Sitting of 1 December 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Cinemas
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make on the showing of films to troops stationed within two miles of a cinema?
    Sir John Jarvisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that all branches of the Army now have their full quota of up-to-date cinemas and that satisfactory arrangements have been made with existing cinema proprietors whereby no irksome restrictions will prevent films being exhibited to the troops?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): This matter has been considered with the trade interests in the last few days, and I hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be reached shortly. I am otherwise generally satisfied with the present arrangements for showing films to the troops.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when a suitable opportunity will arise for putting a further question?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say anything more at the moment than that I hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be reached shortly. I do not know the exact date. I think it may be about ten days hence.

    Dental Corps (War Establishments)
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make as to a war establishment for the Army Dental Corps; and to
    982
    what extent the approval of such proposals will enhance the promotion prospects of other ranks?
    Sir J. Grigg: War establishments for the Army Dental Corps will shortly be issued which will improve considerably the promotion prospects of other ranks.
    Mrs. Adamson: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the war establishment for the Army Dental Corps in order to put it on a business footing and to allay discontent?
    Sir J. Grigg: I did not quite catch what the hon. Lady said, but I am under the impression that that was the Question I had answered.

    Cadet Force (Commissions)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War why six months have elapsed since the promise of King's commissions to officers of the Army Cadet Force without any being granted; and whether it is intended to grant any before the end of the war?
    Sir J. Grigg: Instructions have now been issued which will enable commissions in the Army Cadet Force to be granted. I much regret that it was not possible to issue them sooner.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service
    Mr. Astorasked the Secretary of State for War whether Auxiliary Territorial Service officers are being trained for staff appointments of an administrative nature?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. A.T.S. officers have attended the School of Military Administration for some time and a special Staff College for A.T.S. officers was opened on 26th November.
    Mr. Astor: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I ask whether he will consider recruiting women with university education or business experience, especially for this type of work, and so relieve men?
    Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member means recruiting them specially without going through the ranks, I should want to have very careful notice of that.
    Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement with regard to the payment of

    983
    family allowances to widows with dependent children serving in the Auxiliary Territorial Service?
    Sir J. Grigg: Family allowances will in future be paid to widows in the who have dependent children. The rates of the allowances and the conditions under which they will be issued will in general be the same as for soldiers with motherless children. I understand that similar arrangements will be made in the Navy and in the Air Force.
    Miss Ward: May I take it that that is an earnest that other anomalies relating to this category of serving A.T.S. officers and other ranks will also be put right?
    Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Lady may take the answer for exactly what it says.
    Viscountess Astor: Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had been fairer to women in the first place instead of having to be kicked into it?

    Home Guard
    Mr. Cluseasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on a recent Sunday 200 members of the Home Guard travelled from North Middlesex to West Sussex, at a cost averaging 15s. per head, to undertake practice; that only 20 shots per head were fired; that the journey and practice lasted 12 hours; and whether, as well equipped ranges exist a few miles away in Hertfordshire, he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the waste?
    Sir J. Grigg: This case is now being looked into and I will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
    Mr. Cluse: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that quite a large number of members of the Home Guard are busily employed all through the week, and find themselves in the position of having to use up their leisure time on Sundays, chasing round doing things which they could very well do much nearer home?
    Sir J. Grigg: That is precisely the obligation which the Home Guard take on, to give up some of their leisure in the service of the country. I quite agree that that time should not be wasted but used, but it is no good pretending that they are not called upon to give up some of their leisure.

    Sickness Pay (Discharged Men)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in many cases of men discharged because of sickness they have to apply for public assistance; and whether he will consider continuing full Army pay in such cases until they are declared medically fit to resume employment?
    Sir J. Grigg: A soldier suffering from a disability is discharged from the Army when he is found to be permanently unfit for further service, 28 days' furlough with full pay being given before discharge. Thereafter he will receive a disability award from the Ministry of Pensions if he is entitled to it. If he is not, he has the same rights for benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts as an insured civilian. I regret I am unable to accept the hon. Member's suggestion to continue full Army pay beyond the 28 days' furlough.
    Mr. Smith: In cases where soldiers have to seek public assistance, does not the right hon. Gentleman say that that is regrettable, and, if so, what steps are being taken to avoid that?
    Sir J. Grigg: I agree that it is regrettable; it is regrettable that anyone should have to seek public assistance.

    Discharged Men (Clothing Allowance)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War why the Army Council Instruction, laying down the rates to be paid in cash to discharged soldiers in lieu of civilian clothing, has been cancelled?
    Sir J. Grigg: It is not the usual practice to publish by Army Council Instruction the rates to be paid to discharged soldiers in lieu of provision of civil clothing. The rates are normally published in the Vocabulary of Clothing and Necessaries. The Army Council Instruction to which my hon. Friend refers was specially published because the Vocabulary became out of date. The Vocabulary has recently been brought up to date; as a consequence the necessity for the Army Council Instruction no longer exists.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has there been any change in the amount to be paid to the discharged soldier for civilian clothing, namely, £2 16s. 5d.?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think it is now 1s. or so less. There is another Question on that; I will give the figures in connection with it.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Secretary of State for War the amount granted to a discharged soldier if he does not have a War Office suit and overcoat, respectively?
    Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for War on what basis the grant for civilian clothing made to soldiers on discharge is calculated; whether it is the same for all soldiers; and whether any revision is made from time to time to meet changes in price levels?
    Sir J. Grigg: The allowance payable to soldiers who, on discharge elect to make their own arrangements for provision of civilian clothing rather than receive an issue in kind from War Department sources is based on the cost to the Government of purchasing standard garments of civilian pattern. The same rates apply to all soldiers, but soldiers discharged on medical grounds between 1st October and 31st April are entitled to receive in addition a civilian overcoat or a cash allowance, which is calculated in the same way as the other allowance. They are revised periodically in the light of variations in the prices paid by the Ministry of Supply who buy for the Army. The current allowance is £2 15s. 10d. for a suit of clothing and £1 17s. 0d. for an overcoat.
    Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this allowance adequate, and can he give the date when the amount was fixed?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should require notice about the second question. As regards the first, it is always open to take the clothing in kind.
    Mr. Bellenger: Why has this allowance been reduced from £2 16s. 5d. to £2 15s. 10d.? The Army Council Instruction about which I questioned the right hon. Gentleman, and which has now been cancelled, laid it down that the soldier was to have £2 16s. 5d. Why has it been reduced?
    Sir J. Grigg: Because it is revised periodically, in the fight of variations, by the Ministry of Supply.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the concessions announced last week to men serving as commissioned officers, does not the right hon. Gentleman think the time has arrived when reconsideration should be given to it?
    Sir J. Grigg: This is a case where a man can get clothes in kind, and a different case from the one to which the hon. Member refers, where the officer or embryo officer has to buy clothes himself from private sources.
    Mr. Bellenger: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

    Resigned Commission, Suffolk Regiment
    Sir J. Jarvisasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a young officer, whose name has been forwarded to him, was commissioned in the 1st Battalion, Suffolk Regiment, in January last, and given embarkation leave; that he overstayed his leave and communicated with his Department registering objection to serving overseas; that he was permitted to resign his commission and take work on a farm without any court-martial; and whether he will prevent in future this method of avoiding service?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the facts referred to in the Question, and I deplore the action taken by this man. He will, however, not escape his liabilities for military service. He will now no doubt be called up in the usual way under the National Service Acts.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Has any inquiry been made into the matter as to why the officer has been let off?
    Sir J. Grigg: Inquiry is being made into the suggestion that he overstayed his leave.

    Courts of Inquiry
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War how many courts of inquiry were held during the past six months?
    Sir J. Grigg: Courts of inquiry may be assembled by an officer in command to assist in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject. The reports of very many courts of inquiry therefore remain with the unit concerned, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is impossible for me to say how many courts of inquiry are held.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of these courts of inquiry are a pure farce and that much valuable time is wasted on them?
    Sir J. Grigg: I dare say the hon. Member knows all about that.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Speaker: Miss Ward.
  Mr. Dugdale: May I not ask Question No. 26? I understood that if a Member's third Question was withdrawn, I could ask a fourth. Is not that so?
  Mr. Speaker: No, the Questions are taken in their order.

