: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman who preceded me in his

  581
  argument, except to point out that, whatever this Clause does, it does not give the Government a blank cheque. I think the hon. Gentleman might read the Clause before he makes a speech about it. It says:
  "The amount so ascertained and recorded as aforesaid shall, if such conditions as Parliament: may hereafter determine are satisfied, be repaid at such date as Parliament may hereafter determine."
  That is not a blank cheque for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is laying down that a certain amount, 20 per cent., is to be put into cold storage, and it says that the way in which the 20 per cent. is to be used is to be determined later on by Parliament. That cannot very well be called a blank cheque for the Government. This is an effort by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop some of the evils to which the Excess Profits Tax has given rise. Those evils included, among other things, the fact that the trade union to which the hon. Member who has just spoken belongs should not be encouraged to profiteer unduly. At the moment it is not to the interest of the employers to prevent undue wages being expended. There is not the slightest doubt that great wastage is taking place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to do something by this Clause to stop a first-class evil.
  I wonder whether he is succeeding. I do not think he is. The ordinary person to whom I speak takes the view that the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax remains unaltered. That is the psychological attitude to the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax. I have not the slightest doubt that it is producing evil results and that waste and extravagance are adding very much to the charges which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the continuance of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax is more extravagant to the Treasury than the clean-cut 80 per cent. which my Amendments would have produced if you, Colonel Clifton Brown, had selected them. You came to the conclusion, no doubt properly, that my Amendments were so drawn as to be revolutionary in the way they changed the Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looks very regretful and hopes that I will not continue the Debate unduly. I have no desire to do so.
  582
  After all, we are discussing something which is one of the major hindrances to the war effort. I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a rather more serious view of it than he is now doing. He would do so if he were from day to day concerned with what is happening in industry. I am trying to impress these things upon the Committee. Certain things have been forced upon this House by certain industrial interests who think they are very clever. It is a political bargain. It has resulted in having in the Government certain people who are not as clever as they are thought to be. [Interruption.] It is not as though the Minister of Labour were an outstanding success at his job. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He is not an outstanding success, and nobody thinks he is. He is not nearly so successful as his own friends thought he would be when he was appointed. [An HON. MEMBER:" He is the man who saved the country."] I know I am reaching the stage at which I shall be called to Order, but there is no harm in things being said in this House which are being said everywhere outside. It is a poor thing if this House is not willing to allow Members to express fearlessly what the great mass of the people are thinking. I recognise that the Clause represents a small advance, but it will not achieve the primary object which my right hon. Friend has in mind, that of making people anxious to be as efficient as possible, which is a vital necessity of the war effort.
  Mr. Tinker: It is well that some of us should speak as openly as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has spoken just now. We take exception to the attitude which he has adopted. I want to take the mind of the Committee back to the position as it existed when we started this 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax. The war had gone on for a little while, and we were determined to show the country that people were to be no better off during the war than they had been before. For that purpose we decided it would be fair to have an Excess Profits Tax of 100 per cent. Parliament acclaimed it, and it went to the country in that way. The country responded to it, because people felt that financial interests and large companies were not to make a lot of money out of the war. We achieved common

  583
  unity in that matter. Owing to pressure from such people as the hon. Member for South Croydon and those associated with him—we all know it—the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that people were not putting their backs into the war effort because of the 100 per cent. tax. They were dodging it. A large number of people are dodging the revenue in the sale of their commodities, and everybody knows it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to get unity and to get more into the Exchequer, determined on this method of saying, "I want to persuade you to come along. At the end of the war 20 per cent. of the 100 per cent. shall be handed back to you, so that you can replenish your industry and start again in the old way that you followed before." I ask the Committee whether it is fair to the workers of the country. We have been told about the drain on the workers because of the excess work which they are putting into the war effort now. Does anyone think about the call upon the human being who is putting in all that work at the present time? Does the human being not need replenishment? We shall have to pay the 20 per cent. out of the workers' efforts.
  We are taking a very wrong step. What will happen when the real position is known to the people in the country? At the present time the working class are whole-heartedly in the war effort because they believe that we are trying to deal fairly by them, but when it gets out that we propose to hand back a large percentage of this Excess Profits Tax which is due to the exigencies of the war, it will have a bad effect. I do not believe that the Government believe in this proposal to try to persuade them to do something decent in connection with the affairs of the country. That is not the right way to do it. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made a protest about this kind of thing. It would be wrong on our part to allow it to go through without some protest. I do not want to cover a lot of ground about percentages in certain years. We took a fair average in the three years given. We put this percentage they should have as high as possible and then all above that was to come to the State. I ask the people called capitalists whether they are doing right in putting pressure upon Par-
  584
  liament and the Chancellor to force money back out of the profits that they have made in this manner? I do not think they are, and I do not think it will react as they think. The ordinary working man and woman are watching this kind of thing. When I go before the workers I tell them, "Do what you can because we are watching this Excess Profits Tax. We are demanding that it should be 100 per cent. and I believe we are doing right." Now I have to go before them and say that it has been decided that the tax is to be only 80 per cent. The hon. Member for South Croydon will say that they are paying it all in now and will get it back afterwards. They will get 20 per cent. back afterwards.
  Sir H. Williams: Ten per cent. because of Income Tax.
  Mr. Tinker: Twenty per cent. That kind of tale does not go with me. The worker who earns £5 a week has to pay Income Tax on it. Twenty per cent. will be handed back for the purposes of making those who are to get it honest. If they cannot be made honest by fighting the greatest battle in history and saving themselves, I do not know what will make them honest. I think this would be a very unfair method and I trust the Chancellor will take: the feeling of the House of Commons on this matter. Many of us feel that the tax should be put back to 100 per cent.
  Sir K. Wood: I hope my hon. Friends will see fit now to conclude the discussion on this Clause. We have a fair amount of business to do before we finish our proceedings, and I should think that the case has been fairly stated both for those who approve of the proposal, those who object to it and those who think it does not go far enough. I ventured in my Budget statement and on the Second Reading of this Bill to state the reasons that actuated me in coming to the decision I did in putting this proposal before the House, I think, taking it as a whole it has been generally approved. When my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) explains this matter to his constituents and others, I hope he will do me the justice of carefully stating to them, at any rate, the reasons I gave for suggesting to Parliament that at the conclusion of the war this 20 per cent. should be available, on certain conditions, for trade and industry. If he

  585
  does so I think those who hear him will agree that this 20 per cent. which is to be repaid, is not to be repaid for any selfish reason, or in order to give money to capitalists for their own selfish purposes or anything of that kind. In fact, this repayment will, if properly administered, and under proper conditions, be of considerable value to the workers as well.
  There is no doubt that at the conclusion of hostilities, whenever it may come, trade and industry, not only in respect of the employers but in respect of the workpeople, will require all the help that can be given to them. The conditions which the Government have in mind are the result of decisions of the Government as a whole, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. I must take exception to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). I speak of my right hon. Friend as a good and loyal colleague who is associated with all the decisions made on this matter, including this particular provision. When I stated the decisions, it was after careful consideration and in view of the composition of the Government. My colleagues who came from the Labour party and those from the other parties wished to have their position properly stated, and I did so, I said in regard to the conditions of the 20 per cent.:
  "The ban upon bonus shares would be continued and any necessary steps would be taken to prevent the money from being dissipated in dividends and generally it must be assumed that the money would require to be expended for suitable purposes, among which I may mention is the replacement of obsolete or unsatisfactory machinery by up-to-date machinery; the scrapping or adaptation to new uses of redundant installations; the extension of the export market; and, in the case of farmers, the improvement of the fertility of the land; and the promotion of business."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1941; col. 1320, Vol. 370.]
  Who on earth could possibly take exception to conditions of that kind—having regard to the conditions of the country after the war—particularly those who assume for themselves very often that they speak for the workers of the country? This decision was given in the interests of the whole country. He would be a foolish man who did not think that provision of this kind should not be made after the war to enable industry to take its part and to help any trade that
  586
  may be carrying on under very difficult conditions. I do not make the slightest apology for this Clause. It represents the decision of the Government as a whole and is well designed in the interests of trade and industry. As has been pointed out to my hon. Friend, whose speech I will study carefully, there is no suggestion of giving a blank cheque to the Government in relation to this matter. All these matters will have to be considered by Parliament when the right time comes to consider them. I gave a general indication of what the conditions would be in order to remove misconceptions. If hon. Members wish to be fair they should explain the conditions laid down by the Government of the day. There is to be no blank cheque. The matter will have to be considered by the Government of the time. There is no proper ground for any real objection to this proposal, and certainly no reason to state that it is some sort of transaction affecting the capitalists and not the workers, because it is in the interests of the whole of industry that this is being done. I have maintained, and the Government have maintained, that it has not been a question of doing anything under pressure. It has been a question of considering what is best to be done in the interests of everybody at the conclusion of the war, and my answer to all the questions that have been raised to-day is that as it has been placed before the House, it is a fair and reasonable solution, which gives some promise of assistance to trade and industry after the war. For that and the other reasons I have mentioned on previous occasions, I commend it to the Committee.
  Mr. C. Williams: I am sorry my right hon. Friend thought it was necessary to intervene quite so soon, because I had wanted to criticise this particular Clause on lines entirely different from those followed in the speeches we have already heard. The speeches we have heard, with much of which I agree, in themselves form a very strong condemnation of the indefinite position set up by the Clause. I cannot help what other Members think, but I have found it very difficult to explain to my constituents what is meant, for instance, by the words "be repaid at such date as Parliament may hereafter determine." After all, this is a

  587
  business matter, and the State is dealing with it as such. At least a very large part of the members of the community do not want to see anything in the shape of excess profits made during the war, and that is my own feeling, but if that is the case, and if it is necessary—and I believe it will be in the interest of industry itself after the war to have certain definite sums for the repair of industry—surely instead of having a figure of 80 per cent., which can lead to two interpretations, as we have already heard to-day, it would be much better to lay aside definite sums to be available after the war for the repair, replacement and continuation of industry and for keeping the men in work. I know the Chancellor's difficulty, and the only protest I have to make against this Clause is that it makes the position vague and very indefinite. It is absolutely essential that some time in the very near future the Chancellor should make a very clear and definite statement on this position, laying down the facts, so that there can be no sort of feeling outside that this is a loophole through which excess profits can get away with it. That is all I wanted to say, and I regret that I could not have put in that protest before the Chancellor had spoken.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I listened with deep interest to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and also to the Chancellor's explanation of why this Clause appeared in the Bill we are discussing to-day. I wish to be perfectly frank with the Committee; I have never up to now discussed the Bill at all. I made a contribution a few days ago on an entirely different subject, but these Clauses have never been the subject of my contributions. The ordinary folk whom I know will look at this Bill, if they are privileged to do so, and they will see what is called the marginal column. In that column they will see that it says:
  "Provision for the repayment after the war of certain excess profits tax."
  There is no question about what those words mean. They mean the repayment of money to persons to ensure profits—those profits which they have made during the war and which have been taken away from them. A portion will be restored to them after the war. "On certain con
  588
  ditions, "said the Chancellor. As I was sitting listening to the hon. Member for South Croydon I was thinking of a little poem, or of one verse of a poem, which I learned at school:
  "The Romans, in Rome's quarrels,
  Spared neither land nor gold,
  Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
  In the brave days of old."
  I am beginning to think, as I am told by the hon. Member for South Croydon, that one of the major hindrances to our war effort is the title to profit after the war, the title to have some guarantee from His Majesty's Government that people will have this money repaid to. them if they comply with certain conditions. I was astonished to hear that. I hope that nobody accepts the word of the hon. Member for South Croydon, because I sincerely believe that what we suffer from most to-day is misunderstanding of such speeches as we have heard here. I do not believe that the hon. Member for South Croydon believes it at all.
  Sir H. Williams: Yes, he does.
  Mr. Walkden: Then it is a shame that he should believe it. I have quoted the Chancellor's words up and down the country; I have carried his speech with me, and have read the words. I have been very successful as a trade union organiser for the last 20 years and have been fairly good at explaining trade union rules; but the working men do not like these rules, because they seem to be rules for that fraternity which controls capital, and which looks for payment after the war. If the Chancellor can consult with his friends in the Cabinet as to the wisdom of withdrawing the Clause in its entirety that will satisfy us, and it will help us to convince people far more than the words of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite, who said in the Civil Defence Debate last week that neither privilege nor property should stand in the way of the war effort. That will be noted by us on these benches, and, I hope, by the hon. Member for South Croydon and all his friends who have prompted this agitation in the public Press in the last few months.
  Mr. A. Edwards: Not all of us on this side are in complete agreement as to the merits of this tax. I put a Motion on the Order Paper in order to get the Chancellor of the Ex-

  589
  chequer to alter the tax. I was called up by my local party. I was pleased that they were so alert in demanding from me some explanation. I have always bowed to my colleagues, who speak with authority on the subject, on trade union matters; and I hope that on business matters I shall be listened to with equal respect by them. I explained to my constituents something of the principles of business, and I hope that I can explain the subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). If a business is assessed for £100,000 E.P.T., and it is allowed £20,000, it will certainly have to pay £10,000 of that figure in Income Tax, and it will require the other £10,000. If those of us who run businesses feel that there will be a certain amount coming back, under certain conditions, in future, we shall be encouraged to keep plant in good condition. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend will have to listen to some of us who have experience
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not like the inference that people who have been engaged in other sections of industry do not understand business matters. Such people may also have had experience of business matters.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not suggest that they have not. I suggest that my contribution will have to be about business matters because I do not know so much about trade union matters.
  Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I am wondering how the hon. Member got here.
  Mr. Edwards: On another occasion I may be able to explain that. I am wondering how you got here. It is sufficient for me that the members of my local party were fairly well satisfied—I do not say completely satisfied, because they were not, but satisfied—that, at least, there was something to be said for my point of view. Let me tell the Committee what several of the people said at the particular meeting in order to show how they were misinformed. I am sure that people are not buying Rolls Royce motor cars out of excess profits. They cannot do that, because the inspectors of taxes have powers of discrimination which they have never had before to watch all these things, and they will be more strict. There is no chance, I can say quite clearly to the
  590
  Committee, of people making vast fortunes as they did in the last war. They just cannot do it.
  I am a Socialist who feels that the experience of the war will drive this country to a socialised form of government in the future. The Government have had to adopt many expedients in the Socialist programme in order to solve their problems. I do not say that it is good Socialism, but they have had to adopt the principles of Socialism to solve every problem. I am a Socialist who is confident that in future the Labour party will be called upon to govern the country and that we shall be able to socialise the various industries. I do not want us to have to take over derelict industries. It would suit most people if we had to take over derelict industries, believing that in consequence they would get another chance.
  Sir Granville Gibson: In fact it would be a blank cheque without any signature at the bottom.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not see either the relevance or sense of that remark.
  Sir G. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman has just stated that one of these days perhaps the Socialist party would come into power in this country and take over these industries and so on, so that the blank cheque which the hon. Gentleman stated was being given to the Government would, in fact, be a blank cheque and worthless.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The interruption of the hon. Member shows that this is a very dangerous line. I think we had better leave the discussion of a Socialist Government in the future out of the question.
  Mr. Edwards: I was just saying that it would be important that whoever is called upon to look after the industries of this country in the future should not have them derelict but in sound condition. You can no more keep businesses and machinery in sound condition without money than you can keep the bodies of the workers in condition without money.
  Mr. Logan: They must have reserves.
  Mr. Edwards: That is why I was saying that you cannot just take 100 per cent, excess profits. People with evacuees in their homes will find that they will want