  CAPTURED ENEMY GENERALS
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War how the German General Ritter von Thoma is being treated; and whether he is in a prisoners of war camp?
  Sir J. Grigg: General von Thoma is in a prisoner of war camp and is being treated as a prisoner of war.
  Mr. Thorne: Very good, Sir.
  Mr. Sloanasked the Secretary of State for War what payment is made to the captured Italian General Berganzoli?
  Sir J. Grigg: In accordance with the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, Italian officers of this rank receive £27 15s. 7d. a month.
  Mr. Sloan: Are we to understand that Mr. "Electric Whiskers" is living in luxury at the expense of the British taxpayer?
  Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Gentleman can gauge luxury as well as I can. The figure of pay which he gets is £27 15s. 7d. a month. Regarding the arrangements about pay, I think there is a set-off between the two Governments.
  Mr. Ammon: Is there not a reciprocal arrangement for our officers?
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people are living in
  988
  luxury, that they are on parole and can go seven miles without any escort whatever, and that they are not using—
  Mr. Speaker: This Question is about the payment of only one officer.

  CHAINED PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received information that prisoners of war in Oflag VII B are being held in chains for 12 hours during the day; and whether he will make representations about this treatment through the Protecting Power?
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. This is of course mixed up with the general matter of policy on which there are Questions down to the Prime Minister later on the Order Paper, and perhaps my hon. Friend would await the answer to those.
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the manacling of prisoners of war?
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement respecting the chaining of prisoners?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): We have received an interim communication from the Protecting Power and are in further communication with them about the matter.
  Miss Ward: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House on what date it was said that we should have an early statement on this question?
  Mr. Attlee: I could not without notice.
  Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend look it up, because it is important?
  Mr. Attlee: Certainly.
  Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of the British Government, if possible in conjunction with the United States Government, issuing a solemn statement that they have got no prisoners of war at present manacled?
  Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prisoners of war taken three years ago at Dunkirk are

  989
  reported to-day as being placed in chains by the Germans and separated from other prisoners in wire cages?
  Miss Ward: Could we have a Secret Session on this? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion?
  Viscountess Astor: Would it not be better if the Government just said they had make a mistake?

  SCOTLAND

    School Meals
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the school children in the counties of Fife, Clackmannan, Stirling, Renfrew and Lanark, and in the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, are now being supplied with a hot midday meal; and the percentages of children in the same areas being supplied with milk?

    Area.

    Percentage of children receiving hot meals.

    Percentage receiving milk.

    (a) Soup alone.

    (b) Two course meals.

    (c) Total.

    Fife

    …

    …

    2.2

    14.8

    17.0

    64.7

    Clackmannan

    …

    …

    —

    31.2

    31.2

    70.7

    Stirlingshire

    …

    …

    —

    28.5

    28.5

    64.2

    Renfrewshire

    …

    …

    1.8

    2.8

    4.6

    73.5

    Lanarkshire

    …

    …

    0.4

    13.4

    13.8

    69.7

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    0.2

    12.2

    12.4

    82.4

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    0.3

    18.5

    18.8

    80.2

    Dundee

    …

    …

    —

    15.0

    15.0

    64.5

    Aberdeen

    …

    …

    —

    12.4

    12.4

    68.5

    The figures are based on a census taken in the second half of October, 1942,

    In Renfrewshire the school meals scheme has only recently been developed, and when the next census is taken (probably in February, 1943) a substantially higher percentage of children participating is expected.

    Housing, Glasgow
    Commander Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken towards remedying the serious situation arising out of the great scarcity of houses in Glasgow and, in particular, whether there have been any changes in housing policy, whether these have been indicated to the corporation of Glasgow and what is their nature?
    Mr. Johnston: I have at all times done my utmost to assist local authorities to procure labour and materials, subject of course to war-time necessities, for the
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the figures required.
    Mr. McNeil: As the figures will show that there are some less progressive authorities, does my right hon. Friend mean to renew his technical propaganda?
    Mr. Johnston: Continual pressure is always being brought to bear upon authorities whose figures do not show well.
    Mr. Mathers: As many of us are interested in authorities beyond those mentioned in the Question, when will my right hon. Friend issue a fresh statement, comparable with the one issued last year, covering all the authorities in Scotland?
    Mr. Johnston: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult with me on that. I do not know when the last census was taken.
    Following is the table:
    completion of all houses under construction at the outbreak of war. The Corporation of Glasgow have completed about 3,300 houses since the war began, including 976 built specially for transferred war workers and they have at present about 1,660 houses under construction. Recently I wrote to the Corporation renewing my offer of assistance. I also delegated to the Corporation power to requisition unoccupied houses, of which there are some hundreds in the city, and unoccupied shops and offices which could be adapted for housing. I

    991
    informed the Corporation that the compensation payable in respect of the requisitioning and the cost of any necessary adaptations would be met in full by the Government. I also suggested to the Corporation that they should consider applying for my consent under Defence Regulation 68BB to the licensing of condemned houses in the city which may be capable of being repaired and otherwise made reasonably habitable as temporary war-time dwellings. I understand that my letter is now being considered by the Housing Committee.
    Commander Galboraith: Is the Corporation of Glasgow now taking adequate measures to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Johnston: Every local authority has had tremendous difficulties with labour and material. I am satisfied that they are doing their best.

    War Department Policeman (Prosecution, Paisley)
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Lord Advocate whether he will inquire into the whole circumstances surrounding the prosecution on the 19th October of a War Department policeman before Sheriff Hamilton, at Paisley sheriff court, charged with refusing to obey an order?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I have inquired into this matter. This policeman disobeyed an order by his superior to submit himself to search on entering a danger area. He was prosecuted, convicted and fined £5, with the alternative of 30 days imprisonment.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the observation was made during the trial that the police were committing perjury? Will he have an inquiry into the whole circumstances? The dispute is whether an order was given or not. I must press for an inquiry into all the circumstances.
    The Lord Advocate: There was a conflict of evidence between the policemen, which indicated that one or other of them had committed perjury. There was an inquiry in the ordinary course by the police but no sufficient evidence has been forthcoming to determine which committed perjury.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of my
    992
    constituents are involved in this? An inquiry was started, but the evidence was all the wrong way round, and, as a consequence, it was dropped. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a hand and see that an impartial inquiry is set up?
    The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Member has any further information to give me, so that I can extend the scope of the inquiry already instituted, I shall be very glad to do so. But all existing sources of information have been inquired into.
    Mr. McKinlay: I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the correspondence.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not this clearly a case for re-trial?
    The Lord Advocate: No. The point on which perjury was committed was not essential to a successful prosecution. The sheriff said so.
    Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced the name of the sheriff. In putting my Question to the Clerk at the Table, reference to the sheriff was specifically precluded, and I could not raise the matter. I appeal to you, Sir, to prevent Ministers introducing matters which Members cannot introduce.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I did not hear what was said.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: If perjury was committed on both sides—
    The Lord Advocate: I did not say that perjury was committed on both sides, but on one side or the other. Whichever side it was, there was evidence which in my judgment warranted a prosecution and a conviction.

    Aliens, Isle of Bute.
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens registered with the police in the Isle of Bute together with their nationality?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The total number is 109, of whom 39 are Belgians, 28 Poles, 15 Italians, 8 Dutch, 8 Norwegians,

    993
    6 Americans, 2 Russians, 1 Brazilian, 1 Swedish and 1 German.
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House on whose instructions a number of Poles are being detained?
    Mr. Peake: The figures I have given to the hon. Member are quite accurate, but if he has any further point to bring to my notice, I should be glad to consider it.
    Mr. McKinlay: I am trying to indicate that more than 28 Poles are upon the Isle of Bute, and to ask on whose instructions they are there and why they are so detained.
    Mr. Peake: That would not be a question for me to answer.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement regarding the delivery of parcels to British prisoners, of war in consequence of the German occupation of Southern France?
  Sir J. Grigg: It is too early to say whether the German occupation of Southern France will have any effect on the transport of parcels to British prisoners of war. Sailings from Lisbon of the ships which carry these parcels were suspended for a few days, but one ship sailed again on 20th November and others have sailed since or will do so in the near future. Further shipping arrangements are under discussion between the various authorities concerned in Lisbon. On my present information I have reason to hope that the parcel service will be maintained, any temporary interruption in the service being covered by reserves of parcels in the camps. As I have stated on former occasions, the service is always open to the hazards of changes in the general situation; but the House may rest assured that all possible steps to counter such hazards are taken. As a precautionary measure the International Red Cross despatched in the first fortnight of November four weeks' supplies of parcels in addition to the Christmas parcels, and the British Red Cross Society has told Camp Leaders through the International Red Cross Committee to reduce issues for the present to one parcel every two weeks, but with the Christmas parcel as an addition.

  FUEL AND POWER

    Wood
    Mr. Vernon Harriettasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to encourage the organisation by local authorities of the collection and distribution of blown timber to provide fuel in rural districts and thus to save coal transport?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): In October, 1941, all local authorities were asked to arrange schemes on behalf of my Ministry for the collection and storage of derelict timber for use as domestic fuel in time of coal shortage. Blown timber as well as surplus wood from sawmills and felling operations is used for this purpose. Where we know that supplies of suitable wood are available, individual appeals have been made to the appropriate local authorities urging them to organise and operate schemes for the storage of wood fuel to supplement coal supplies particularly in rural areas, during times of transport difficulties. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that both the labour and the transport problems involved, particularly in the case of blown timber, are very difficult.
    Mr. Bartlett: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that there is a great deal of timber lying about in the country, and that the poorer members of the community are frightened to fetch it whereas in many cases landowners would be glad if they did so? Will he send out another circular through the local authorities to try and get that discrepancy removed?
    Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the local authorities have already done a considerable amount in this regard?
    Major Lloyd George: They have collected a substantial tonnage. About 56 authorities have already collected, and I hope that there will shortly be another 23.

    Goal Deliveries (Small Consumers)
    Mr. Rickardsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is satisfied that the new arrangements made for distributing coal to small consumers is working satisfactorily?
    Major Lloyd George: An instruction has been sent to all coal merchants indicating the arrangements necessary to give

    995
    effect to the pledge which I gave in the House on 1st October that the small consumer shall have priority of coal deliveries this winter. The arrangements are to be put into force on a gradual scale from now onwards, and are to be in complete operation during the 13 weeks commencing 28th December.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a shortage of coke usually goes with a shortage of coal?
    Major Lloyd George: There may be a shortage in some cases which my hon. Friend has in mind, but taking the country as a whole there is no shortage of coke.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in Glasgow and the West of Scotland his Direction does not apply with the same force because people there never had an opportunity of storing any coal?
    Major Lloyd George: The purpose of this scheme is to provide for those who have no storage capacity. The small man is the one who will get priority because he has no storage capacity.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that these people are not getting priority?
    Major Lloyd George: The scheme is not due to begin until 28th December.
    Mr. Buchanan: Are they to go without coal until then?
    Major Lloyd George: That is an improper observation, for the hon. Gentleman must know that it is not true. People are not going without coal.
    Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that already in the City of Glasgow there is an acute shortage in certain parts and the people cannot wait until 28th December?
    Major Lloyd George: Considering everyday consumption in Glasgow that really is not so, and their needs should be met.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: What is the Minister doing to provide adequate labour to supply the coal?

    Coal Output
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will exhibit in the Tea Room, and keep up to date monthly, a graph showing how current coal production compares with the production of a year ago, both in total and per man employed underground?
    Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and to discuss it with him.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can give the reasons for the present fall in coal production in Lancashire; and whether a simliar reduction has occurred in other districts?
    Major Lloyd George: Although output in this district, as in many others, was low during the summer months, I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that the Lancashire and Cheshire coalfield is in fact increasing its output. In recent weeks production is higher than it has been at any time since early last year.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that it has been reported in the Press that there is a decrease in production amounting to 7,000 tons a week throughout the country, although the increase in mine workers is 4,000?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman's Question was with regard to the present fall in Lancashire, but there is no present fall; it is going up. I think that what the hon. Gentleman has got it mixed up with is the comparison of the total production this year with that in the same period last year. While it has improved on the summer it is 7,000 tons a week below last year's production.

    Gas Coke (Stocks)
    Mr. Colegateasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that there are still large stocks of gas coke in the hands of merchants or gas companies; and what steps he is taking to distribute them?
    Major Lloyd George: Stocks of coke at gas works are slightly lower than at this time last year while stocks at merchants' depots are higher than last year. My hon. Friend will appreciate that reserve stocks

    997
    at gas works are necessary for domestic and industrial purposes and for making water gas in case of need. Stocks at merchants' depots are necessary in order to ensure supplies during the winter months to consumers without stocking space. In view of the generally satisfactory position of coke supplies I have made a number of arrangements to encourage the use of coke and to facilitate its delivery to consumers while the necessary transport remains available. In particular I have authorised domestic consumers to build up their stocks to four tons of coke during November and December.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Utility Wireless Sets
    Mr. Woodburnasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to say if, and when, utility wireless receiving sets are likely to be made available to the public?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Owing to the very heavy demand by the Fighting Services for radio equipment of all kinds, the production of wireless sets and components for the civil population has had to be severely curtailed. A considerable number of civilian sets are still in process of manufacture; and it is most economical to complete these before embarking on the production of a utility set.
    Mr. Woodburn: Pending the time when utility sets are provided, will it be possible to facilitate the preparation and supply of repair parts, as many sets are going out of use because of the lack of valves and other parts?
    Captain Waterhouse: I will go into that question, but already a considerable number of spares are available and are being put on the market.

    Weaving Mill, Tayport
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before deciding to close Messrs. Scott and Fife's weaving mill in Tayport, he con sidered fully the representations made to him on the matter by the Scottish Advisory Council for Industry, the Scottish Office, the Fife County Council and Tayport Town Council, as
    998
    well as those of the hon. Member for East Fife; whether he is aware that one of the only two substantial work places in Tayport will thus be closed down; and whether, before closing these works, he will send a special investigator to Tayport to meet the parties concerned and review the local conditions?
    Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend considered all the evidence on this case most carefully before reaching a final decision. As regards a further investigation on the spot, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on Thursday last by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
    Mr. Stewart: As there are so many Supplementary Questions I want to put to that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter to-day on the Adjournment.

    Utility Furniture
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the President of the Board of Trade when and how the public will obtain utility furniture; and whether Purchase Tax will be payable?
    Squadron-Leader Erringtonasked the President of the Board of Trade the date it is proposed to cease the manufacture of furniture other than utility furniture; whether the designs of such furniture have been decided; and whether the finished utility furniture will be available by the date when other furniture ceases to be made?
    Captain Waterhouse: Utility furniture is now in production and will be on sale as from 1st January next. In present circumstances, owing to the scarcity of materials for furniture-making, it will be available only for persons with special needs, such as newly married couples setting up house for the first time, expectant mothers, growing families and those whose furniture has been destroyed by enemy action. Such persons will be able to apply for buying permits, under arrangements which my right hon. Friend will announce towards the end of this month. As from 1st November last, no further production of furniture, other than utility, can be begun, except under special licence; but other furniture in process of manufacture at that date may be completed up to the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the

    999
    Exchequer has agreed to submit for the approval of the House an Order exempting utility furniture from Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Rhys Davics: The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that this furniture would be made available to young married couples; what about old couples married for the first time?
    Captain Waterhouse: I did not say young married couples but newly married couples.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the Board of Trade give special consideration to the small manufacturers in the production of this furniture for they are threatened with extinction? Will they get a fair share of the allotment to make this furniture?
    Captain Waterhouse: We will give consideration to them, but the main considerations are location, labour supply, equipment and the general efficiency of the producers.
    Mr. Watkins: Is there any way in which the House can compliment the designers of this furniture because their efforts have been very successful?
    Captain Waterhouse: The designers, I am sure, will note with gratitude my hon. Friend's remark.
    Mr. Wilson: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "the end of this month"?
    Captain Waterhouse: I suppose 31st December.

    London Workshop (Inspector's Visit)
    Mr. Thorneasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information in connection with the inspector's visit to workshops in London where illegal suits of clothes were found; did the inspector have search warrants; and what is to be done about the matter?
    Captain Waterhouse: If my hon. Friend will give me details of the particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated.