  591
  a little extra to replace furniture. This is in a small way, but it is the same thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that those who had businesses and wanted to replace plant would require money. What about the kind of businesses where they make very excessive profits but have no equipment or stock-in-trade but are purely commission people?
  Mr. Stokes: I would like to add a word or two to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Middles brough (Mr. A. Edwards) has said on this particular point. I speak as a person who is 100 per cent. in favour of a 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, but, having said that, I very much endorse the action which the Chancellor proposes to take in this Clause. When my hon. Friend says that the depreciation allowed is sufficient to cover wear and tear on plant, I can only answer that the depreciation allowances now provided in this Bill are totally inadequate having regard to the intense demands on plant at the present time. It is really quite impossible to measure the extent to which plant is depreciating in present circumstances. The mere fact that they are working 24 hours a day is bad enough from the point of view of depreciation allowances, but you have difficulty with the people who are naturally unskilled and need training. They do an enormous amount of damage to the plant. I would like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that I join with him in expressing the hope that this Clause will not be misunderstood. The only protest I make to the Chancellor is that he should make such provision as will insist that whatever is repaid is not taken out of the industry but is put back into the business and on no account paid out in dividends, bonuses or profit sharing among directors.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 20—(Borrowed money to be treated as capital.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Spens: I wish to raise a particular point on this Clause which I hope will be appreciated by some of the hon. Members who have just spoken. This Clause
  592
  introduces a new system in Excess Profits Tax collection, and it is a system which, in the great majority of cases, will be of advantage to industry generally as regards borrowing money. But there is one particular class of case on which it will fall hardly, namely, the class of industry largely found in the north—in Liverpool, Manchester and elsewhere—which has a comparatively small amount of capital but in fact finances the whole of their industry by loans from banks on the deposit of documents of title to the stock which they are buying. You are bound to get a case where in a standard year you have a company with a large sum of money on short term from the banks, and as the bulk of the commodities of these industries has now been commandeered by the Government, with a result that their business is no longer possible, you will have in an accounting period an absence of any borrowed money.
  When you come to work out the arrangement under the original provisions of this Clause, you will find that the result will be that these companies will be very much worse off than they were before. It will result in the taking of the whole of their profits, so far as one can see, except the minimum under the minimum Clause. No alteration in the basis of taxation can be valid if it creates injustice of that description. I am sure this is a matter which on consideration can be dealt with, and I raise it so that my right hon. Friend can look into it between now and the Report stage to see whether the case of that particular class of companies can be made fairer than it is now. The Clause is retrospective, and I think it will lead to serious difficulty unless some further provision is made to meet that case.
  Mr. Hammersley: I think there will be general agreement on the principle of this Clause, but I want to reinforce the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). It is obvious that, at times like the present, when certain industries are being pressed to extend, the view that borrowed money should be treated as capital is a correct one. But just as present circumstances force some businesses to extend, the concentration of industry forces other businesses to contract. It may very well be that a business which a few years ago required a large

  593
  sum of borrowed money in order to carry on, now finds that, with the restriction of its enterprise, it has very little necessity to borrow from the bank. Consequently, the result of this Clause will constitute a hardship for such businesses. Their profits standard, by reason of the fact that they have decreased the quantity of borrowed money between the standard period and the year of assessment will be less. I feel certain that it is not the intention of the Chancellor to take anything away from the taxpayers by this Clause. He wants to give concessions to those who are forced to extend their businesses. I hope that between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend will find it possible to add some kind of proviso the effect of which will be that the position of any taxpayer will be no worse by reason of this Clause.
  Sir George Broadbridge: I am entirely in accord with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). It seems to me that the chief concern in this Clause is the possibility that certain firms will be very badly hit which have already suffered a great deal through the economies of the war. It is possible also that under the Clause there will be created a liability as from 1st April, 1940; in fact, I think it is practically certain that that will be the case. When the war is over, every effort will be needed from our merchants, dealers and others, for the rehabilitation of trade and industry, and therefore, we must be very careful in whatever is done now that these men and firms are not allowed to suffer so that they are absolutely incapable of resuscitation when hostilities terminate. I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to give attention to the very lucid remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford and to see whether something can be done in this matter between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is one point I would like to put to the Chancellor in connection with borrowed money. It appears that a firm would lose only if it were earning a higher dividend on its own money than the interest it was paying to the bank on its borrowed money. For example, a company which was able to pay only 2½ per cent. on its own money and was paying 5 per cent. to the bank on borrowed money would clearly be in a better position under the Chancellor's
  594
  proposals, whereas if it were paying 10 per cent. on its own money and 5 per cent. on its borrowed money, it would depend on the proportion of borrowed money to capital whether it would benefit or not. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) had in mind any particular firm or whether he was stating a speculative case, but it seems to me that he did not give any concrete example which would justify the Chancellor in making a change in the position.
  Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) will let me have particulars of the case he has defined, and I will examine it, without, of course, giving any undertaking in the matter.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 22.—(Addition to standard profits in the case of concerns producing certain metals and oil.)
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 21, line 45, after "includes, "to insert:
  "the ownership of minerals, clay, brick-earth, limestone, stone, chalk, gravel, or the mining, quarrying or getting thereof from mines or quarries or."
  There are two points which arise from this Amendment. The first relates to ownership. It is difficult to see why a private owner should not get the additional standards of profit as in the case of others. If he is a collector of rent or royalties, he has a wasting asset. All the mining companies put away money to make up for the loss of capital which is going on all the time. If the mine was privately owned, the owner would be taxed on his income, whereas in the case of a company there is Excess Profits Tax, which a private owner does not have to pay. The second point is this: Why is the Clause confined to mining of any metal or the getting of oil from oil wells? Why not include other industries necessary for the prosecution of the war, such as brick-making, limestone quarries and others? After all, there is nothing which is more important to the nation than bricks, and although many small firms have gone out of production, there are others which are carrying on, and I think

  595
  they should be entitled to the same consideration. Perhaps we might have an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these two points.
  Sir H. Williams: I have a series of Amendments on the Order Paper which are not quite identical to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), but which raise the same question. I have been urged by some of my constituents to bring before the Committee the problem of those engaged in quarrying, sand pits and ballast pits, where, of course, all the time you are removing capital, which is being treated for the purposes of Income Tax as if it were income. It is exactly the same principle as is dealt with in the Clause in relation to oil getting and certain classes of mining. It seems to me that it is bad enough that you should be called upon for the purposes of ordinary taxation to treat capital as income, but when there is an Excess Profits Tax in operation the burden becomes much greater. The position of some of these people is aggravated by the fact that because of war circumstances they will produce, during the war period, more of these products, as a result of which a larger proportion of their capital assets will have been used up, in spite of the fact that they are treated as if they were income. It seems to me fundamentally unjust. [Interruption.] The hon. Member and I may differ as to whether you should have 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax or not, but that is a tax on profits. What I am dealing with is the case in which you take a capital asset and pretend that it is a profit when it is not. In some cases a man has paid a substantial sum for a field, knowing that under it there is a. great quantity of sand. At the end of the period he ought to have stored up enough capital so that he can buy another field and have another sand-pit. But that is not the case. Part of the capital value is to be appropriated. A concession is made to one set of people but not to another. If you are dealing with wasting assets, you ought to treat everyone alike.
  Sir K. Wood: Various representations have been made to me that some special consideration should be given in cases
  596
  which are of exceptional importance to the prosecution of the war. I have endeavoured to meet that situation and the Clause provides for the granting of an allowance to concerns engaged in raising metal or oil, which are of exceptional importance for the prosecution of the war where it has been essential in the national interest to increase the output above the normal rate. Of course, the danger always is that when you make an exception of that kind a number of others come along and ask why they are not included, which is sometimes rather discouraging, when you are endeavouring to meet a special case. I had in mind matters which are really essential to the prosecution of the war and I have endeavoured to meet that situation, I hope with satisfaction to those concerned. Now my hon. Friend comes along and says, "What about all the others?"
  Sir H. Williams: Concrete is as important as steel.
  Sir K. Wood: You cannot put that particular category in the same class as others of really exceptional importance.
  Sir H. Williams: Why is it more important to have steel than to have concrete? You cannot carry on the war without both.
  Sir K. Wood: I am not confining myself to that defence alone. One of the reasons why I am giving this exceptional treatment is that in the cases I have in mind there will be very exceptional exertions, coupled with a shortening of the life of the industries concerned, which does not apply to the cases indicated by my hon. Friend. Some of those whom I am endeavouring to help will be very seriously affected by the exceptional efforts that the Government expects them to make. I do not think anyone will say that quarrying and concrete will be knocked completely on the head and will not be able to continue business after the war. I have made this differentiation and I have endeavoured to meet exceptional cases in which the Government are asking for exceptional efforts and there is likely to be a considerable adverse effect. But I must ask the Committee to stand by me, and not to agree to have dragged in everything else. That would defeat the object which the Government have in mind, and would not deal fairly with the situation.
  Mr. Woodburn: I would like to support the Chancellor in rejecting the Amendment because ownership in itself contributes nothing to production. While the ownership of metals and so on should be brought in, it is not a stimulus to the production of metals at all. If the Chancellor had asked the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) why this exception should be made, the hon. Member himself would have given perfectly sound reasons, but it is obvious that concrete, limestone, clay and so on are all produced in this country normally and there is no need to apply any stimulus to their production. On the contrary we have normally to import our iron and oil. Therefore, it is the business of the Chancellor to stimulate the production of these things at the present time as an exceptional task. That places them outside the category of any of the other minerals mentioned in the Amendments. The Amendment seeks to include the ownership of minerals, clay, brick earth, limestone, gravel, and so on, but there is no justification for including ownership because ownership contributes nothing to the essential necessity of stimulating production. These things require no extra inducement because, presumably, they will get their normal inducement.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir G. Broadbridge: Metal mining and oil-getting companies, notwithstanding the concession of the Chancellor, feel a considerable amount of anxiety on account of the complicated conditions which art-set out in the Bill. It is probable that the Chancellor can give some intimation as to how it is proposed that these conditions shall be carried out, so that their anxiety may be allayed. I feel sure that while they are thankful for the concession, they would be still more grateful if they could learn that the conditions that are to follow will not mean that the concession will result in no benefit to them.
  Mr. Stokes: In so far as this Clause covers any concessions to the gold-mining industry, I wish to enter a short protest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is specifically stated in subsection (1) that it must be in the national interest that the work should continue. I have
  598
  endeavoured in the past to explain to the Chancellor why it is in the national interest that the output of gold should stop and no encouragment be given to the efforts of those people who are producing something which, ultimately, is utterly useless and has already been over-produced so far as its commercial use is concerned. I merely wish to enter that protest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hope that between now and Third Reading, he will make a special exception of gold-mining companies.
  Sir K. Wood: I will duly note my hon. Friend's protest and give it consideration. I should like to give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) on the matter which he has raised. I have observed a certain amount of apprehension lest the conditions which we have laid down in this Clause may be made so difficult and complicated that a good deal of the benefit which we desire to give, will be taken away. The matters to which my hon. Friend has referred have to be dealt with by Regulations, and I will undertake, before those Regulations are made, to have a conference with the interests concerned. In fact, I shall be glad to do so, because this is a difficult technical matter which obviously could not be discussed with them before I had made my proposals to the House of Commons. Now that the proposals are known and have been put forward in the Bill, there can be consultations, and I hope that as a result we shall show there will not be the difficulties and the delays which were at first apprehended owing to the rather complicated nature of the Clause and the conditions. Therefore, when the House of Commons has approved this matter finally, I will take steps to see that the interests concerned have, at any rate, the opportunity of putting their views forward with a view to seeing that the desires of the House of Commons in this matter are fairly and properly interpreted in the sense that the greatest benefits that we can give to the concerns affected shall, in fact, come to them.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 25 (Power to recover where expenses of payments for services are disallowed in computing profits.)
  The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SUMMERS: "In page 26, line 24, to leave out 'forty,' and insert 'forty-one'."
  The Chairman: Before the hon. Member deals with his Amendment, I think I ought to call attention to a point of which I believe he is aware. I was inclined to think that this Amendment was out of Order because it was in the wrong place, and that if he wanted to make this alteration from "forty" to "forty-one" he must make it on the previous page, but I understand that he does not agree with that view, and so I give him the opportunity of explaining why he wants to make the alteration here and not on the previous page.
  Mr. Summers: I beg to move, in page 25, line 3, to leave out "forty," and insert" forty-one."
  I was going to refer to that point. I was advised that the alteration on page 26 would accomplish the object which I had in view, but in view of what you have said, Sir Dennis, I should be more than happy to have it altered and to move the substitution of the word "forty-one" in page 25, line 3. The Clause, as it stands, gives to a company a right to reclaim from a director or one of its staff money which it has paid last year in excess of that which the authorities regard as reasonable. The object of this Amendment is to to deprive the company of that retrospective right to reclaim the difference between the two sums. It in no way seeks to improve the position of a company which may be thought to be evading its financial responsibility by dissipating profits before taxation. I urge the Amendment on grounds first of principle, secondly of equity and thirdly of hardship.
  On the question of principle, the Committee has, in the past, registered its dislike on several occasions of retrospective legislation and has consented to that course only where it has been satisfied that the national interest had a paramount claim. I suggest that in this instance there is no national interest involved to warrant retrospective legislation. It may well be that the Clause
  600
  was drafted as put down because of the position in certain companies, who had an intolerable burden as a result of tax-free contracts. We have already learnt that that burden will be dealt with separately, so that, if that were the reason for the retrospective right, it seems unnecessary to deal with it in the Clause when it has already been dealt with elsewhere.
  On grounds of equity I would point out that, in cases where the recipient is an entirely innocent party to an extravagant payment—as viewed by the referees—the effect of the Clause will be to transfer the penalty from the company, who may, for illustration, be described as guilty— I do not mean to imply necessarily any improper motive—to the recipient. It may well be that an innocent person will, as a consequence, pay that difference, which should properly be paid by the company. Where the recipient is in collusion with the company to evade financial responsibilities, the effect of the Clause gives only rights and is not compulsory. It will merely mean that those rights will not be exercised. Whether the recipient is party to an improper arrangement or not, the Clause does not in any way ensure justice.
  On grounds of hardship I would point out that it will not be infrequent for the person from whom a company wishes repayment of the money paid last year already to have spent that money. He may be called upon—after all, directors of companies have responsibilities to their shareholders—to give back £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000 or whatever may be regarded as the difference between what he received and what the authorities have regarded as profit. There seems no justification, either from the Treasury point of view or the national point of view, for subjecting individuals to that position. For that reason, I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see his way to accept elimination of the retrospective right by altering the beginning of that right from 1940 to 1941.
  Captain Crook shank: When an Amendment is advanced on grounds of principle, equity and the hardship involved, if it is not accepted, it is very difficult for my right hon. Friend to persist in the words of the Bill. My hon. Friend is quite right in his description of the Clause. When there has been disallowance on grounds