    Post-War Export Trade
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the preparations that his Department is making for the resumption of overseas trade at the cessation of hostilities?
    Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): As I indicated in my reply to a Supplementary Question put by my hon. Friend on 25th November, the problem of our post-war export trade is under active examination by a committee of business men and officials. That committee looks to the Department of Overseas Trade and its overseas services for much of the information which is necessary to enable the committee to formulate its recommendations to His Majesty's Government, on the preparations necessary for the resumption of export trade at the end of hostilities.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware of the close contact between the Department of Overseas Trade and the United Kingdom Trading Corporation, and can he make some statement at an early date regarding plans and intentions, as a number of people in the country are very exercised about the activities of the United Kingdom Trading Corporation?
    Mr. Johnstone: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.
    Sir Herbert Williams: As the main function of the hon. Gentleman's Department is to refuse licences for British exports, will he not consider making an alteration in the title of the Department?
    Mr. Johnstone: That is the function of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the Department taking into account the needs of the Lancashire cotton export trade?
    Mr. Johnstone: Yes, Sir, we have had elaborate discussions with the Lancashire cotton trade on the subject.
    Mr. Astor: Does not the Corporation invariably work through trade channels, and try to keep existing policies in operation?
    Mr. Johnstone: That is the policy of the Corporation.

  ARMY AIR CO-OPERATION
  Captain C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that there is complete agreement on the general principles of Army Air co-operation between the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief Home Forces and the Chief of the Air Staff; and

  1001
  that training in this direction is now proceeding satisfactorily in this country?
  Mr. Attlee: I know of no disagreement between the officers mentioned on the general principles of Army air co-operation, namely, its importance and the need for it to be as close as possible. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to a similar Question by him on 28th July last. I would add that the lessons of the recent operations in the Middle East in which Army and Air co-operation was a model are being closely studied, and we shall soon have the assistance of Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder in this connection.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Returned Staffs (Accommodation, London)
    Mr. William Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great difficulty being experienced by civil servants returning to London, after a period of evacuation in the country, in obtaining accommodation within their means in the London area, he will authorise either an improvement in the subsistence rates allowed to them or, alternatively, the provision of hostel accommodation?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The subsistence rates to which my hon. Friend refers were recently agreed with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. Arrangements have also been made for certain of the staff to be accommodated in hostels. In these circumstances I do not consider that any further steps are necessary.
    Mr. Brown: Does not the Minister realise that what the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council agreed to is the best they can extract from the right hon. Gentleman, and that if the best is not as good as they might have expected, ought not something to be done?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I could not accept that description of the views of the Staff Side.

    Establishment and Pension Rights
    Mr. W. Brownasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now pre-pared
    1002
    to reopen the case of the age-barred officers, the civil servants, who, while otherwise qualified for establishment, have been denied establishment and pension rights on age grounds?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on this subject on 23rd June last.
    Mr. Brown: May I give notice that I desire to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    War Damage Contribution (Income Tax)
    Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether property owners are allowed to claim a rebate on their Income Tax on the amount that they have paid for war damage?
    Sir K. Wood: I would remind my hon. Friend that the point to which his Question refers was dealt with in Section 84 of the War Damage Act, 1941. Under that Section no allowance is to be given for Income Tax purposes in respect of the contribution, or in respect of expenditure on making good war damage in so far as payment in respect of the damage is due under the Act.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what I would like to tell him about this?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member had better speak to me privately.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not correct that because there is no rebate on Income Tax in respect of the payment for War Damage Contribution it means that the property owner is suffering an imposition of 3s. in the pound instead of 2s.?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. No doubt the hon. Member will recall that this matter was fully discussed on a previous occasion.

    Income Tax Deduction Form
    Mr. Wakefieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Income Tax Deduction Form, Reference I.D.S., originally designed to provide space for the use of commercial houses in dealing with the deduction of tax from employees' remuneration has been so cut down in size that room is no longer allowed for the tax to

    1003
    be deducted, so that the firm must prepare other lists involving greater and unnecessary use of paper and labour; and will he reintroduce the original form?
    Sir K. Wood: My hon. Friend is, I think, referring to the omission from this form of the columns originally provided for the entry against each employee's name of the figures of tax deducted each week or each month. Experience during the first year of the working of the tax deduction scheme has shown that very few employers used these columns, and it was accordingly decided in the interests of economy to omit them in the revised form. For the benefit of those relatively few employers who desire to keep on an official form a detailed record of weekly or monthly deductions a new slip (No. 1 D.S. Record) is provided, and can be obtained free of charge on application to the Collector. I understand that the new arrangement meets the convenience of employers and has effected a very substantial economy in paper.

    Parcels from Troops (Duty)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he would expect to lose if occasional presents up to £1 in value from members of the Forces abroad were admitted into this country free of duty; and whether it is revenue considerations or administrative difficulties which prevent this concession to the Fighting Services?
    Sir K. Wood: There are not sufficient data on which to make the estimate asked for in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part, the objections to the concession are primarily administrative.
    Mr. Keeling: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries as to how the American Government, which makes a concession of this sort in spite of its strict Customs system, overcomes the administrative difficulties?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir.

    Bank for International Settlements
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken, or will take, advantage of the visit to this country of the President of the Bank for International Settlements for the purpose of an interview regarding the interests of this country in the bank?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I saw this gentleman when he was passing through the country on a short, private visit and had a general talk with him.
    Mr. Bellenger: Was not my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the President of the Bank whether any clearing facilities had been given for the large transactions in black market visas to pass through the Bank for International Settlements, to our detriment?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I do not recall that my conversation with him included that. It was a general confirmation of the statement which my hon. Friend will remember that I made.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be now desirable that Mr. McKittrick, the President of the Bank, should have a talk to Members here so that we may learn some of the facts which the Chancellor never seems able to give?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

    War Damage (Temporary Repairs)
    Squadron-Leader Erringtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are a number of plumbers, joiners, contractors, etc., who do repairs to their own premises which have suffered war damage and who get no recompense for their work; and will the War Damage Commission consider their case?
    Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) on 17th March last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 378, column 1351]. The position is more fully described in paragraphs 30 to 32 inclusive of the Commission's "Practice Notes," of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.
    Squadron-Leader Errington: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do nothing?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider the answer which I have given.

    Purchase Tax
    Squadron-Leader Erringtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registrations for exemption from

    1005
    Purchase Tax he has cancelled during the past 12 months upon the ground that the trader concerned is not using chargeable goods in substantial quantities as materials of his manufacturing business?
    Sir K. Wood: I regret that these particulars are not available.

    Currency Conviction (Non-Payment of Fine)
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether by going to prison for 10 months in default of paying a fine of £13,000 imposed upon him at Bow Street, London, on 12th November, 1942, for failing to offer 35,821 United States dollars, £8,888, Harry Woodford Mellor, described as a farmer of Whitfield Barn Farm, Glossop, Derbyshire, has escaped financial penalty for his offence?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir, I understand that the magistrate, when imposing the fine, at the same time imposed a period of 10 months' imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. Since Mellor refused to pay any part of the fine, he was forthwith committed to prison in default of payment; and if he serves the full period of imprisonment, he will not be called upon to pay any part of the fine.
    Mr. Walkden: Does not my right hon. Friend think it very unsatisfactory that this man should be cancelling out a debt to the Treasury at the rate of £43 a day for every day that he spends in prison? Does he not think it necessary to check up on this man, who is a thoroughly bad lot and has been for many months past?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, it would be most improper for me to make any comment on the decision of the court.

  GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Astorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will consider the possibility of dropping small packages of concentrated foodstuffs broadcast over the towns of Greece?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): I will bear in mind my
  1006
  hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. He will appreciate, however, that it is a question of balancing the cost and dangers of such an enterprise against the real benefit likely to result to our Greek Allies. The amount of goods which could be so delivered would be insignificant in comparison with the quantities reaching Greece under the regular relief scheme now established, and it would not be possible to ensure that the packages fell into proper hands.
  Mr. Astor: Is my hon. Frieed aware of the particular type of propaganda which the enemy are circulating in Greece and that most Greeks abroad are sure that this would be one of the most effective means of countering that propaganda in that country?
  Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend will see by my answer that I have not ruled out that suggestion.

  BREWING INDUSTRY
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is intended to apply concentration to the brewing industry on the lines of the clothing, cotton, boot and shoe, paint and other industries; and, if so, when is this to be done?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): Concentration on the fines indicated by my hon. Friend would not be appropriate to the conditions of this industry, which is however making substantial savings in transport and man-power particularly by schemes of zoning of production and distribution.
  Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member aware that business men have been put out of business entirely by concentration and are feeling very keenly—and they are not teetotallers—that the brewing industry is very much favoured by the Government?
  Mr. Mabane: I have no evidence of that.
  Viscountess Astor: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that you can hardly get through the streets sometimes for these great brewery drays? Everybody knows, that so far the Government have not done one thing to interfere with the brewing industry. Why not?

  EDUCATION

    Young People (Registration)
    Mr. James Griffithsasked ths President of the Board of Education the number of boys and girls who registered in the 16 to 18 years age group; the number who were invited to attend at inter views and who responded; and whether he intends to present a report upon the matter?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): According to the latest available returns, registration cards were received by local education authorities in England and Wales for 591,379 boys and 597,875 girls who registered at the beginning of this year. The returns do not enable me to state how many boys and girls were invited to interview, but the response of the young people was, generally speaking, satisfactory. Of the total numbers mentioned 313,871 boys and 165,627 girls were shown to be in full-time education or undertaking approved activities and, of the remainder, 212,975 boys and 289,831 girls attended for interview. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) on 15th October last, a copy of which I am sending him.

    Secondary School Books (Price)
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the increase in the price of books needed by scholars at secondary schools; and whether he will take steps to secure a reduction in these prices or bring pressure on local education authorities who do not provide such books free or at a nominal fee to adopt such measures?
    Mr. Ede: I have no information that pupils in secondary schools are prevented from obtaining books owing to their increased price. The regulations leave it to the authorities of the school to determine whether the tuition fee shall cover the use of printed books, but there is a growing tendency, which the Board encourage, to make the fee an inclusive one. My right hon. Friend does not think that any pressure on local education authorities is called for.
    Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that books are increasing in price, will the
    1008
    Board, again bring pressure upon the few recalcitrant authorities and ask them to meet this cost instead of it being a burden upon the parents?
    Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that the expression of opinion in my answer, which will be circulated to the educational Press, will bring the subject to the notice of the authorities who are not complying.

  POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION)
  Mr. Toucheasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the schemes he is considering for the amalgamation of police forces under the Defence Regulations?
  Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend is consulting the police authorities concerned about proposals for amalgamation in a number of counties, and would prefer to postpone a statement until these consultations are concluded.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is not the announcement which has been made in "The Times" regarding the amalgamation of police forces considered to be inconsistent with the statement made by the Home Secretary in this House on 14th October?
  Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend is meeting a number of hon. Members this afternoon whose constituencies are in the counties concerned, and I have no doubt that matter will be discussed there.
  Mr. Hutchinson: Is it the intention of the Home Secretary to consult the local authorities who are concerned in this matter?
  Mr. Peake: I should require to have notice of that Question.

  FENNY STRATFORD-TOWCESTER ROAD (MARGINAL CULTIVATION)
  Major Markhamasked the Minister of Agriculture whether consideration has been given to the cultivation of long and wide stretches verging the Fenny Stratford-Towcester road which were taken over for road-widening years ago but are now unused?
  Mr. Pym (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, but there are technical and practical consi

  1009
  derations which militate against the cultivation of the roadside verges to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. My right hon. Friend is sending him detailed information.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Royal Observer Corps (Men Over 50)
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for Air what use it is proposed to make of the experience gained by members of the Royal Observer Corps, who have made themselves expert in distinguishing different forms of aircraft, but are over 50 years of age?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Members of the Royal Observer Corps who are skilled in aircraft recognition are employed at observer posts. They are not affected by the recent order.
    Mr. Hannah: May we have a definite assurance that no member of the Royal Observer Corps will in future be deprived of his job simply because of his age?
    Captain Balfour: The criterion whether or not a man holds his job in the Royal Observer Corps is whether we consider that he and the class of the Corps to which he belongs can best continue to perform duties, having regard to the change in Royal Air Force methods of air defence.
    Mr. Hannah: Has it nothing to do with age?
    Captain Balfour: Unfortunately, most things have.
    Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not a fact that only people over 50 were discharged, and that therefore it must be to do with age?

    Airman's Application
    Mr. Granvilleasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the release from the Royal Air Force of the airman whose name, number and rank have been conveyed to him, in order that he may supervise the grocery business of G. Rowell Ward, Stradbroke, Suffolk, in view of the fact that he and his four brothers volunteered for the Fighting Forces before the loss of their father
    1010
    whose death was attributable to overwork in running this business without proper assistance?
    Captain Balfour: This airman has not submitted any application for release from the R.A.F. Application was made for withdrawal from overseas draft and for posting to a station near to his home on compassionate grounds. Both these requests have been granted. On the compassionate aspect of the case as known to my Department, it is unlikely that an application for release, if made, would be approved. If an application is made on grounds of the national importance of the continuance of the grocery business of G. Rowell Ward, Stradbroke, Suffolk, this would have to be supported by the Ministry of Food before being considered by my Department. This aspect of the case was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 22nd October last.
    Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, this is a very deserving case, and I have been to every Department in Whitehall concerned in the matter, including his own Department, can he assure me that the whole of the machinery is being used, and every effort exhausted, to try and deal fairly with this case?
    Captain Balfour: No, Sir, I cannot give my hon. Friend this assurance. So far as my Department is concerned, the man has not complied with the laid-down official procedure of making an application himself. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that this machinery must be used by the man himself in the first instance. When that machinery is used, I will certainly undertake that any representations are sympathetically and thoroughly looked at.
    Mr. Granville: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—In view of the length of time during which the Minister and his Department have considered this matter, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  SLAG CEMENT PRODUCTION
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning what saving of coal

  1011
  is expected from the new slag cement plant at present being erected in South Wales; and whether it is his intention to convert other cement plants to the production of slag cement?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Hicks): A saving of approximately 7,500 tions of coal per annum may be expected when the slag cement manufacturing plant now being installed in South Wales is in full operation. This will involve a net additional transport of about half a million ton miles (at least) a year. The extension to other works is not at present practicable particularly owing to the transport problem which would be very much heavier than in South Wales.
  Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister prepared to say that, in view of the immense saving at this one factory, he will see that the cement combine do not continue to put obstacles in the way of other people who wish to develop this particular method?
  Mr. Hicks: The hon. Gentleman asked a Question about output and the saving of coal. I have given him not only the approximate output and the saving of coal which is expected when the factory is in operation about February of next year, but the additional transport which will have to be employed for the purpose of conveying the slag to the works.
  Mr. Edwards: Is not the Minister aware that the cement combine have put, and continue to put, obstacles in the way of other people who wish to develop this system in other parts of the country, and if it will save 7,500 tons of coal at a single factory, ought it not to be developed?
  Mr. Hicks: This point is not lost sight of in considering this matter, and I am unaware that any representations which the industry has made have been responsible for retarding development in this connection. I can only assure the hon. Member that transport from other slag works to cement works would involve much longer distances than the one I have mentioned.
  Mr. Thorne: Will this interfere with the slag industry in Kent?
  Mr. Hicks: No, Sir.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Will the Minister consider certain evidence I will put before
  1012
  him about the opposition of the cement combine to the development of this process?
  Mr. Hicks: I am quite willing to consider any evidence.

  RAILINGS REMOVAL, HERTFORDSHIRE
  Major Markhamasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning whether he will ascertain from the local authorities why the scrapping of iron railings is proceeding so slowly in some districts in Hertfordshire; and what are the reasons for not including the railings around Hatfield Park in the scrapping list?
  Mr. Hicks: The removal of railings in Hertfordshire is proceeding as rapidly as the labour available for this work will permit and over 1,700 tons of railings have been collected from the county to date. I am informed that the railings at Hatfield Park were omitted from the schedule prepared by the local authority on the ground that they are required to enclose cattle which graze in the grounds.
  Major Markham: Is the Minister aware that those railings are extremely dilapidated and would not keep any cattle in, and as they represent scores of tons of scrap, ought they not in the national interest to be removed?
  Mr. Hicks: I am prepared to consider representations on the matter.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: In view of the immense waste of labour and transport in collecting these railings, will the Minister review the whole situation inasmuch as the product of scrap is ridiculously low in-comparison with the waste of labour and transport?
  Mr. Hicks: I cannot agree with the hon. Member in his deduction. I can only inform him that over 370,000 tons of railings have been gathered as a result of the policy pursued throughout the country. That is a very powerful contribution to the scrap required. It is not fair for any hon. Member seeing certain scrap in a certain position to assume that because it is there no more is required. I can assure the hon. Member that the demand for scrap is still very urgent, and my Ministry are asked to collect it as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. Hopkinson: What proportion of the total amount of scrap used has been collected from these railings?
  Mr. Hicks: Out of about 1,250,000 tons, 370,000 tons have come from railings.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Are we to understand that 1,250,000 tons represent all the scrap that is used in steel works in this country?
  Mr. Hicks: No, Sir. I am talking only about the scrap collected by the Ministry.