  601
  which are in the existing law—in Section 24 of the Act of 1940—the question at issue is, who should pay for the disallowance? The Clause, is it stands, enables a trader to recover from the recipient excess allowance in respect of directors' fees, and payment for services, in so far as his, that is to say the trader's, liability is increased? Everybody must agree with that as a proposition. The only point at issue is whether it should or should not apply to the year after the end of March, 1940, which is in the Bill, or 1941, as proposed by the Amendment. As there is an element of retrospection in the words of the Bill, my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this Amendment. I would point out that it is also involves, as a consequential Amendment, the insertion of the word "forty-one" on the next page.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 24, leave out "forty" and insert "forty-one."—[Mr. Summers.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to raise very briefly a question about which the Chancellor committed himself. Those whose interests are involved have not yet seen a statement where he has put that promise into effect. It is difficult to find a Clause on which this could be raised. I think that this is the one. The Chancellor will remember that in February this year he made a statement to the effect that where capital expenditure had been incurred for canteens it would rank for relief from Excess Profits Tax, and he added that he intended to make proposals in order that an allowance of relief could be made for the purpose of Income Tax and N.D.C. It was understood at the time that the expenses incurred by a trade in the maintenance of canteens would be allowed for. The Chancellor made a statement, and we would like to know whether this is in the Finance Bill. He will be aware that the Minister of Labour is going about the country advocating the provision of canteens. It is a big step in the right direction. It will have to be developed more and more. Those interested and affected would like to know where this is in the Finance Bill.
  Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Member will look at the Third Schedule, on page 36, he will find that an Amendment has been made there.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  CLAUSE 26.—(Transactions designed to avoid liability to Excess Profits Tax.)
  Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 26, line 33, to leave out from "that," to the first "they," in line 37, and to insert:
  "liability to Excess Profits Tax has been improperly avoided or reduced by means of any transaction effected either before or after the passing of this Act."
  I do not think that this Amendment need take long, because with the purpose of this Clause I believe the Committee as a whole is really well agreed. The question is whether the purpose will be achieved in the best way. As the Chancellor said on the Second Reading, this is, of course, a very drastic proposal. It practically says to the Revenue that it can compel the. bad taxpayer to play the game. That is what we want, and the only matter is whether the method is the best one. I believe it is to the interest of the good taxpayer that a drastic provision of this kind should be inserted in our laws. Just as in the Factory Acts it is the good employer and worker and the State in general who benefit by the provisions of the Act, so I think the good taxpayer will certainly benefit if the tax dodger is properly chained. I hope that by this Clause we shall succeed in chaining him.
  The actual words of the Clause I suggest, are open to objection. I raised the point on the Second Reading. The objection is that the Clause as it stands does seem to include a great mass of entirely innocent people with the people whom we all want to catch. I pointed out, and I think it is true, that anyone who is to be liable to Excess Profits Tax and is incurring expenditure which will come out of the increased profits of his increased business knows he will thereby be reducing his liability. He will know that perfectly well, and if you know that a certain course of action is bound to produce a certain effect, you cannot possibly argue that that effect is not among the purposes of your action. In these cases

  603
  —a very large mass of cases—the Commissioners would have to hold, in the words of the Clause, that one of the purposes was the avoidance or reduction of liability to Excess Profits Tax. There you would have a man who might be wholly innocent and who had incurred a perfectly proper expenditure brought within the tax-dodging Clause. I shall, of course, be told that the Commissioners need not make any adjustment in the tax, that the power to make adjustments is purely permissive, and that they need. not do it if they do not want to. That is true enough, but what will be the considerations which will induce the Commissioners either to make or not to make adjustments? They will not make an adjustment if they think the expenditure is legitimate. They will make an adjustment if they think the-expenditure is an improper method of avoiding taxation. That being so, I suggest that the simple thing is not to bring within the Clause a great mass of people you do not want to get there, but to tell the Commissioners directly what it is they have to consider, and, in the words of my Amendment, say that where the Commissioners are of opinion that
  "liability to Excess Profits Tax has been improperly avoided or reduced by means of any transaction effected either before or after the passing of this Act,"
  they may make adjustments. That is putting the direct question. It is far better that they should examine the facts than that they should try to examine the motive of the taxpayer. The motive of the taxpayer is not, I should have thought, a very convenient subject for the Commissioners to investigate; at any rate, it is not an easy one for them to decide. Let them take the facts of the case and eliminate the motive of the taxpayer altogether. I believe that some words on the lines I have suggested would form a simpler and more effective method of achieving the purpose.
  Sir H. Williams: I think the whole Committee are agreed as to the necessity of a Clause for this purpose, but, even with the words proposed by my hon. Friend, the Clause will still be unsatisfactory, although better. What is the direction to the Commissioners if this Amendment is accepted? They have to deal with improper avoidance. What does that moan? It does not mean anything. The
  604
  Commissioners must be of the opinion that a crime has been committed, but the crime has not been described, and it is very difficult to describe. I therefore say that the Clause as it stands, and even as amended, will not be a satisfactory document. It is like the old phrase we used to argue about, "genuinely seeking work." We had to examine the state of mind of the applicant for unemployment benefit, and here you have to examine the mind of directors. Let me give an example. Let us take a private limited company, or at least a company which is under the control of the directors, and whose standard for the purposes of the Excess Profits Tax has been ascertained by a reference to its capital. I find it difficult to remember all the provisions of these Acts, but in such a case only a certain amount is allowed for directors' fees.
  Let us assume that there are three directors and that it is not necessary to have more than two—and further let us assume that one of them dies or retires, so that the question arises as to whether the manager shall be put on the board. If he is put on the board, some of the Excess Profits are lost, because his salary is no longer a chargeable expense. In those circumstances, accordingly, no one in this room would put the manager on the board. They say that it is going to save them £500 a year. Is that an improper or imprudent act? Is it still true, as the judge advised in a certain notable case, that the citizen is entitled to arrange his affairs in such a manner as to attract the minimum of taxation? That is a true principle. We are not entitled to depart from that because we are desirous of stopping really improper transactions.
  May I give another example? A great many manufacturers have been asked by the State properly to make things outside their normal line of business. Many people for quite proper reasons run separate departments of their business because they are rather different in character, through the agency of more than one limited company. These companies may be closely linked, or one be the subsidiary of the other, or they may be quite separate though the ownership and management are substantially the same. A man has two separate businesses. He is invited by the Government as an individual to make this, that or the other, and ultimately, as he has had the

  605
  right kind of experience, he says that he will do so. Superficially, it is a matter of indifference whether the contract is placed with firm "A" or "B." They both belong to Mr. Smith. Naturally, he will choose the company which will look better so far as Excess Profits Tax is concerned. His reason for placing the contract may be a different one. He may say that firm "A" is more suitable for the job, and he will have the contract put into the hands of company "A," but by so doing he may retain more profit than if he places it with company "B." Is that a proper transaction, and what are the Commissioners going to do?
  These are two typical examples quoted to me by the chairman of a company who is a leading constituent of mine. They have two businesses extraordinarily different in character, one with a large works in the country and the other with smaller works. The one deals with the import of certain products, and the other puts them through certain processes. The same people own both companies. The point might arise whether they would be unfairly treated because the Commissioners were of opinion that they had diverted some transaction from one company to the other for the purpose of avoiding taxation.
  Sir F. Sanderson: Is the one a subsidiary of the other?
  Sir H. Williams: They are not subsidiary companies. They are associate companies, but independent entities; the directorate of both is substantially the same, and there is a substantial common shareholding. Beyond that they are absolutely separate companies, and no one can say that one is a subsidiary of the other, though they share the London office for convenience. The question of the category comes into this matter. There comes the problem arising out of increased remuneration. I believe that I am a beneficiary of the Excess Profits Tax to the extent of a few guineas per annum. On one occasion the chairman of a company of which I am a director wanted to have a meeting. There was only one item of business that mattered. He said that he did not think it was necessary for me to travel 200 miles to town and that he proposed to do so and so. This is many months back now. He proposed to increase the salary of the works manager
  606
  which had been thoroughly well earned and the salary of the secretary, which was also well earned. They had their meeting, and I was deemed to be present. When I got the minutes I found that they had put up my salary under the service agreement. I was delighted and went on my knees, figuratively speaking, and thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for Excess Profits Tax. Although I think I thoroughly earned this increase, the Chancellor will get the bulk of it back.
  Sir K. Wood: I shall have to look into this.
  Sir H. Williams: I will not give the name of the company, but it will not make much difference, because the Chancellor will get most of it back. I have only temporary custody of it. I regard this Clause as of the greatest possible importance in its connection with what we have called legal avoidance, but what I might call legal evasion. We ought not to ill-treat people because in the opinion of somebody an undefined crime has been committed. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will accept the Amendment, but will further examine the Clause when it is amended in order that clearer guidance may be given to the Commissioners as to what action they should take.
  Mr. Woods: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) referred to improper avoidance. That phrase does not appear in the Amendment. The Clause speaks of avoidance and whether there is avoidance or not rests on somebody's opinion. But personnel may change from time to time, and you may get a variety of opinions. There is a number of additions one could make to the illustrations which have been given. For instance, the Co-operative movement has been built up largely on the idea that profits should be returned to the people from whom they are taken—that is the very essence of mutual trading—and that fluctuates according to the amount of profit. It might easily be argued that the dividend or bonus should be increased specifically to avoid paying Income Tax. That might be the opinion of a Commissioner, and while I am as anxious as anybody in this Committee to see that improper avoidance, manipulation or indulgence in transactions which are mainly paper transactions, should be stopped, in legislation of this kind it is vitally important

  607
  for the proper conduct of industry that it should have something more specific to work upon than somebody's opinion. I hope, therefore, that before the Report stage there will be modifications, so that there will be no doubt as to what is intended.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): This is an important Clause. It is a Clause for which some of us have hoped for a long time. It has been the experience of Law Officers day after day to listen to most ingenious schemes pro pounded by people who have now become specialists in argument and who receive a percentage of any reduction of tax—
  Mr. Tinker: Dodge money.
  The Solicitor-General: We have had, in consequence, in every Finance Bill—I am dealing with Income Tax for the moment —to put forward a whole series of Clauses so complicated that, speaking for myself —and I spend a great part of my time studying these things—I find them exceedingly difficult to understand. When we have propounded a new Clause, some more ingenious person comes along with new devices, and if it had not been for the ingenuity of tax dodgers—if I may give them that description—our Finance Acts would have been far simpler and the whole structure of our Income Tax law would have been simpler than it is to-day. We should not have been put in the position, in which we are to-day, of having to make this perpetual chase, then somebody trying to find a hole and then the Chancellor having to come along and tie up the hole in the net. It is a difficult thing to leave anything to a person's discretion, because once you do so, you leave it also to his indiscretion. It is, of course, conceivable that, with regard to the case which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods), there might be some tribunal so ill-advised as to come to the conclusion that the sort of incident he has in mind was meant to be ended by this legislation.
  Mr. Woodburn: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that under Regulation 18B we have entrusted the liberty of the subject to the discretion of a tribunal, which can put a person away until the end of the war? Surely, there is no greater danger in entrusting this matter to the discretion of a tribunal.
  The Solicitor-General: One always likes to have a code clearly denned rather than to leave the matter to discretion. I should like to give a few illustrations. A person finds a company with a very big deficiency, below its standard, and buys it up, amalgamates with it or buys all the shares, and in that way puts up his own standard. There may be a series of five farms, with a standard of £300 each— a total standard of £1,500; each may be made into a company and at once the standard goes up to £1,000 each—that is to say, £5,000. I think the whole Committee is in agreement with what we are endeavouring to do. The difficulty is to find the perfect words with which to do it, and it is very much easier to criticise other people's words than to suggest appropriate words oneself. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who moved the Amendment, used words which wholly miss the point. He used the word "improperly." He would allow the tribunal to disregard devices improperly arranged. [HON. MEMBERS: "To regard."] It depends on the way one looks at it—to disregard from one point of view, and to regard from another. But as long as a device is carried through legally, it is proper. However artificial it may be, as long as the documents which carry it through are genuine and not fictitious documents, it is a proper device, because one is entitled so to arrange one's affairs as to attract the minimum amount of tax. However bizarre, however artificial, unnatural, and unreal the transaction one enters into may be, and even though the sole motive in entering into the transaction is to reduce a tax obligation, it is not improper as long as one does not put forward bogus documents or anything of that sort. If the transaction is improper in that sense, it can already be dealt with adequately. I understand what my hon. Friend seeks to do in his Amendment, and I am in sympathy with it, but unfortunately, the form of words he proposes would have no effect.
  Mr. Denman: May I point out that I do not refer to an improper device, but only to a transaction that causes an improper avoidance or reduction?
  The Solicitor-General: It comes to the same thing. If a man enters into a wholly artificial transaction designed solely for