  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES
  Major Petherickasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the complete monopoly granted by Government action to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes for the supply of sports goods to the Army, to the consequent loss of the regular retailers, he will make arrangements under which all net audited profits made by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes by the sale of these goods may be handed over to a committee of the said retailers to be distributed, under an agreed scheme, among the firms prejudiced?
  Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.
  Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for War why certain units which have purchased supplies of fresh vegetables from local and neighbouring growers have added to their account 10 per cent. by Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes for administrative costs when no actual services by Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have been rendered; and can he revise this method of accountancy and costing?
  Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend appears to be misinformed about the policy which is followed by N.A.A.F.I. in these matters. Where units buy vegetables from local growers for their ration the grower's bill is paid by N.A.A.F.I. When N.A.A.F.I. in turn bill the War Department they add nothing to the grower's bill. Units sometimes buy additional supplies of vegetables with the cash allowance which accompanies the ration. In these cases the unit pays the grower direct and N.A.A.F.I. do not enter into the transaction.
  Mr. Walkden: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, will he consult with quartermasters and P.R.I.'s about the practice that obtains, and is he aware that there are varying practices in almost every area which do not seem to be dictated by any general policy?
  Sir J. Grigg: The general policy is as stated. If the hon. Member has any cases in which it is beyond peradventure that the practice is not followed, I should be glad if he would send them to me.
  Mr. Walkden: I should be delighted to do so.

  GERMAN ARMIES (SEIZURE OF ARTISTIC AND HISTORIC TREASURES)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information about the special German battalion which furnishes detachments headed by civilian experts to accompany the German invading armies for the purpose of seizing all objects of artistic, literary, or historic value, in contravention of Article 6 of the Hague Convention of 1907?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the reports about these detachments and their activities.
  Mr. Keeling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that full particulars of this German battalion's scandalous activities have been published in "Soviet War News," and if the facts there given are correct, will my right hon. Friend consider giving them wider publicity?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am certainly aware that the reports did appear in "Soviet War News," and certainly I will consider the other suggestion which my hon. and gallant Friend has made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Business, and in particular, whether he can give any indication as to whether the Government contemplate making a statement on events in North Africa?
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As regards the first

1015
part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, at the end of the Sitting to-day we hope that the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. These are usually, as the House know, formal stages.
In reply to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, the Government realise that the House would like to be informed at the earliest possible moment of developments in North Africa, both in the military and political sphere. This, of course, includes the position of Admiral Darlan. We expect to be in a position to make such a statement in the near future. It will, however, be necessary for the statement to be made in Secret Session, and an opportunity will be provided for a Debate, if desired. I shall be making the usual statement on Business on the Third Sitting Day and, if I am able to do so, I will then give the House further information as to the date of the statement.
Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government reconsider the decision to discuss the position of Admiral Darlan in Secret Session? We quite appreciate the necessity of reporting on the immediate military situation in Secret Session, although no demand has been made for that so far, but it would cause grave disquiet throughout the country if the position of Admiral Darlan were considered in Secret Session, as many people will think that the Government are up to some trickery in the matter." They are already deeply disturbed by our policy in regard to these Quislings.
Viscountess Aston: Are not the Government deeply disturbed by the questions that are being asked in Parliament?
Mr. Eden: As regards the attitude of the country, I should have thought myself that the country understood very well that at the present moment the first concern of the Government and of the House is to save time and to save life. Therefore, obviously I cannot commit myself to public statements which may have reactions on those events. What I have sought to do by this proposal is to give to hon. Members themselves, who are entitled to the information, as much information as we have at that time. I thought that would meet the desire of the
1016
House and would enable them to feel informed as the Government are themselves informed.
Earl Winterton: In view of the very great anxiety in all parts of the House on the subject of the chaining of prisoners, will my right hon. Friend consider whether the Secret Debate on military events in North Africa would not be an appropriate occasion for informing the House of the reasons for the delay in making an announcement?
Mr. Eden: Certainly I will consider my Noble Friend's suggestion. I had not thought of it, but I will examine it.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: With regard to the first part of the original statement, is it intended that the Second Reading of the Measure shall be taken before the normal time of rising of the House and that the House shall adjourn at the usual time?
Mr. Eden: We are taking the Committee stage formarlly, at the end of to-day's Business.
Mr. Stewart: I am sorry to press the point, but will it be merely a formal thing? I have a very important matter to raise on the Adjournment.
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Committee stage is merely a formal matter, and is so regarded by the House.
Mr. Boothby: Is there any truth in the information which has appeared in the Press that it is the intention of General de Gaulle to visit President Roosevelt in the near future?
Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot make an announcement on that subject. In the first place, if an announcement was to be made, it would be for the United States Government to make it.
Mr. Granville: Will the statement which is to be made include the subject of broadcasting by the Fighting French?
Mr. Eden: I understood that there were Questions on the Order Paper about that broadcasting. No doubt, they will be answered in the usual way.
Mr. McGovern: In view of old associations, is there any prospect of our Ambassador to Spain visiting Laval?
Mr. A. Sevan: When will the Beveridge Report be available to Members?
Mr. Eden: I understand, early this afternoon.
Mr. Bevan: Has it now become the established practice for the newspapers to be given information before hon. Members? On several occasions this has happened. Is it now to be regarded as the accepted practice?
Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I understand that these arrangements have been made to enable hon. Members to have copies this afternoon, whereas they would not have had them until to-morrow morning.
Mr. Bevan: It has been the practice in the past to have conferences with the Press to give them what is described as "background," but the actual proposals were never disclosed. It is a most unusual practice, in my submission, for the actual document which is to be presented to the House to be handed to the Press beforehand. I submit that the Government have so often abused this practice that it is time for you, Sir, to ask for the position to be regularised.
Mr. Stokes: Is it true that certain sections of the Press had copies yesterday?
Mr. Eden: If I am to blame in the matter, I accept the blame. What I understood to be the position was that the Report would be available to Members many hours before it appeared in the Press. It is entirely my fault if what has happened is wrong. I arranged for it to be available at 3 o'clock so that it would not appear in the evening papers and that Members should have it before it appeared in to-morrow morning's papers. As regards the wider aspect of the question, the House will realise that there were certain exceptional circumstances in connection with this Report; and it is not unreasonable to allow some of the Press to see it in time for them to make comment upon it?
Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Is it the case that the Press have been furnished with copies of this Report before hon. Members have seen it?
Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I understand that copies have been made available to the
1018
Press; but nothing is in any circum-stances to be published before to-morrow morning.
Mr. Shinwell: Is it not invidious that the Press should have copies of this Report before hon. Members have an opportunity of seeing it?
Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that this document contains well over 100,000 words, and that the Press cannot possibly give an accurate summary of it without having copies in advance?
Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Government, in taking this course, have followed a procedure that has been perfectly common for 20 years, to my knowledge?
Mr. Bevan: My original submission, Sir, was not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to you. It has little to do with what the Government intend to do. Some time ago I raised this matter on another issue. At that time the House, which had long ceased to be jealous of its Privileges, jeered, and I was misrepresented in the public Press. Now, once more, people outside the House have been given the opportunity of seeing these documents. If this practice goes much further, Debates in this House will be rigged by private interests which have access to these documents. This is a matter of great public importance, and the time has come, Sir, for a direction from you.
Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have an assurance that this document will not be expounded on the wireless by people who have had an opportunity of seeing it before the rest of us?
Mr. Eden: I would like to consider this whole matter. It has to be examined from the point of view of the House. It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that this procedure has been followed in many cases before; but that does not necessarily mean that it is a good practice. Therefore, with your permission, Sir, I would like to look into the question so far as future practice is concerned.
Mr. Maxton: Can we have an assurance that when we get the document it will be worth reading?
Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not the Press to be trusted in every way?
Mr. Ivor Thomas: Was not the old practice to make a document available a few hours before publication; but has not this document been in the hands of, newspapers since Friday last?
Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that it was thought necessary to pass the document over to the Press yesterday or the day before, surely it did not need a heaven-sent genius to decide that hon. Members should have it in their hands before the Debate in the present series of Sittings took place?
Mr. Shinwell: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking, might I ask whether, if he finds that the allegations made by hon. Members that this document was in the hands of the Press by Friday last is true, he will inform the House who was responsible for presenting the copies to the Press?
Mr. Eden: I will make inquiries. I accept the responsibility for anything that has occurred, and I will look into the matter and report again to the House.
Sir H. Williams: If this document is a Command Paper, as I presume it is, it has been presented to Parliament on the direction of His Majesty; and, therefore, it is not in the discretion of His Majesty's Government to decide in this matter, but it is a direction of His Majesty, which ought to be obeyed.

REFERENCE TO PRIOR DEBATES
Captain Cunningham-Reid: With respect, I desire to draw attention, Sir, to a Ruling of yours which, as it stands now, and if it is allowed to become a precedent, and if it is copied into Speakers' Rulings, may have the effect of seriously curtailing the debating rights of Members of Parliament. As I understand it, your Ruling, which occurred on the Adjournment on 17th November, can prevent any subject being debated twice in the same Session. In other words, it would appear that the proposed Debate on Post-War Reconstruction, which is to take place to-day and on the next Sitting Day, is out of Order, and so would be Debates on Independent Tribunals, Darlan, Electoral Reform, and many other matters which have arisen this Session and have been replied to by Ministers.
1020
The wording of your ruling in this particular case is characteristic of many of your Rulings—clear and concise. With your permission, Sir, and for the convenience of the House, I will quote what you said on that particular occasion. You intervened during this Adjournment Debate to say:
"After looking at Erskine May I have come to the conclusion that the hon. and gallant Member is making a repetition of a Debate which has taken place in the house."
You then proceeded to quote the following passage from Erskine May:
"It is a wholesome restraint upon Members to prevent them from reviving a Debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or bill from being offered twice in the same session, if, without being offered, its merits could be discussed again and again."
Then you went on to say:
"The hon. and gallant Member is clearly going against that Rule and I must ask him to go on to some other subject."
With respect, I would point out that the quotation from Erskine May to which you referred was not a Rule but was the elucidation of a Rule which, incidentally, might not apply in this case. But the important part of your Ruling and that which affects all Members of this House was yet to come. In reply to your intervention I said:
"Am I entitled to make reference to what occurred in a previous Debate?"
You, Sir, replied:
"The hon. and gallant Member was making a good deal more than reference. He was almost quoting the previous Debate from the OFFICIAL REPORT."
I then said:
"I bow to your Ruling, and in that event I shall not continue on the lines to which you have drawn my attention."
In other words, I would not continue quoting from the previous Debate. Incidentally, the only reason why I had briefly done so was in order that those hon. Members who were then present but who had not been present on the previous occasion, would understand what it was all about. You, Sir, then said:
"I would go further and ask the hon. and gallant Member to get on to some other subject."
I then asked:
"Do you mean, Sir, some subject other than the new facts to which I desire to draw attention about Prince Paul?"

1021
You, Sir, replied, and this is the real substance of your Ruling:
"Some other subject than Prince Paul. That-has already been debated this Session."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1942; cols. 315–316, Vol. 385.]
I think the House will agree that nothing could be plainer than that Ruling. In other words, a subject cannot be raised twice in the same Session. As matters stand, an important precedent has been created which intimately concerns the Privileges of all Members of this House inasmuch as it restricts debate to a very narrow compass. The "Daily Telegraph" has already quoted this Ruling of yours, Sir, as an established fact, and therefore, for one reason and another, but especially for the benefit of the Members of this House, I am sure it would be appreciated if you were to clarify the position.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is not accurate in his statement that I gave a Ruling which created a precedent. On the other hand, my Ruling is entirely founded on the precedents and the Rulings laid down in Erskine May, which I would remind the hon. and gallant Member is the authority upon which the practice of this House depends. The ground upon which. I called the hon. and gallant Member to Order on the occasion to which he refers was his repetition of a subject which had already been recently debated. The Rule of Order which governs this matter is stated by Erskine May on page 316. The hon. and gallant Member has quoted it. I will quote it again:
"It is a wholesome restraint upon Members to prevent them from reviving a Debate already concluded; and there would be little use in preventing the same question or Bill from being offered twice in the same Session, if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again."
It appeared to me that the hon. and gallant Member was violating, this Rule—and that was the Ruling which I gave—by repeating on the Motion for the Adjournment the same facts and arguments which he had previously stated on the Motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech. That was why I called him to Order. If he has new matter to offer and refrains from canvassing the merits of the matter already discussed, I might not intervene. But I must be the judge as to how far those requirements are fulfilled.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: May I make one more submission? You have said to the House that you have quoted a Rule. With all deference, may I point out that it is not a Rule which you have quoted but an amplification of a Rule? Perhaps, you will allow me to read the Rule, which I submit does not apply in this case.
Mr. Speaker: The passage which I have quoted and on which I based that Ruling is quite clear.
Mr. Bellenger: May I ask, Sir, if you would be good enough to define a little more clearly the words "when a Debate has been concluded"? Many of us would like to raise current issues, some of them very urgent, such as that of pension appeal tribunals. Are we precluded from raising such issues because Debate upon them has already been concluded? Could you, Sir, state your interpretation of that phrase?
Mr. Speaker: A question may certainly be raised again in the same Session, but exactly the same facts and arguments cannot be used as those used in a Debate which has previously taken place and has been brought to a conclusion.
Mr. Shinwell: Does that not mean that Members in discussing the conduct of the war will be debarred from referring to facts relating to the conduct of the war which have already been mentioned in the same Session?
Mr. Speaker: That question certainly has not been concluded.
Mr. Bevan: Do you realise, Sir, that if hon. Members are forbidden to repeat arguments on the same subject in the same Session, longer and longer silences will be imposed upon the House as the Session proceeds, and before the end of the Session we shall hardly be able to make speeches at all?
Mr. Buchanan: The Ruling which you have just given, Sir, is one which many will not challenge, but it raises this point which I think ought to be faced squarely, and I draw attention to it without suggesting any kind of personal criticism. I have been a number of years in this House, and every Session I have heard subjects repeatedly debated. As an illustration, I mention the subject of unemployment insurance The "not genuinely seeking

1023
work" provision was debated, day in and day out, often by the same Members, and as one of the participants I frankly say that I often used the same arguments because they were the only arguments to use. I know, Sir, that these Rules are subject to broad interpretation in the light of the circumstances which exist, not only in the House, but in the country, and that, in your position, a general view must be taken in giving these Rulings. The hon. and gallant Member who has raised this matter is not attached to any of the larger groups in this House. Some of us who do belong to those larger groups have often repeated ourselves. I hope, Sir, you will not take it as offensive on my part if I suggest that in the public interest it would be well to make clear that no action is being taken against the hon. and gallant Member that would not be taken against other hon. Members in this House and that he is not being singled out in any way on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member and the House can feel assured that I always act perfectly fairly as between one hon. Member and another in this House and that in these matters no distinction is made between hon. Members, however important they may be or may consider themselves to be. Nor do I think the House can really think that this Rule in any way hampers debate. I have been in the House for a number of years, and I have been Speaker for nearly 15 years, and I have never come across an instance of this Rule being applied before. Evidently, therefore, the House has not been debarred from debating certain issues at great length, but this was a glaring case of a repetition of the same arguments and the same facts that had been used on a previous occasion, and I therefore felt bound to state the Rule.
Mr. Maxton: It is true that they were the same facts and the same arguments, but is it not a fact that the same facts and the same arguments were being repeated by the same man that really made the case an aggravated one, and that individuals, independent Members represented on their own, and even Members of small parties, are going to be very seriously handicapped if the larger parties can raise the same topic and the same arguments but with a variety of
1024
speakers when the smaller groups cannot ring the changes in that way?
Mr. Speaker: I have to apply the Rule of Standing Orders which deals with repetition by Members of their own or other people's arguments.
Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the common sense of the Ruling is that the House does not want to re-open the Boer War?
Captain Cunningham-Raid: May. I put this point, Mr. Speaker? You have quoted what you state is a Rule. With all due respect, Sir, it was only half a Rule you quoted, and I am sure you will allow me to put the remainder and pertinent part of the Rule so that the House can see whether it applies in this particular case. What you quoted was an amplification of the main Rule, which says (ninth edition, page 364; 13th edition, page 316), that
"a Member, while speaking to a Question, may net allude to Debates of the same session upon any question or Bill not then under discussion."
The question that upon the Adjournment was then under discussion was the matter on which you stopped me, which in turn arose on the new Question, "That this House do now adjourn," and, therefore, I contend that, if you had read the whole of this Ruling it would not have applied to this case, and I would ask you to take that into consideration. I might also point out that the edition I have here of Erskine May is an early edition, and in the earlier edition there are parentheses which make it quite clear to what Rule a particular paragraph applies. The edition in question is the ninth edition, and I think that if you would refer to that on some occasion. Sir, it would make it clearer that possibly this submission of mine is correct.
Mr. Speaker: We always take the latest edition.
Captain Cunningham-Reid: It is in the latest edition as well, Sir.