  609
  tax avoidance, has he improperly avoided tax liability or not? The answer is that as long as the document was not fictitious, the man was entitled to do it. He has done that which is legal, and he has not improperly avoided taxation. Therefore, while we cannot consider for a moment the use of the word "improper," we will certainly look at the matter again. I would point out that looking into the motives of the taxpayer is not unknown. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) will remember that in dealing with Surtax under the Finance Act, 1936, in regard to the formation of foreign companies, we are entitled to look into and consider what were the motives operating in the taxpayer's mind when he formed such a company. On the whole, that procedure has worked very satisfactorily and has stopped tax avoidance. This Clause, or a Clause on these lines, may do a very great service. It will do the best service if it never has to be used. If it stands there, the tax-dodger may in consequence think it is no good going to experts and incurring expense, because, if he does so, and adopts these artificial devices, then this provision may come in and sweep it all on one side. I make no promise to the Committee, but I will look into the matter again.
  Sir H. Williams: Co-operative societies are assessed for Income Tax, broadly speaking, on what is left after they have paid out what is commonly called "divi" to purchasers. They are liable to Excess Profits Tax like anyone else, but what happens when a co-operative society seeks to evade Excess Profits Tax by increasing its dividends to purchasers? Would the decision of the board of a co-operative society to increase "divi" on purchases, so as to limit Excess Profits Tax, be regarded as one of the transactions coming within the scope of this Clause, and if not, why not?
  The Solicitor-General: Obviously not, I should have thought. It is not an artificial transaction, and is not designed solely for the purpose of tax-dodging. If I had to judge a case of that sort I should certainty say it was not.
  Sir H. Williams: Supposing the normal rate of "divi" was a penny in the shilling, and that in the year when they found they had this substantial Excess Profits Tax to meet, it was increased to a
  610
  penny-halfpenny in the shilling. I think it would be perfectly clear that that was done for the purpose of tax avoidance, and if so I want the co-operative society to be as justly treated as anyone else.
  Mr. Woodburn: If that applies to the co-operative societies, it would automatically apply to firms who might normally have increased their prices to the Government, but who, because the Government are charging Excess Profits Tax, have not done so; therefore, because they do not increase their prices they are adopting a device to avoid paying Excess Profits Tax.
  Mr. Benson: Is it not a fact that co-operative societies are not assessable for Excess Profits Tax? If they were, on what basis would it be?
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the Committee is indebted to the Solicitor-General for the assurance that he will look into the wording of the Clause. The whole Committee is, I think, as he has said, at one with the Government as- to the objects of this Clause. I feel, however, that the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) made a real point in his Amendment. It would be of great value if the Government could find a form of words which would place the onus on the nature of the transaction instead of on the motives. If it were possible to find a form of words which would give the substance of the Amendment, it would be a great satisfaction to many who are entirely with the Government in the object in view.
  Mr. Woods: The reply of the Solicitor-General still leaves this matter for interpretation by individuals. I am certain that the Committee is unanimous about the end desired. In the previous Clause, under which complications arose, a safeguarding sentence was inserted providing for cases in which there is an established practice or custom, and from the reply that we have had, it is, obvious that the main intention is to put an end to this chasing and dodging for ever. That is to deal with new manoeuvres, but where there are established trade customs which have been going on for years, it seems to me that a Clause providing for their continuance would probably meet the position and allay anxieties and fears.
  Captain Strickland: I am, indeed, disturbed by the attitude that has been taken by the Solicitor-General with, regard to the purpose which the authors of the Amendment had in mind when they put it down. What are the Government aiming at in their proposal? They must be aiming at those who improperly avoid the payment of tax, and when we find this Amendment resisted by the Treasury we must be led to the point of view that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is endeavouring to put into the Bill something which does not apply in the ordinary legislation of the country, because he is now trying to place in the power of the Commissioners what is described as a discretion in dealing with these taxes. But when the Treasury resist the idea of inserting any sort of definition in terms of an improper transaction it leads one to suppose that no one dealing with the financial side of business will be safe from this discretion of the Commissioners
  On many occasions I have been somewhat puzzled by the persistence with which in Acts of Parliament the word "may" is inserted. I have often asked that it shall be altered to "shall," but have always been assured that "may" carries with it the implications of "shall." The Clause provides that where the Commissioners are of opinion that there was an avoidance, not an improper avoidance, "they may, if they think fit," make certain directions, which, in the terms generally understood, means that they shall do so. That puts a very different stress on the duties of the Commissioners. But if it is a transaction which avoids the payment of tax, the primary stress "Is put on the Commissioners to take such steps as they can to recover, if they think fit, when the word "may" will be regarded in the light of "shall" In any case it is a puzzle to me why the Government, with their power of consultation, profess that they are not as clever as these other people in getting rid of this avoidance of payment of taxation.
  Mr. Magnay: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman want to make the oversight of the Commissioners more strict or does he not? Does he mean "shall" or "may"? He says if it is "may" there is discretion, and if it is "shall" there is no discretion.
  Captain Strickland: I thank my hon. Friend for the interruption, because it is just the point that has led to the putting down of the Amendment to leave out this Clause. Many of us feel that this is a fresh departure in legislation and that such great power should not be in the hands of the Commissioners to take these proceedings where they think fit where a transaction has been done in good faith. We cannot legislate against a crime unless we specify the crime, otherwise we might give power to any court to proceed against people for all sorts of crimes against which there was no law. I hope that this Clause will be cleared up so that a fresh burden of worry will not be put upon industry through their having to consider whether every transaction they make may be deemed to be an avoidance of tax.
  Mr. Woodburn: There is a mistaken idea in the Committee that we never pass legislation that leaves matters to some body's discretion. Everybody who has fought an election knows that what is a corrupt practice eventually depends upon the opinion of some tribunal. One action committed with one motive might void the election, but another action committed with another motive would not be corrupt. In regard to Regulation 18B we have left the liberty of the subject to the discretion of a tribunal. If that tribunal thinks that some person is likely to commit a crime prejudicial to the country—
  Captain Strickland: When the tribunal deals with a man's liberty it does not make a criminal of him, but if the Commissioners proceed against a respectable business there is a feeling that the company is not respectable.
  Mr. Woodburn: Regulation 18B may not make a man a criminal, but it puts him in gaol. His liberty may be taken away and he may be put in prison until the end of the war at the discretion of a tribunal. There is no need for the House to worry about a few matters on pounds, shillings and pence if they pass on such tremendous powers over the liberty of the subject to the discretion of a tribunal. This matter can safely be left to the discretion of the Treasury.
  Sir K. Wood: Some of my hon. Friends have intimated that it is inconvenient to remain longer, and I want to get as far

  613
  as the new Clauses to-day. There are only two more Amendments. I would suggest that the present matter should be left in this way. Except for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) everybody has agreed that a Clause of this kind is necessary, and has endeavoured to support the position that people cannot be allowed to go on as they did before. I thought that the Solicitor-General made a complete reply to the wording of the Amendment. It is difficult for anyone who has not a Parliamentary draftsman at his elbow to draft an Amendment, and one can understand the difficulty of putting such an Amendment down. There is also an Amendment on the Paper suggesting that instead of the board of referees the Special Commissioners should be substituted. I am doubtful whether in the interests of trade and industry that Amendment would be desirable. In fact, the Board of Referees to which this matter could ultimately be taken is composed for the most part of men of business, and it may very well be the answer to many difficulties which have been brought forward this afternoon to say that the tribunal will not be a tribunal composed of lawyers but a tribunal of business men.
  Between now and the Report stage I will consider this matter and, if necessary, consult with my hon. Friends who are specially interested in it to see whether one or two Amendments cannot be made to meet their points, so long as we maintain the spirit and intention of the Clause. I desire to see the Clause in some better form and should be only too glad to improve it with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman. If my hon. Friend would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment I think we could complete the consideration of the Clause now on the undertaking which I have given.
  Mr. Denman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir F. Sanderson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to an Amendment which was down in the name of another hon. Member and myself in which we
  614
  asked for the Board of Referees to be replaced by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, that the matter will have his consideration between now and the Report stage, I intended to withdraw that Amendment.
  The Chairman: I assumed that, and therefore did not call it.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 29.—(Amendments as to exceptional depreciation).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Stokes: I want on this Clause to raise the question of exceptional depreciation, and to ask the Chancellor between now and the Report stage, to reconsider the whole situation and certainly to consider a revision of the schedule of agreed rates of depreciation. I make this request for four or five reasons. The first is that plant and machinery are being run for 24 hours a day for long continuous periods, with very little chance of attention being given to running repairs, and in the heavy industries particularly the machine tools are now required to be used with much harder material and are subject to a much more severe strain than they have been expected to stand in the past, a strain which it is almost impossible for us to measure. Added to that there is the fact that semi-skilled and untrained people are working with the tools, and perhaps the Committee will recognise what that means when I say that it is impossible to teach a man a job unless you let him do it, and in the process of doing it there is often a breakdown. I would also ask the Chancellor to apply his mind to the extraordinary fact that there is considerable variation in the rates of depreciation allowed in different trades for the same tools. In the aircraft and motor manufacturing industry they are using exactly the same tools as are used in the heavy industries, where such tools are ordinarily subjected to much more severe strain, yet those tools when used in the aircraft or motor manufacturing industry are allowed a greater rate of depreciation than in the heavy industry. That seems to me wrong. The rate of depreciation should

  615
  depend upon the tool itself and the hours worked, regardless of the work to which it is put; but if there is to be any discrimination it should be in favour of those trades in which wear and tear is hardest. Nobody can contend for a moment that wear and tear in an aircraft factory or a motor manufacturers' concern would be anything like as heavy as in a boiler works or a heavy engineering concern.
  My sole concern or idea in making this request is exactly that for which I support the excess profits repayment. It is that we should find, at the end of this war, our machine tools in a proper state of repair and adequate reserves to put them right, if opportunity has not occurred to do so in the meanwhile. To that end, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, in considering the matter make such provision as will ensure that whatever allowance is made will be invested in the machinery, so that all may derive the benefit to which they have a right when the war comes to an end. I hope also that he has heard what I have said. If he has not, I hope he will read it in the quiet hours of the morning.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 30 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 40.—(Provisions as to permanent annual charge for the National Debt.)
  Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 32, line 24, at the end, to insert:
  "and in every subsequent year such sum as Parliament may hereafter determine."
  The effect of the Amendment would be that, instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having to introduce a Clause each year fixing the amount of his National Debt charge at a given sum, in place of the old charge, fixed some 20 years ago, he will be able to fix it as he thinks best, and not under some temporary cancellation of a previous sum. I would ask the. right hon. Gentleman to consider that point.
  Sir K. Wood: I will give consideration to the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I am advised that, even with his Amendment, the right occasion for any change in the fixed debt charge for 1942 and subsequent years will be the Budget
  616
  for 1942, supported by the Finance Bill. Therefore I will give careful consideration to what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
  Mr. Benson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 41—(Amendment as to deficit for 1940–41.)
  Mr. Benson: I beg to move, in page 32, line 44, at the end, to add:
  "and the said Section shall hereafter cease to have effect."
  Here again, I will be very brief. The Clause appears annually, as a result of a provision introduced by Lord Snowden in the first year after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had been Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Snowden desired to rap the previous Chancellor's knuckles for general extravagance. It is rather amusing to remember that the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to suspend the provision was Lord Snowden himself in his next Budget, and the Clause has been suspended every year since. It is rather ridiculous that we should pass a Clause which has to be suspended annually. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman for Epping is now our Prime Minister, it would be very nice if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could go to him and take a message from the House, saying "Thy sins are forgiven thee."
  Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for the suggestions he made, but I would like to say a word on this proposal on its merits. I think it would be generally agreed that the 1930 provision is reasonable enough in itself, and that there is a great deal to be said for making the Government get Parliament's approval for the suspension whenever it is proposed to suspend. The third point I would make is that it might very well be held in certain quarters that we ought not to make the temporary conditions of war time the occasion of interfering unnecessarily with parts of our peace-time debt arrangements. Having said all that, I do appreciate what my hon. Friend has said and, as my own personal contribution to this discussion, I would say that in my judgment all these arrangements

  617
  will certainly have to be reviewed after the war. It is purely a question as to whether we suspend to-day or not. I do not want to take power away from Parliament at this time, and I suggest that "my hon. Friend could perhaps be content with having made his point.
  Mr. Benson: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. James Stuart.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Resolved,
  "That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the under-mentioned areas, namely:

  (1)the Borough of Lydd,

  (2) the Urban District of Wilmslow

  copies of which were presented to this House on 10th June, be approved."—[Mr. Adamson.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR, SCOTLAND).
  AGRICULTURE (LABOUR, SCOTLAND).
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH).
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH).
  UNITED KINGDOM (TERMINOLOGY).
  UNITED KINGDOM (TERMINOLOGY).
  AIR TRAINING CORPS.
  AIR TRAINING CORPS.
  WASTE PAPER (COLLECTION).
  WASTE PAPER (COLLECTION).
  BRITISH EMBASSIES (NAVAL AND MILITARY ATTACHES).
  BRITISH EMBASSIES (NAVAL AND MILITARY ATTACHES).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (VULNERABLE AREAS).
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS (VULNERABLE AREAS).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  MALE NURSES.
  MALE NURSES.
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (TEMPORARY DISABILITIES).
  MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS (TEMPORARY DISABILITIES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SOUTH WALES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (SOUTH WALES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICERS' FAMILY LODGING ALLOWANCE.
  OFFICERS' FAMILY LODGING ALLOWANCE.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.
  WASTE OIL (SALVAGE).
  WASTE OIL (SALVAGE).
  HOME GUARD.
  HOME GUARD.
  AM SUPPORT.
  AM SUPPORT.
  SKILLED WORKERS (RELEASE).
  SKILLED WORKERS (RELEASE).
  STORES (PROSECUTION, HEREFORDSHIRE).
  STORES (PROSECUTION, HEREFORDSHIRE).
  PALESTINE AND SYRIA (WATER SUPPLY).
  PALESTINE AND SYRIA (WATER SUPPLY).
  SEPARATED WIVES (ALLOWANCE).
  SEPARATED WIVES (ALLOWANCE).
  NORWAY OPERATIONS (FRENCH TROOPS).
  NORWAY OPERATIONS (FRENCH TROOPS).
  MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ' LICENCES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVING ' LICENCES.
ARMED FORCES.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (LIAISON).
  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (LIAISON).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN SECURITIES.
  UNITED STATES AND CANADIAN SECURITIES.
  CAPITAL PROFITS (TAXATION).
  CAPITAL PROFITS (TAXATION).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  WHEAT.
  WHEAT.
  FATS (ICE-CREAM MAKING).
  FATS (ICE-CREAM MAKING).
  MILK.
  MILK.
  EGGS.
  EGGS.
  TABLE JELLIES, MARROWFAT PEAS AND RAISINS.
  TABLE JELLIES, MARROWFAT PEAS AND RAISINS.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SPARE PARTS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (SPARE PARTS).
  BROADCAST NEWS BULLETIN (TIME).
  BROADCAST NEWS BULLETIN (TIME).
  WAR DAMAGE (SURVEYORS).
  WAR DAMAGE (SURVEYORS).
  RE-BUILDING (COST LIMIT).
  RE-BUILDING (COST LIMIT).
  SHIPPING FREIGHT RATES.
  SHIPPING FREIGHT RATES.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ENCEPHALITIS.
  ENCEPHALITIS.
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TRUSTEE (WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move the Second Reading of this Bill, the full title of which is "An Act to remove doubts as to, and to supplement, the powers of trustees in relation to insurance against war damage." As I briefly explained to the House when the Bill was introduced, there is some doubt under the law of England, though there is none, I understand, under the law of Scotland, as to whether trustees have the power to insure against war damage. It seems curious that it should be so, for I suppose a trustee undoubtedly has the duty, in respect of chattels which he holds in trust, to behave himself as a prudent citizen would behave in the case of his own chattels; but the difficulty does exist both in a variety of judicial dicta and, perhaps, because the Trustee Act specifically authorises trustees to insure in the case of fire. There can be no doubt that trustees ought to have the same power as other people who have chattels to look after, and the object of this Bill is to make that plain, and to declare that such a trustee always had that power, for in a number of cases trustees have already taken the risk and insured.
The only other matter with which I need trouble your Lordships concerns subsection (1) of Clause 1, paragraph (b), in which there are some provisions of a rather technical nature arising from the circumstance that, according to Section 82 of the War Damage Act, premiums paid under policies issued under Part II of the Act—these chattel policies would be of that sort—are to be treated for all purposes as outgoings of a capital nature. Any of your Lordships interested in the detail of the subject will see how that is worked out in the subsection to which I have referred. My only other observation will be this.
408
There is very great urgency for carrying this Bill into law, because the Board of Trade scheme for voluntary insurance fixed a date which has just passed. However, I am able to inform your Lordships that the Board of Trade do not intend to take any objection if trustees act promptly under this Bill as soon as it is passed. I hope, therefore, that after the Second Reading is given to-day, the House at the next sitting will think fit to suspend the Standing Order to enable us to take the remaining stages of the Bill at once. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my noble friend on the Woolsack has introduced a Bill which is likely to have the full support of your Lordships; it certainly has my full support. I think it is a good Bill and necessary, intended, as my noble friend has said, to remove doubts. There may, however, be two doubts in the Bill to which I will ask your Lordships to allow me to draw your attention. I trespassed a little when this Bill was introduced last week and I ask pardon for having done so. I did not realise then that it was only the First Reading of the Bill. The point I then raised, which was mentioned also by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, seems to me to need further elaboration.
In the first place, let me say this. I know well that the provision in Part II of the War Damage Act of 1941, dealing with chattels, is a voluntary provision. I know also that this Bill, so far as trustees are concerned, is also non-obligatory, and that a voluntary option is given to trustees to insure or not, as they may like to do. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to one of the points which I think ought to be cleared up. I make these observations from my own personal experience. Let me be allowed to assume this: There are chattels in a private house in a part of England which has not been affected by the war so far, and which, so far as human knowledge can foresee, is likely to be a safe area. The trustees wish to insure. The cestui que trust opposes. Under this Bill the trustees can disregard the wishes of the cestui que trust. That is quite clear to me. But the trustees are under no obligation whatever to insure.

409
It does not matter what the tenant for life or the remainder men may say. The trustee is not under an obligation to insure.
But my noble friend on the Woolsack drew attention to paragraph (b) which says:
"to apply any capital money … and, pending"—
the word "pending" raises a doubt—
"the making of provision for such application as aforesaid, to apply the income of any property subject to those trusts, without obtaining the consent of any person entitled wholly or partly to such money, securities or property or to the income thereof."
That is not clear to me. "Pending" confuses me. The money for the premium can be obtained by applying capital. Docs this paragraph operate only when capital assets have been sold and the capital money is used, or does it mean that if income is ultimately used and not capital the income is not freed from the provision put in this paragraph? The word "pending" makes the meaning doubtful by giving a temporary meaning to the source of the premium. I therefore draw my noble friend's attention to that and ask him if this paragraph should be stated to apply where income as well as capital is used alternatively.
Now, let me make a case of another kind. In a part of England with which I am closely acquainted, some areas are in the heart of the country and may be regarded as likely to be free from bombing risk. A man lives, there. He has his own house and his own chattels. He insures under Part II of the 1941 War Damage Act. In the next parish is a house for which he is trustee, with chattels in that house of which he is also trustee for the tenant for life and onwards. If he is himself insured under Part II of the Act of 1941, he may say to himself, "Well, my trust chattels in the next parish are almost out of danger; I do not think I should put my cestui que trust and the remainder men to the expense of insuring, and the tenant for life is not anxious that I should insure. He is quite willing I should not insure." One day the house is bombed; the trust chattels are destroyed, and the tenant for life is killed. Then come along some remote beneficiaries—it may be a hospital or they may be remote descendants of the settlor—and if the trustee has not insured the chattels, they
410
say: "You were prudent enough to insure your own chattels in the next parish, but not prudent enough to insure our chattels." I remember roughly what the late Lord Lindley said about the duty of trustees—that in the matter of a trust you not only must be as prudent as you would be with your own possessions but you must be more prudent as a trustee than you would in your own case. It seems to me, therefore, that if a trustee insures his own chattels and does not insure trust chattels, he is not more prudent but less prudent than he was in his own case.
I think there is something that must be cleared up here, because if a remainder man, after the death of a tenant for life, should attack the trustee and say he was imprudent and bring the matter into Court, the Judge would be likely to say that instead of being prudent he had been less prudent and that he must pay what those uninsured chattels were worth, if they were destroyed. I therefore make the suggestion to my noble and learned friend that he should make it more clear in this Bill that a trustee has complete and full discretion to do what he thinks best; that what he does in accordance with his own unfettered decision should not put him in peril of being called upon to make good anything which might be lost if he had not insured against war damage of chattels. I bear in mind that he is not compelled to insure, but the Bill does not say that he shall not be held liable if he has not thought proper to insure against war damage under the powers of this Bill. A trustee should be given in this Bill the definite right to decide whether to insure or not and he should come within no mischef if he does not insure. My noble friend the Earl of Clanwilliam has written me to say that he would have been here to support my plea if he were not compelled to be in Ireland. As your Lordships may have seen in the Official Report, the noble Earl raised a similar point last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, put last week a question as to the relation of insurance premiums and Income Tax. I know that under Section 82 of the War Damage Act, 1941, a man who pays a war damage premium is not allowed to debit that premium against his Income Tax return. That seems to me an unjust and a wrong thing, and for this reason

411
If the chattels are destroyed and they are not insured no values in chattels or money are there upon which Estate Duty or other duty will at intervals accrue to the State. After all, in all our private possessions the State is a partner of the private person and at the present time a very big partner. It seems, therefore, that if a person has to find out of capital or income money to pay a premium to preserve assets, the State, which is at any rate a partner in the benefits, should allow the premium to be debited against Income Tax returns of the person who provides the premium.
There is a precedent for that. I think there is a form called Form 99 under Schedule A of the Income Tax system on which a man can claim allowance or credit in relation to his extra maintenance expenditure on his taxed Schedule A property. Among other things he is allowed to debit a fire insurance premium because it protects the capital value upon which the State ultimately takes tax and duty benefits. For that reason I think that Section 82 of the War Damage Act should be reconsidered. It is an injustice that it puts all the burden of protective insurance expenditure on the taxpayer, although part of the benefit arising from preservation of the value of property which may be destroyed will eventually accrue to the State. I have tried to explain what is in my mind on the various points and perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will guide me as to whether my doubts are ill-founded.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may say just a word in reply to my noble friend. On one of the points about which he has spoken he may wish to raise the matter on the Committee stage, but I will give him this preliminary answer. It has to be remembered that the object of this Bill, and the sole object of this Bill, is to confer upon trustees the same powers under the same conditions as are enjoyed by any other owners of chattels. This Bill does not seek to extend those powers further or to cut them down. The question whether or not a trustee having got these powers should exercise them or not is not dealt with by the Bill, any more than any other part of the law of trusts is dealt with by the Bill. It is not, I think, quite correct to say that in these matters a trustee can do exactly as he
412
likes and that nobody can attack his decision. It would, I think, be possible, if there were thought to be a plain case where a trustee ought to exercise the power to insure, to make a proper application to the Chancery Court and have the matter discussed, and there certainly might be cases in which, if the Court thought it proved that out of callousness and want of consideration of the matter he neglected to do his obvious duty, he would become liable if there was a loss. But all that is part of the general law of trusts, and that is not what this Bill is dealing with. This Bill deals simply and solely with conferring a power on trustees which many people think they do not at present possess.
As regards the paragraph to which my noble friend referred, it is, of course, required because the existing Statute Law—not this Bill, but the existing Statute Law—declares that any premium paid in respect of the insurance of chattels against war damage shall be regarded as a charge upon capital. If trustees, as is not infrequently the case, have in their hands money which is the proceeds of a capital sale, it would be perfectly proper for them to use that money to pay the premium. It may be, however, that the trustees have no such money in their hands, no money in the nature of capital money. As a matter of convenience it is provided that trustees, if they find it convenient, may use money in their hands even though it is not capital money but income of the trust. That is the meaning of the words in Clause 1 (1) (b):
pending the nature of provision for such application as aforesaid, to apply the income of any property subject to those trusts, without obtaining the consent of any person entitled wholly or partly to such money, securities or property or to the income thereof."
Then the trustees would be under the duty of replacing that money which they have, so to say, borrowed by a proper capital transaction—it may be by mortgage or pledge of chattels, or even by the sale of a chattel, but of course the Bill does not prescribe the details. That is the answer to my noble friend's very natural difficulty. The premium has to be paid out of capital moneys.
It is a little late to criticise the provisions of the War Damage Act because it is on the Statute Book and your Lord-ships

413
and the other House passed it unanimously. There is this amount of reason—let us take comfort in it—that whereas an insurance against fire may be expected to go on year after year, and for all I know as long as the world lasts, we may hope that the particular danger against which this insurance is provided is entirely of a temporary character. It may last this year and next year—we do not know—but it will cease when the war ceases. It was felt, therefore, on the whole to be just to treat it as capital expenditure. It is to be regarded as something in the nature of placing an extra shelter over your property, an extra layer of concrete, rather than as a recurring annual charge which will go on for ever. "I have given my noble friend such answer as I can at the moment and I hope that it will satisfy him. I will be very willing to deal more in detail with the matter on the Committee stage, if my noble friend should desire me to do so, but I hope that what I have said will be sufficient.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I have the permission of the House to ask a question not to make a speech? If my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack tells me that the interpretation of "prudence" as laid down by Lord Lindley is covered by the Trustee Act of 1925—that is to say, that a trustee is so defended by that Statute that he cannot be penalized on the grounds of imprudence—then I have nothing more to say. All that I wished to do was to see that a trustee was protected from being attacked by a beneficiary for not insuring and using the powers provided by this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would only say that I think that the duties of a trustee in this matter are very well defined. I am not prepared to say that there are no circumstances in which a trustee can be held liable for what would be gross negligence, but I think that as a matter of practice it would require a very strong case to hold a trustee liable if he said that he had considered the matter thoroughly and did not consider insurance necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: That satisfies me.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, this Bill is very short, quite simple, and, I think, non-controversial, yet a few words of explanation may be required as to why it is brought before Parliament at the present time. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the trial of naval officers under war conditions for offences rendering a formal trial desirable, but in respect of which the interference with service operations caused by the convening of a full Naval Court Martial can hardly be justified, especially under present conditions. A Naval Court Martial has always been a very formal affair, and perhaps rightly so, because it is empowered to inflict heavy penalties and, in the case of mutiny, to inflict the penalty of death without reference to and without the confirmation of a higher authority such as is required by Military Courts Martial.
Under the present law, which is mainly comprised of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866, a Naval Court Martial is composed of from five to nine officers. The President must be at least of Captain's rank and the members of the Court must be those officers present at the place where the Court Martial is summoned immediately junior to the President. They must all be officers of the executive branch of the Royal Navy, of the rank of Lieutenant or above, and there are provisions limiting the minimum rank of the officers composing a Court when the President is an officer of Commander's rank or above. Naval Courts Martial can only be summoned at places where at least two of His Majesty's ships are present. The old rule that such a Court could sit only on board a man-of-war has now been modified to the extent that a Court Martial may sit on shore under special circumstances. It was found during the last war that grave inconvenience was caused by summoning a Court Martial of what I may call a major character when it was desired only to try a junior officer for a comparatively minor offence, and the Naval Discipline Act of 1915 was therefore passed which introduced a new section—No. 57A—into the main Act.

415
This section provides as a war-time measure for what is known as a Disciplinary Court. This Court, while retaining all the formality of the Court-Martial procedure, does not involve anything near the same inconvenience to the Service. Its constitution is simpler and less rigid, but it can only deal with a limited class of offences and its powers are very limited. The present Bill, therefore, merely introduces a fresh type of offence into those which can, at the present time, be dealt with by Disciplinary Courts of this description. At present the offences are disobedience or using violent language to a superior officer, quarrelling or using provoking speech or gestures, desertion, improperly leaving a ship or place of duty, absence without leave, profane swearing, drunkenness, etc., and acts to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline. The offences which it is now proposed to include amongst those which can be dealt with by a Disciplinary Court are those falling under Section 9 of the Act which reads as follows:
" Every person subject to this Act who shall desert his post or sleep upon his watch or neglect to perform the duties imposed upon him shall be dismissed from His Majesty's Service with disgrace or shall suffer such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned."
This section quite obviously contains some very serious offences as well as some comparatively minor ones. The object of this Bill is to bring the minor offences of Section 9 into the Disciplinary Courts procedure. It is at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief or Flag Officer who directs a Court to be convened whether he shall order a full Court Martial or a Disciplinary Court, but for any very serious offence he would, of course, be most likely to choose a Naval Court Martial.
The type of case which has been in mind in asking for this change to be made is where a junior officer has been negligent in the performance of his duties. Among cases which have actually occurred have been those where small vessels of war have been lost or damaged owing to such negligence, and where procedure under the proposed Bill would clearly be most appropriate. The Disciplinary Court procedure is only applicable to officers. The reason for this is that a rating can be punished by the summary procedure provided
416
by Section 56 of the Act without a Court Martial at all. It will thus be seen that the very small change proposed will enable offences of the nature mentioned by junior officers to be dealt with quickly and effectively; and it will no doubt be appreciated that the promptness with which a Court can be convened is a matter of vital importance under present conditions. Having regard to past experience and also to the urgency of the requirements of these times, the proposals in this Bill appear to me to be quite reasonable and desirable. I therefore invite your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to be permitted to say a few words about this Bill. When I read it, which was only yesterday, certain suspicions were raised in my mind, but they have been largely dispelled by the very full explanation which my noble friend opposite has been good enough to give. Nevertheless, this Bill originates in your Lordships' House and deals with an important principle affecting naval discipline. The Court Martial is the safeguard of the officer, and of the rating in certain cases, and I submit to your Lordships that there are strong reasons why we should be careful about abrogating those rights. In recent years, dating, as my noble friend said, from 1915, there has been a steady whittling away of the practice of holding Courts Martial. The present Bill represents only a small slice, but in the last war the same reasons were put forward for abandoning the old principle of court-martialling the survivors of any of His Majesty's ships lost in war. The Court Martial in that case was not necessary for purposes of punishment. Cases have occurred where only one able seaman has survived from a man-of-war, and he has been put on trial, the reason being to ascertain the causes of the loss and to apportion praise or blame as the case may be. In the last war that old custom and rule, which had many advantages and many sanctions, was abandoned.
Then, as my noble friend also reminded your Lordships, certain rights of officers to Court Martial were taken away by the establishment of these Disciplinary Courts. We are now still further taking

417
away these rights, and in theory that is a matter which I suggest that your Lordships should regard with some jealousy, although in practice I am certain that these Courts function well and that justice is done. The fact remains, however, that the Court Martial is independent of the Board of Admiralty, while the Disciplinary Court or the Court of Inquiry set up in cases of loss of ships—and my noble friend referred to the loss of small ships—is, without being offensive at all, a packed body, a nominated body. Whereas, as my noble friend says, Court Martial sentences can be revised by the Board, the findings cannot, and for future purposes the findings are sometimes of importance.
I think it necessary to make these remarks because, although this Bill seems to be altogether unobjectionable, it is nevertheless in principle one more departure from the surviving rights of officers, and of men in certain cases. The appeal to the Court Martial is one of the surviving lights of the officers of the Royal Navy against the Board. It is an appeal to the Service. I trust that the Commander-in-Chief will in all serious cases, as my noble friend suggested that he would, rely always on the old, tried and trusted procedure of Court Martial.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
THE LORD BISHOF OF BIRMINGHAM THE LORD BISHOF OF BIRMINGHAM had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the continued lack of adequate air-raid shelters; to inquire as to the relations between His Majesty's Government and the cement companies; and to move for Pipers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, it will be within the recollection of some of your Lordships that on December 18 last, almost exactly six months ago, I drew attention to the then provision of air-raid shelters. Speaking in part from personal observation and basing my words in larger measure upon information received from social workers, clergy and ministers in Birmingham and the adjacent area, I described the misery caused by shelters which gave inadequate protection and which were too often damp, insanitary and even verminous. I asked for a change in Government policy, for the building of
418
so-called Haldane bomb-proof surface shelters, which should be, so far as possible, safe, sanitary and dry. At the close of the debate, which was relatively brief, I expressed a disappointment which I think subsequently became widespread, inasmuch as the Duke of Devonshire, replying for the Government, held out no hope that what he described as "the enormous quantity of cement" required to provide really safe shelters for the whole of the population in bombed areas would be forthcoming.
The expectation remained, however, that in certain industrial areas which were especially exposed to heavy bombing Haldane-type shelters would be built, but I regret to say that, so far as I can learn, the state of affairs which still exists, especially in our provincial cities and towns, is lamentable. In the autumn the rains will come, and—we have this on the authority of such members of the Government as Mr. Bevin—the long night raids will come too; and then it seems certain that in large measure the miseries of last winter will be renewed. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking in another place on May 7 last, said truly:
"You have got to do more for the shelter and protection of people against air-raids. I do not believe that the problem has been considered on a sufficiently large scale. There is a limit to the morale of human nature. With proper shelter accommodation you can defy these raids for the year or two that we may not have supremacy."
The truth of these words cannot, I think, be contested. The Germans are asserting in the leaflets which they have been dropping recently that by November we shall be starving. We need not accept such propaganda, but it may well be that food will not then be as plentiful as it was a year previously; and if in addition, through long nights of terror, many people are compelled to go to damp shelters, the safety of which they rightly doubt, even our people, with their matchless endurance, may give way to despair.
I do not ignore the worth of the far too restricted efforts of the Government, but equally the failures of official policy must not be forgotten. The Anderson shelters have proved their value. They afford a high degree of protection, but often enough when placed in unsuitable earth, they are damp. An extensive programme of water-proofing has been carried out which has been only partially successful.

419
Trench shelters were, when I last spoke, far too often damp and insanitary. They have been improved by the use of tarmac and cement. Some are now heated, and the sanitation is often less primitive than it was, but in few trench shelters are water closets possible. In fact the trench shelter continues to be a primitive makeshift affair, wholly unsuited to occupation by a large number of persons for hours on end.
The so-called Morrison indoor steel shelters, sometimes called the table shelters, are of comparatively recent introduction. They are open to obvious objections. Because of their size they would be quite unsuited to small workers' dwellings in congested areas—and the inhabitants of such dwellings we must have carefully in mind. Moreover, under the air-raid technique in which incendiaries are mixed with high explosive bombs, these table shelters may be death traps, for if a house were to collapse on to the shelter and then were to catch fire, the occupants would be in a horrible position, and that such shelters should be issued according to official policy for especially dangerous areas is surely a mistake.
Public discontent as to the provision of air-raid shelters has grown during the last six months for two reasons. In the first place, owing to the lack of cement during the latter half of last year, local authorities were forced to build surface shelters which proved hopelessly inadequate. In the second place, an increasing desire for the erection of steel and concrete bomb-proof surface shelters has, to say the least, not been met by active Government co-operation. Your Lordships cannot understand the distrust and often indignant anger with which local authorities view the Government's air-raid policy unless you realise what happened to surface shelters last autumn and winter. In the late summer and throughout the autumn of 1940 there was a disastrous lack of cement. Orders were consequently given by the Ministry that surface shelters should be built with lime mortar instead of cement mortar. The results I can best indicate by some newspaper quotations.
On March 5 last—I quote from the Birmingham Gazette of March 6 last—it was announced at a West Bromwich Town Council meeting by Councillor John
420
Lees that 170 West Bromwich shelters were to be pulled down and rebuilt with cement. They were, he added, built with a mixture of lime when cement was scarce. On March 6 last—I quote from the Birmingham Mail of that date—the Chairman of the Birmingham Air-Raid Precautions Committee was questioned with regard to brick surface shelters built in the churchyard of my own Cathedral at Birmingham. Therefore I know something of these shelters. They were begun in October of last year. The Chairman said "Cement could not be obtained at the time and mortar of an inferior kind had to be employed." In February last, their demolition began.
On April 8 last the Bristol Air-Raid Precautions Committee stated, in a report submitted to the City Council, that a considerable number of brick shelters constructed during the period when cement was not available had been demolished on the instructions of the Ministry of Home Security, and that Bristol had thus lost 21,000 shelter places. Councillor F. C. Williams—I quote from the Manchester Guardian of April 9 last—commenting on these facts said:
"The common people were exposed to frightful danger by what I can only describe as a great Government scandal. It is not merely a Bristol question. The total rebuilding costs must run into several million pounds, because I understand it is common throughout the country."
A detailed report from a special committee which inquired into the collapse of brick-built shelters at Coventry came before the City Council on April 29 last. Among the causes of the collapse was—I quote from the Birmingham Mail of April 25 last—" the use of lime mortar instead of cement mortar." The Ministry, it was stated, had decided to put out of action all brick shelters built with lime mortar and to pay the whole cost of demolition and rebuilding. One other quotation, from the London Evening News of May 16 last, just a month ago. It was announced in that paper that 560 street surface shelters—not shelter places, but no less than 560 street surface shelters—in Harrow, were to be closed owing to their unsafe condition. Inquiries of the local urban authority were referred to the Ministry of Home Security, and I learn from Miss Ellen Wilkinson (whose humanity and capacity in this connection

421
deserve high praise) that "Harrow were unfortunate in that they constructed a large number of surface shelters at the time of the most severe cement shortage last summer."
I may, I fear, have wearied your Lordships with these detailed instances of failure, but they could be vastly multiplied, for they are typical of a general failure of the policy which was adopted when cement was virtually unobtainable. They are worth emphasizing because the recently issued Report of the Committee on Cement Production (Cmd. 6282)—I think it was issued last week—accepts the view that in the second half of 1940 only local shortages of cement occurred. The Report says that ample supplies existed in the south-east of England. I can only comment that Harrow at all events is not far removed from the south-east of England. Naturally there is grave misgiving among local authorities wherever they have been exposed to such blundering as I have specified. Owing to the use of lime mortar instead of cement mortar millions of public money have been wasted. A Ministry responsible for such a policy does not command confidence. Furthermore, the surface shelters now being rebuilt, as in the churchyard of my own Cathedral, give inadequate protection. They no longer let in the rain, and children at play no longer push out the bricks of which they are made, but they are not proof against a bomb of moderate size, nor have they adequate amenities for a stay of many hours. So local authorities, under popular pressure, are asking for bomb-proof shelters.
I shall give only two examples of this demand, lest I weary your Lordships. I quote from the Birmingham Post of May 2:
"The Birmingham Air-Raid Precautions Committee last month presented a report to the City Council in the course of which it was stated: 'The Committee has come to the conclusion that the sub-soil in Birmingham is suitable for the construction of deep shelters only in certain districts where there is an outcrop of sandstone rock—'"
—that I suppose is a truism—
"and that the most suitable type of bomb-resisting shelter so far as Birmingham is concerned is the heavy reinforced concrete surface shelter."
One other example, only a fortnight ago. I quote from the Birmingham Post of June 5:
422
"West Bromwich Town Council was informed of the Government's revised shelter policy for the borough. As a result it was stated that the Emergency Committee"—
that is, of the Town Council—
"has made representations to the Regional Commissioner that semi-buried, reinforced concrete shelters should be erected instead of surface shelters. The Committee believes that this type of shelter creates a greater feeling of confidence in the minds of the public.
The Ministries concerned are of course not unaware that the demand for bombproof shelters is widespread, but if the Government wish to build such shelters there would at the moment not be enough cement available.
I understand that the Government deny the existence of a shortage of cement. They can only make this denial because their policy is accommodated to it. They decline to authorise adequate numbers of bomb-proof shelters, and then say that there is cement enough for all present requirements. In the words of the Report of the Committee on Cement Production, to which I have already referred—the Report issued last week:
"In framing our estimates we have not made any provision for the quantities of cement that might be needed if a policy of constructing bomb-proof shelters on a large scale were to be adopted."
This is not the occasion when I should embark on a technical discussion of the nature of the best bomb-proof shelters and of the possibility of supplying materials and labour. I shall content myself with referring to a carefully-written and well-illustrated pamphlet entitled Safe Shelters—Now ! It is one of a series of such pamphlets which have been issued during the war. It was published last month by the Association of Architects, Surveyors, and Technical Assistants.
I have read it and analogous documents, and it seems to me certain that the Government could so reorganise the cement industry, in particular by the use of blast-furnace slag, as to provide sufficient additional cement to build bombproof shelters for some 700,000 people per month—that is to say, if a vigorous policy were adopted between now and November, safety could be given to nearly 4,000,000 people in the most heavily-raided munition areas. I understand that the amount of steel required in the first stage of a large bomb-proof shelter is about 2 cwts. per person sheltered—roughly the same as that required for a

423
Morrison table shelter. The second stage of a bomb-proof shelter can, I believe, be constructed without reinforcement. Labour to make the bomb-proof shelters could "be taken from the building of the present unsatisfactory surface shelters. That building is still going on in the churchyard of my Cathedral. Of course, additional labour would be needed, and would have to be transferred from less important work, but I have already indicated that the adequate protection of our people next winter is one of our primary needs.
From what I have already said it is clear that the problem of adequate air-raid protection is inseparable from that of the supply of cement. In the public mind the lack of cement in the year 1940 and the virtual refusal of the Government to force the cement companies to increase the supply have been the main causes of our present unhappy position. Your Lordships will not be unaware that the supply of cement in this country is in the hands of a "ring." The term was used by the Director of Army Contracts in his evidence before the Select Committee on the Estimates for the year 1938. It is accepted by the Cement Makers' Federation. How far that body has acquired a complete monopoly of the industry I do not know. I believe it to be true that, as late as the year 1939, one of the sixteen companies of the '' ring '' bought up a rival works and closed it. There is general agreement that the "ring" controls at least 90 per cent. of the output of the industry.
Obviously, the relations between this powerful monopoly—for it is virtually a monopoly—and the Government during the last eighteen months are a matter of legitimate public interest. Economists and historians tell us much of the dangers of monopolies. They warn us that, whenever the tendency to monopoly manifests itself, involving as it does restriction of competition for the sake of profits, control in the interests of the public is obviously needed. In the light of such warnings, the policy and propaganda of the Cement Makers' Federation are of much interest. The Federation, in an advertisement entitled "Pounds and Propaganda," which appeared in The Times of March 11 last, and elsewhere, boasted that it spent, pre-war, something like £100,000 a year
424
"in spreading information and technical instruction." When criticism arose owing to the lack of cement for air-raid shelters in the second half of last year, the monopolists replied with a veritable spate of advertisements which extended even to Punch. These advertisements never once, so far as I have seen, referred to the miseries of those forced to use shelters which were condemned because lime mortar was used when cement was not available. In fact, throughout all the controversy caused by the lack of cement, no expression of sympathy with the sufferings of the people has, so far as I know, come from the cement "ring."
The propaganda of the monopolists has been, as might be expected, able; it has not always been marked by complete can-dour. For instance, there appeared on January 15 last, an advertisement showing the way in which the "ring" had lowered the price of cement. In this advertisement the cement industry was described as—I will have you note carefully the words—" a great weapon now wielded by the Government itself through the Ministry of Works and Buildings." The advertisement—January 15, 1941—carried the price of cement down to the end of 1939. It had then risen from 39s. to 42s. per ton, having been reduced from 51s. in 1930. A paragraph added that the industry would not make "colossal war profits: the Excess Profits Tax would see to that." There was, however, in the advertisement, no indication that early in 1940 the price of cement had been raised to 45s. per ton, including paper bags, and that there were further increases in May and June, 1940. Nor was there any indication that a mere fortnight before the advertisement appeared the price of cement, with bags, had been raised to 55s. 6d. per ton, an increase of 5s. per ton for cement and of is. per ton bag. There is, I think, no doubt as to the accuracy of my figures which refer to the prices per ton in four-ton lots delivered London; but such is the atmosphere that surrounds the supply of cement that I have been specially asked not to give the name of my informant.
We have then this position. In the middle of January last, the "ring" advertised that up to the end of 1939 it had reduced the price of cement to 42s. per ton, with bags. Actually, when the advertisement appeared, the price with

425
bags had been raised—and was the last increase, I ask, by Government order?—to 55s. 6d. per ton; and the companies were gaily talking of their liability to Excess Profits Tax. I would ask the Minister of Works and Buildings—is he here to-day? I think not. The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, is replying for the Government, I would ask the noble Duke to tell us who gave permission for this increase in the price of a commodity needed by every local authority in the country constructing surface shelters? Why should costs of public works be raised to such an extent that the monopolists expected to find themselves in the position of paying Excess Profits Tax?
Further, I would ask whether it is true that neither the money spent on propaganda by the monopolists nor their expenses in connection with any legal actions which they may bring are submitted to Excess Profits Tax. If there is such an escape from liability to taxation, we witness a most interesting development, only possible, I would suggest, in war-time; when public attention is deflected elsewhere. A Government Department takes over and wields, "as a great weapon"—I thank the "ring" for this modest metaphor—a largely monopolist industry. At the public expense this Government Department supplies the industry lavishly with funds so that, by means of widespread advertisements and threats of legal proceedings, indignant criticism can be stifled. I hold in my hands a pamphlet, Break the Cement Ring, which is an ably written plea for bomb-proof shelters, widely circulated in the closing months of last year. Such shelters would, as we have seen, only be possible if there were a large increase in the output of cement, and the reluctance of the monopolists last year to make this increase is documented in the pamphlet by quotations from such newspapers as The Times and the Financial News.
The printers of this pamphlet, I understand, early in December, 1940, received a letter from the solicitors of the Cement Makers' Federation stating that they had been instructed to issue a writ for "gross and unfounded libels." Publication of the pamphlet has ceased. A similar threat against Professor J. B. S. Haldane,
426
Fellow of the Royal Society and Chairman of the National A.R.P. Co-ordinating Committee, was not followed up. It is probable, I understand, that he and his associates would have vigorously defended any legal action taken against them. The extent of the work which he and his friends have done in connection with the provision of bomb-proof shelters must be recognised by all who have studied the careful pamphlets issued by the experts associated with his group. He himself has, during the past eighteen months, constantly risked his life in experiments designed to mitigate consequences of disasters to submarines. That a man engaged on such work should have been so threatened by the Cement Makers' Federation calls for an inquiry as to the nature of the association between the Federation and the Government.
This association has been the subject of much speculation and of not a few demands for information. But the position has not yet been made wholly clear in answer to questions in another place. Of the answers I will try to give you a précis so that if in any respect my own interpretation of the position is wrong, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, may subsequently correct me. On December 3 last Mr. Hicks, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, said that with the formation of his Ministry the cement industry was controlled, the Controller being Mr. Hugh Beaver "who was giving his services voluntarily to the industry." This statement must, however, be associated with the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, whom I see here to-day, giving evidence on May 9 last, said that no Order in Council controlling the cement industry had ever been actually passed. There was, he said, a voluntary control. He himself was Director of Cement, sitting in a Government building and giving instructions to the industry, taking his instructions from the Minister of Works and Buildings and from the Controller of Building Materials. Those engaged in the industry took his instructions just as though he were their master.
Then, on May 14 last, Mr. Hicks, in answer to inquiries in another place, said that the only responsible post in his Ministry connected with cement was that of Director of Cement. The holder of this office was the noble Viscount, Lord

427
Wolmer, and he ceased to act as Chairman of the Cement Makers' Federation when appointed Director. In answer to a further inquiry as to whether the effective Controller, usually in attendance with the Director, his immediate chief, was not known as the Danish Quisling, Mr. Hicks, according to the Official Report, replied that the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, no longer had any effective control of the cement industry. He added that the noble Lord was working voluntarily and followed up this statement with the not too flamboyant testimonial that "he is supposed to understand—and I think he does understand—the industry." Mr. Hicks said that he could not answer an inquiry as to whether the noble Lord was still being paid by the Federation. On May 20 last, in answer to further questions, Mr. Hicks said that the noble Lord, as Director of Cement, was under the control of a Director-General, then apparently mentioned for the first time. He added the remarkable information that the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, continued to be paid by the Federation of which he ceased to act as Chairman when appointed Director of Cement. It was suggested in a question that this payment amounted to the substantial sum of £5,000 a year, together with another £1,000 when the noble Lord became a member of this House. I am sure that, if the facts be correct—which are rather surprising—we should all agree that the additional payment was a fitting recognition of the dignity of this House.
I do not profess wholly to understand the position described in the official information which I have just summarised. But surely the position as revealed is highly improper. Ought a Government officer, sitting in a Government building and giving instructions, to be paid by monopolists whom he may have in the national interest to coerce? The few cement producers who remain independent of the "ring" should not be subject to a man who is paid by the "ring." Moreover, the noble Lord has shown himself determined to fight any who might attempt to break the "ring." I would remind your Lordships that at the end of 1938 outside firms proposed to erect two new factories. The noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, as Chairman of the Cement Makers' Federation, warned them off.
428
According to a report in the Economist for December 3, 1938, he publicly pointed to the tendency of newcomers to enter the industry as "a dangerous development likely to lead to indiscriminate price-cutting." With such a record the noble Lord, still paid by the Federation, is the Government Director of Cement. Surely such an appointment should be ended.
My Lords, I will sum up. The grave shortage of cement in the latter half of last year led to the existence of unhealthy, damp shelters and, in consequence, vast numbers of our poorer fellow-citizens for months on end suffered horrible discomfort. Owing to conditions in the shelters, I ought to add, infectious disease increased. In less than the first five months of this year, there were—I give approximate figures—112,000 cases of measles as against 40,000 in the corresponding period of 1940. There were 37,000 cases of whooping cough compared with under 4,000 in the corresponding period of 1940. I have told your Lordships how the shelters erected when the use of lime mortar was not available have either fallen down or have had to be pulled down. Millions of public money have consequently been wasted. At the present time there is a demand throughout the country for the building of bombproof shelters. It is, I submit, a reasonable demand. The Germans, we have been allowed to know, have been building such shelters in Berlin: if Berlin has them, why not Birmingham? But bombproof shelters in adequate numbers are impossible unless the output of cement be greatly increased. Surely these facts make it imperative that the present so-called control of the cement industry should be changed. At present it is impossible to say where the Government ends and the cement "ring" begins. Do the Government really control the "ring," or do the "ring" dictate Government policy?
May I conclude with a concrete case? The well-known left wing publisher, Mr. Victor Gollancz, has recently published a little book bearing the opprobious title Rats. On pages 60 to 66 of that book there is, in connection with air-raid shelters, an attack on the Cement Makers' Federation which lacks nothing in definiteness. Here is one sentence:

429
"The cement industry is a typical example of how the profit-making system can run counter to public good and of the need for energetic Government direction and control."
These pages have doubtless been carefully considered by the Ministry and by the Cement Makers' Federation. Do these bodies; consider them libellous, or do they accept the statements in them as true? Is judgment on such an issue made by the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, the Government Director of Cement, whose instructions the industry take just as though he were their master but who is paid by the "ring," or will the judgment be made by, say, Sir Malcolm Stewart, President of the "ring," and presumably also paid by it? I would put it to the Minister of Works and Buildings and to the noble Duke who replies on behalf of that Ministry that the existing situation is impossible. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, I am not responsible for the Government's air-raid shelter policy and therefore I do not propose to deal with that part of the speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down. My noble friend will reply on behalf of the Government in regard to that matter. I am, however, very much concerned to correct, at this my first opportunity, some of the misstatements that the right reverend Prelate has made about the cement industry and about myself. If I am longer than I intended to be it is because the right reverend Prelate has made so many accusations and so many statements which are untrue that it necessarily takes some little time to correct them.
May I first deal with the whole attitude from which the right reverend Prelate has approached this question? He has spoken of the Cement Makers' Federation, of which I was chairman for six years until 1940 as a "ring" and a "monopoly." There is no monopoly about the manufacture of cement. Cement is made of chalk and clay or limestone and clay which are in abundance all over the country. In normal times anyone can erect works and make and sell cement just as much as he likes. There are about fifty works in the country, and the companies to whom these works belong have a Federation which the right reverend Prelate calls a "ring," but which is, in fact, a trade union, and is
430
simply an effort on the part of the industry to organise and rationalise itself in accordance with what I venture to think are modern ideas. I have heard other great industries, such as the steel industry and the coal industry, very much criticised by "advanced" thinkers on the ground that they had not organised or rationalised themselves, and, in fact, Parliament has intervened and has forced organisation and rationalisation on those two great and other industries. The cement industry, however, has done for itself what Parliament has forced upon other great industries. There is nothing contrary to the public interest in that action. On the contrary, as in the cases that I have mentioned, it is in the public interest that these great industries should be properly organised so that there are adequate supplies of cement, or whatever the commodities may be, in every part of the country, and so that wages and prices should be on a fair level. That is the first point which I desire to make.
My second point is in regard to the extraordinary hypothesis with which the right reverend Prelate started. This was that it is the object of the Cement Makers' Federation and the cement industry generally to prevent anybody getting any cement! On the contrary their whole interest, their whole object, their whole purpose is to make as much cement as possible and to sell to everyone who is willing to buy. The record of the industry in this respect is one of which it has every reason to be proud. At the time of the last war the productive capacity of the cement industry was in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000 tons a year. At the beginning of this war the productive capacity was in the neighbourhood of 9,000,000 tons a year. In other words, in the period between the two wars the industry had trebled its productive capacity. The price of cement at the end of the last war was £6 a ton. Now in London it is less than £3 a ton. So with the trebling of the productive capacity you have the price brought down to less than half. The industry has doubled its productive capacity in the last fifteen years, and during the whole of that period wages have been steadily increased. Wages in the industry at the outbreak of the war were 22s. a week better than when the industry was only half the size. Therefore,

431
you have an industry which is progressive, which has treated its employees well, which has never had a strike or a lock-out, which has enormously increased its productive capacity and which has consistently lowered the price of cement.
The right reverend Prelate gave some figures which, I think, were accurate so far as they went, but I will give him some more which put the matter in a fairer light. In 1925 the price of cement in London was 64s. a ton. This was consistently lowered every few years till it was 39s. in 1937. Increased cost of coal necessitated a slight rise, but at the outbreak of war it was only 41s. Then the right reverend Prelate asked: Why has the price been put up since the war started? I can answer that question for him now. It has been put up because the costs of cement manufacture have been increased, and it has only been put up in so far as the accountants of the Government have permitted. Right from the commencement of the war, when there was no Government control, I, as Chairman of the Cement Makers' Federation, went to the Minister of Supply and gave him an undertaking that the price of cement would not be raised without his permission. Whenever the costs of the manufacture of cement were increased—as they frequently were by war causes—and it became necessary to raise the price, I submitted all the accounts of the cement makers to the accountants of the Ministry of Supply, and it was not until the accountants were satisfied that a rise in the price of cement was necessary that any rise took place. There was no legal compulsion behind that. It was done in pursuance of a gentlemen's agreement between the Minister of Supply and myself.
The right reverend Prelate launches a great attack on the cement industry as if they were the people who were preventing the public from getting air-raid shelters. I would venture to suggest that every reinforced concrete shelter that is now in use stands witness to a service that the cement industry has rendered to the community, and I think that the industry is entitled to some recognition of that fact. When I speak of the industry, I speak not only of the capitalists but also of the wage earners in the industry. I venture to tell the right reverend Prelate that his unjust attacks on the
432
industry have caused most bitter resentment among the men who earn their daily bread in its service. Since the war started, the industry has delivered something like 12,500,000 tons of cement and that has made something like 80,000,000 tons of concrete. That, I would submit, is no mean contribution for any one industry to make towards winning the war. Far from it being just that the industry should be attacked by the right reverend Prelate for not having made more cement, I suggest that to have tripled productive capacity between the two wars, and at the same time to have improved wages and lowered prices is a record such as few other industries—look in whatever direction you like—can point to.
Then the right reverend Prelate mentioned my position, and I would like to inform him exactly how matters stand with regard to that. Until November, 1940, I, as Chairman of the Cement Makers' Federation, was taking my instructions on a voluntary basis; simply on the basis of a gentlemen's agreement, from the Minister of Supply in regard to what he wanted. It mainly amounted in those days to working to capacity and to not charging more than the figures to which the accountants had agreed. In November, 1940, the Ministry of Works and Buildings was set up, and I was appointed Director of Cement, working under the Controller of Building Materials, who was responsible to the Minister. When I accepted that position, I stipulated that I should have nothing to do with the price of cement. I have nothing to do with the price of cement; the price of cement is regulated to-day as it was before. The cement companies send in their accounts to accountants appointed by the Minister of Works and Buildings. I never see or discuss those accounts; the accountants decide what rise or fall in the price of cement is warranted by the changing circumstances. It would, of course, be very wrong for me to have anything to do with the price of cement, but in all other respects there is no conflict of interest at all between the cement industry and the Government.
One extraordinary obsession in the right reverend Prelate's mind is that there is some sort of secret war going on between the cement industry and the Government, some sort of conflict. The cement industry is at any rate composed of Englishmen,

433
and they are working, like all other Englishmen, for their country in this great crisis. The cement industry, like every other organisation in this country, is doing its best to win victory. The Government give their orders to the cement industry and the cement industry carry them out. I am the vehicle through which these orders are given. The policy is decided by the Minister of Works and Buildings. He says that he wants so much cement, that he wants cement stored in such-and-such places, that he wants certain steps taken; and I see that those steps are taken. Whether I am the right person to do that is a matter not for me but for the Minister who made the appointment. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that I did not appoint myself!
In regard to payment, the position of all these war-time Controllers is that they are lent by the industry concerned to the Government. Not only in the case of cement but in the cases of iron and steel, paper, timber, and other commodities, the policy has been for the Government to get people who know something about it to run the business. That is, I think, a not altogether unreasonable policy. What has happened, then, is that these gentlemen, like myself, have been lent by the industries to the Government. We do not draw any salary from the Government; we continue to receive our income from the industry; and, as long as I have nothing to do with the price of cement, it does not seem to me that there is anything dishonourable or improper in such an arrangement. There has never been any secret about it.
There are one or two other points made by the right reverend Prelate to which I feel it necessary to reply. Take the question of blast-furnace cement. It is astonishing how people who know nothing about a subject will dogmatise about it with the greatest confidence, and it is equally astonishing how easy it seems to be to get other people to believe them. The right reverend Prelate has spoken as if there was some sinister or wicked reason why more blast-furnace cement has not been made in this country. I can assure him that there is none at all. Blast-furnace cement has been made for years in Scotland and on the Continent, but the reason why it has been made in many places on the Continent is that in
434
those places the iron works and the cement works happen to be close together, whereas in England the great bulk of our cement works are on the mouth of the Thames and the great bulk of our iron works are in far-distant parts of the country. That is one reason why blastfurnace cement was not made to a greater extent in this country. Another reason is that the particular ores used in the iron industry in England are not as suitable for the purpose as some of the ores used on the Continent. A third, and perhaps the most important, reason is that there has always been an ample supply of Portland cement in this country, and for most purposes Portland cement is definitely a superior article. Those are the simple reasons why blast-furnace cement was not manufactured before in England. There was nothing to prevent its being so manufactured. Anyone could make it who wanted to, for, as I have already pointed out, there has been no monopoly in the matter. A certain amount of blastfurnace cement was imported from abroad, but there was not a very great demand for it, because there were always ample supplies of Portland cement available.
Now let me say a word about the so-called shortage last year. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that the statements which he made this afternoon, as well as on other occasions, were in that respect grossly inaccurate. There never was a time when there was a complete shortage of cement. Up to May, 1940, both in war and in peace production greatly exceeded demand. Then came Dunkirk; and quite suddenly, all within a fortnight or three weeks, the English public realised that they would have to endure bombing which they had never anticipated, and that they would have to erect the shelters which months previously they had been advised by the Government to erect, but which they had neglected to erect. They wanted, therefore, suddenly to put up a large number of shelters. At the same time the War Office realised that all the coasts of England would have to be protected in a way in which they have never been protected before, and vast works, such as the road blocks with which your Lordships are acquainted, were undertaken hurriedly. Moreover, the workers engaged in the building industry, and those employed in making the runways of aerodromes and so on, worked

435
during the summer of 1940 with patriotic fervour, and the amount of cement which was used in the building programme was colossal. Your Lordships will remember that there was wonderful building weather during the whole of that period.
That meant an unexampled drain on the cement industry. It was just as if suddenly on one winter's day everybody wanted twice as much coal as they had been accustomed to use before. It might cause a temporary shortage, but it would not necessarily mean that the supplies of coal in this country were inadequate. As a matter of fact, however, never at any time were there less than 300,000 tons of ground and unground cement in stock, but the difficulty was to get it to the proper places in time. The right reverend Prelate has stated that there was at one moment a shortage of cement at Harrow, and he asked how that could be if it was in the south-east of England. I can explain that to him very easily. This period of tightness began to manifest itself only in July, and it lasted only during August and September of 1940. In August the Ministry of Supply became anxious lest the demands by the War Office and the Air Ministry should prevent people getting cement for their air-raid shelters, and so they instituted the coupon system. It was a mistake, but I am not criticising the Ministry of Supply at all, because it was a very difficult decision to make. They did not really know what the demands would be and they had to make a decision hurriedly. They instituted the coupon system against the advice of the industry, and that coupon system was carried out loyally by the industry. How did the coupon system work? It meant that every Government Department had so many coupons; they divided them up among their contractors, and inevitably, the thing being done in a hurry, some contractors got too many coupons, and some too few; some Government Departments got too many, and some got too few. So actually, that system during the few weeks it was in operation, caused little shortages at certain places where there would not have been a shortage otherwise. That is undoubtedly what must have happened in a case like that of Harrow.
I feel I have already trespassed too long on your Lordships' patience, but
436
there have been so many attacks made by the right reverend Prelate on the cement industry, which I have been proud to serve, that I felt it my duty to remove some of the misconceptions that are apparently in his mind. May I say this in conclusion? I have had the honour of a slight acquaintance with the right reverend Prelate for a number of years, and if he had only come to me or to any other person in the cement industry he could have got the facts without the slightest difficulty, instead of which he has launched the gravest charges on the most flimsy evidence. He has had in fact a complete lack of evidence. He brandished every sort of pamphlet issued by the Communists in front of your Lordships' faces this afternoon as if they were authoritative documents. He has swallowed all this Communist propaganda without making any proper inquiry from those who could have given him the facts. I regret the attack and the statements that he has made very much indeed. I venture to say that it is not a righteous or a Christian act to accuse your fellow-countrymen of lack of patriotism when you have not got the slightest evidence in support of any charge of that sort.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I only want to say one word. Having some little knowledge of the cement trade I know what the difficulties have been and how they have endeavoured to do their utmost to meet the circumstances of the case. Another remark I would like to make is that I think the right reverend Prelate was rather ill-advised in bringing a matter of this kind before your Lordships' House, having regard to the case which has recently been before the Courts.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, my noble friend dealt very admirably indeed with the case brought by the right reverend Prelate. It remains for me to say comparatively little. The main charge which the right reverend Prelate made against the Government was that they had neglected to provide the type of shelter known as the Haldane shelter for those parts of the country which have been subject to heavy bombing. He went on to allege that the failure to provide this type of shelter

437
was due to the fact that there was not enough cement available and that this was due to some sinister operations on the part of the cement industry. It is quite true that there is not enough cement and there could not be enough cement available for a period of many years to provide Haldane shelters for everyone. It is also true there is not enough steel available, and there is not enough labour available. But none of these are reasons why the Government have not adopted the Haldane shelter. The reason is that they do not believe it is the soundest of this type of shelter.
The work of providing air-raid shelters has gone ahead steadily. I cannot pretend that this position is entirely satisfactory. It varies from place to place. Many local authorities had neglected the advice which the Government gave them to erect shelters, and then had to act hurriedly and under war conditions which were obviously unfavourable. There was also an unfortunate misunderstanding over the use of lime mortar to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There was this temporary shortage, due in the main to the demands of the Army and difficulties of distribution. As regards any actual shortage of cement, as my noble friend said, at no time was there less than 300,000 tons of cement in stock even during the worst of the crisis last year. There was this shortage in many districts and orders were subsequently given to local authorities that a certain proportion of lime mortar might be employed. There was, unfortunately, a certain looseness of wording in this instruction, due, I think, to some of the people not being accustomed to the phrases used in the building trade. It is the case that certain local authorities used mortar containing no cement at all, consisting entirely of lime, with very unfortunate results.
I have a great deal of technical detailed information about this question of lime mortar, but I do not propose to detain your Lordships with it. Properly used and with the right type of brick, lime mortar can be quite satisfactory, and it is also the case that the majority of shelters made with lime mortar have in practice proved satisfactory. It is however the case that during a temporary period unsatisfactory materials were used by some local authorities, and that: has led to a waste of public money. The right
438
reverend Prelate is entirely mistaken in believing that the unfortunate state of affairs is due to the operations of the cement industry. It is a very interesting example, on the contrary, of how wrong national and municipal enterprises can go, and how easily it is for orders issued by the Government to be misunderstood. I do not think that many of your Lordships will agree with the right reverend Prelate in his attack upon the Morrison shelter. I believe the Morrison shelter, especially for winter conditions, is a very sound shelter which will be found increasingly satisfactory.
The shelter policy is going ahead steadily. Shelters of one sort or another have already been provided for something over 18,000,000 of the population. Those are individual shelters of one sort or another. There are also public shelters for something over 3,250,000 of the population. At present, whilst work on new shelters is by no means excluded, priority of materials and labour where available are being given to the bringing of existing shelters into satisfactory condition. I do not say that no new work is proceeding—it is proceeding—but on the whole a great deal of attention is being paid to the improvement of existing shelters. I do not say that everything will be satisfactory when winter time comes and we get, as we shall get, prolonged night raids. Many people will go through a horrible time, as last winter, but conditions will be substantially better than last winter. I believe the local authorities have learned their lesson. The Government are giving every help in their power, and we shall see a very substantial improvement as compared with last winter.
I venture to say that the right reverend Prelate, in putting it into the minds of the people who are facing a very difficult and disagreeable time, as we all are, that their sufferings are aggravated by the carelessness of the Government or by the rapacity of the cement industry, is doing no service whatever. He asked two definite questions. He called attention to the "continued lack of adequate air-raid shelters." I have told your Lordships that air-raid shelters for over 21,000,000 people, all told, have been provided, and that work is going ahead steadily as far as conditions of labour and materials make it possible. He also

439
inquired what were the relations between the Government and the cement companies. I can assure him, speaking on behalf of the Government, that the relations between the cement companies and the Government are close and Cordial, and that the Government feel every gratitude to the cement companies for the way in which they have increased output and reduced prices wherever possible, until the recent disastrous rise of coal prices made it impossible. At all times they have shown the utmost willingness to cooperate with the Government.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Duke for his reply, but I confess that the knowledge that the Government will not embark upon an extensive programme of steel and concrete bomb-proof surface shelters will be received with grave anxiety by many throughout the country who are responsible for the safety of their poorer fellow citizens. I must take strong exception to the statement by the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, that I made statements which were untrue. He did not give any concrete instance that any of my statements which have been accumulated with great care were not, in fact, true.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: May I say that the right reverend Prelate was given the opportunity of proving their truth in a Court of Law the other day; and he preferred to pay £1,600 rather than go into the witness box to do so?
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: I shall refer in a moment or two to that particular case inasmuch as the noble Viscount has mentioned it in your Lordships' House. I did not wish to introduce any personal considerations into this debate. May I just comment on one or two things which the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, stated? He objected to my referring to the Cement Makers' Federation as a "ring." I said that that term was used and justified in the evidence given by the Director of Army Contracts on the Estimates of 1938, and also that in advertisements issued by the Cement Makers' Federation they had accepted the title. The noble Viscount told us that the output of cement since the war had been adequate—that, in fact, 12,500,000 tons had been produced since the war began.
440
If he will work the simple computation, that is at the rate of 7,000,000 tons a year from the industry; but during the year 1939 the industry produced, as he himself said, 9,000,000 tons.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: May I correct the right reverend Prelate on that? I did not say the industry produced 9,000,000 tons. The production that year was in the neighbourhood of 8,250,000 tons. I have got the figures here with me. What I said was that the productive capacity at the outbreak of war was 9,000,000 tons. The right reverend Prelate perhaps wonders why the productive capacity is not the same in war-time. I can assure him it is not so easy to produce up to your full capacity in time of war as in time of peace. Things like the black-out, bombing, delays in shipping, and delays in getting repairs all tend to reduce maximum output.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: The noble Viscount, in fact, admits that the output for 1939 was greater than the average output since the war began. We learnt from the noble Duke that the reserve of cement in the country never fell below 300,000 tons. That only represents about one-thirtieth of the pre-war output—less, in fact, than twelve days' supply. That is surely a totally inadequate reserve. With regard to the action of the cement companies during the summer of the year 1940, may I remind your Lordships that The Times, in a leading article on August 25 of last year, said that
"either the Ministry of Home Security or some other body should see at once whether cement production is at the maximum, and not merely at the maximum of the plant in present production.
On October 3, 1940, the Industrial Correspondent of the Financial News interviewed spokesmen of the ring and commented:
"The assurance that cement production is' at the maximum possible requires some further explanation. On inquiry, the Financial News learnt that the Federation has made no allowance for potentialities for producing blastfurnace cement in England and Wales. It is readily understandable that the Portland Cement interests, which have to take into consideration the long-term welfare of the industry, should be divided about sponsoring any suggested emergency measure likely to prejudice this welfare."
VISCOUNT WOLMER: Will the right reverend Prelate give the name of the gentleman responsible for that statement?.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: May I continue?.
"Indeed the spokesmen of the industry made that aspect of the problem quite clear when speaking to the Financial News,"
Do I understand that that interview is repudiated?.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: Utterly repudiated.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: Has legal action been taken against the Financial News to cause the withdrawal of that statement? I gather not. I shall make no further detailed comments on the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Wolmer, but he has thought fit to introduce the question of the recent action brought against me by the Cement Makers' Federation. He seemed to think that because I did not defend that action I did not feel that what I had said was substantially justifiable. Surely the noble Viscount is not ignorant that the use by big business of actions for slander or libel to ensure the suppression of criticism has become an accepted technique. Any defence entered is made the occasion of elaborate and expensive inquiries. Costs mount rapidly. Thousands of pounds and even tens of thousands of pounds, which are a mere nothing to a multi-millionaire "ring," become the stake in a gamble which ruins the ordinary individual, if he loses, and lose he well may, for developments during the last century have made our libel laws—I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that I am not exaggerating—the most severe in the world. They are now such that fair criticism in a book review is almost impossible, and the position has been reached when any organisation or individual protesting against even injurious anti-social activities of any big business is exposed to ruin. American big business chiefs are reported to speak enviously of our "lovely law of libel." Equally, it is well known that if and when a strong Left-Wing Government in this country
442
come into power the revision of the laws relating to libel and slander will probably be undertaken.
My one desire in this unhappy business has been to get better air-raid protection for the poor. I saw that if I refused to defend the action brought by the Cement Makers' Federation and firmly declined to make the withdrawal demanded by the "ring" I should, with no little advertisement, draw attention to the scandal which I desired to see ended. I wished to bear the whole cost of my policy as an offering to the welfare of the poor of my own city, by whose sufferings last winter I was deeply moved; but, against my publicly-expressed wish, friends unknown to me got together a fund, and at my Diocesan Conference last week, nominally as a silver wedding gift, announced that nearly £1,100 had been collected. My Lords, deeply embedded in early Christian history is the practice of non-resistance. This practice will play its parts in the great struggle of the future when democracy must save itself by conquering the individual and corporate aggrandisement which now threatens our social freedom. I beg to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
BOROUGH OF LYDD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF WILMSLOW ORDER.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House adjourned.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
London Midland and Scottish Railway,
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

CANNOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
OFFICES OR PLACES OF PROFIT UNDER THE CROWN.
Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Chancellor, the Viscount Monsell, and the Lord Hutchison of Montrose to attend to be examined as witnesses before the Select Committee of that House on offices or places of profit under the Crown. Leave given to their Lordships to attend if they think fit; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Borough of Huntingdon;
City of Liverpool;
Urban District of Litherland:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.