SELECTION [COMMITTEE ON UN OPPOSED BILLS] (PANEL)
Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had selected the following Sixteen Members to

1025
be the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Mr. Broad, Captain Crawford Browne, Major Sir George Davies, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Walter Green, Sir George Hume, Major Lloyd, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Logan, Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew, Mr. Pickthorn, Sir Stanley Reed, Admiral Sir Percy Royds, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, Mr. Henry White and Mr. Charles Williams. Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL)
Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel appointed to serve on the Select Committee on Standing Orders, under Standing Order 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland Troyte, Mr. Frankel, Sir Francis Fremantle, Sir Austin Hudson, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Major Leighton, Sir Frank Sanderson, and Mr. Tinker.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLA TION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936) (PANEL).
Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection, That, in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, they had selected the following Twenty Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Beattie, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Erskine-Hill, Sir Henry Fildes, Sir Edmund Findlay, Sir John Graham Kerr, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. McKie, Mr. Joseph Maclay, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Mathers, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Major Neven-Spence, Lord William Scott, Captain Shaw, Sir Robert Smith, Mr. Snadden, Mr. Henderson Stewart, and Mr. Watson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMAN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911.)
Colonel GRETTON reported from the Committee of Selection, That, in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of Section I of the Parliament
1026
Act, 1911, they had appointed from the Chairmen's Panel Sir Robert Young and Sir Cyril Entwistle to be the two Members whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a money Bill.
Report to be upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
Resolution reported from the Committee of Selection:
"That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.
Report to be upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
That they have passed a Bill, intituled: "An Act to provide for the Amendment of enactments relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland to correspond with alterations in county court jurisdiction made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and to make further provision as respects rules and orders relating to the said Supreme Court."—[Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords.]
SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.
Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  KING'S SPEECH

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS
    [Ninth Day].
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [11 th November]:
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. A. G. Walkden.]
    Question again proposed,

  RECONSTRUCTION
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I beg formally to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  "And, while welcoming the declaration of the United Nations endorsing the principles of the Atlantic Charter, humbly represent to Your Majesty the urgent necessity of Your Majesty's Advisers reaching practical conclusions, in co-operation with the United Nations, to fulfil these undertakings, and taking the necessary legislative and administrative action to implement without delay the pledges given to Your Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom."
  Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I rise to support the Amendment to the Address moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh {Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). There are some
  1044
  people in this House, as well as outside, who hold opinions that the post-war planning should be relegated to post-war days. I profoundly dissent from that point of view, a point of view which fails to appreciate either the urgency or the complexity of the vast range of interrelated problems which will face the world and every nation in it, whether they are belligerents or not. To leave the gigantic tasks of preparation until the days when we shall be overwhelmed by the rush of events would inevitably lead to mess and muddle, to the postponement or possibly to the destruction of legitimate hopes, and might end in a bitter disillusionment which might, in this country, have ugly means of expression. It would be a grave breach if, having destroyed the spirit of Fascism abroad, we found this country in the hands of what some people would call a strong Government to deal with a chaotic situation created by lack of adequate preparation and thereby to sow the seeds of a new Fascism in our own midst. Moreover, in a wider field we cannot tolerate the possibility of a leaderless world, at the end of the war, submerged under those difficulties, bleeding from its wounds and without definite plans for its future. I therefore welcome the opportunity of a discussion, which can only be regarded as a preliminary to a long series of discussions on the problems which will face us in the future.
  I believe that it is vital for another reason to reach conclusions during the war as to our post-war policy and to take steps to implement those decisions from now onwards. I feel that there could be no finer way of maintaining and strengthening the morale and fortifying the spirit of the people than by the Government giving proof of their determination to apply the principles to which they subscribed in the Atlantic Charter. This war, to the common man, is a war to safeguard the spirit and the institutions of freedom, not merely for their present value, but because of the hopes they hold for the future. President Roosevelt's Four Freedoms—the Atlantic Charter, the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, the Draft Wheat Convention, and the conclusions of the New York Conference of the International Labour Organisation a year ago—do not visualise a return to pre-war days. Humanity, as General Smuts said, many years ago, is on the march; it marches forward, it does not

  1045
  intend to retreat. There are two words graven on the hearts of the overwhelming mass of men and women, "Never again." These words have a twofold meaning. They mean, in the first place, that mankind will not tolerate in the future acts of aggression which let loose slaughter and suffering and disturb the orderly march of democratically-minded folk forward towards the goal of wider freedom. Secondly, these words mean that people have made up their minds that never again will they submit to the social and economic evils of the past poisoning the wells of democratic life in the future.
  On the day that the Treaty of Versailles was signed, towards the end of June—s8th June, I believe—in 1919, General Smuts issued a Memorandum. He concluded it with these words:
  "Our Allied peoples must remember that God gave them overwhelming victory, victory far beyond their greatest dreams, not for small selfish ends, not for financial or economic advantages, but for the attainment of the great human ideals for which our heroes gave their lives and which are the real factors in this war of ideals."
  Those were brave and noble words, spoken by one of the world's greatest men, a man whose integrity and sincerity none will question. Never again must we, through weakness, timidity or selfish interests, fall so far from grace and so far short of attainment as was the case after the last great war. It would be the basest treachery if the statesmen who survived the war were to act as though declarations made during the struggle had served their purpose and could be cast aside after the victory had been won.
  The minds of men and women in the Forces and in all walks of life are turning with greater intensity and anxiety towards the future. They want to feel satisfied in their hearts and minds that the world will not be littered after the war with the crumbling promises made during the war. Woe betide this land if our magnificent young generation on the threshold of new life have to face their future cynical, embittered and frustrated because of our failure, our neglect of the responsibility which this generation has undertaken during the period of the war. It is the duty of His Majesty's Government and the United Nations to begin unfolding the map of the future, and I
  1046
  hope we shall hear during the course of the Debate what progress has been made in the vast field of reconstruction planning. I hope the Government will take their courage in their hands and not shrink from facing the real issues which are rearing their heads. I hope, also, that they will not be unduly alarmed at the prospect of controversial discussion. I have already referred to this matter in the House. The avoidance of controversy must mean the preservation of the status quo and resistance to change. Such a situation I cannot find it in my conscience to accept. It would mean the repudiation—for a time, at any rate—of the pledges already given. They could only be fulfilled by a forward-looking majority in Parliament. They would, on the assumption which appears to have determined the present Government's cautious attitude, be liquidated or atrophied if a Government of standfasts were to become responsible.
  My attitude towards the war is known, and needs no defence. I wish very earnestly to maintain and strengthen the national will to victory through the maintenance of national unity. I realise quite clearly that in the circumstances of a Coalition Government it must proceed within itself and by agreement, and agreement is, naturally, not always easy to reach. But the Government must not hide behind the smoke-screen of non-controversy. The test, surely, must be, not whether proposals are controversial, but whether they are necessary and desirable in the national interest. It is the Government's business to lead and to make proposals for the future which honourably fulfil, so far as it is within their power, the promises that have been made. Those of us who desire intensely to see these promises carried out must, therefore, press the Government to face their responsibilities with courage and with determination, and that ancient prejudices shall not stand in the way of changes needed by new circumstances and new times.
  The most immediate duty, in my opinion, at the end of the war would be to come to the succour of the over-run peoples whose plight to-day is so pitiable. They will need without a moment's delay food, clothing, footwear and medical aid. This responsibility must rest primarily with those nations which have not

  1047
  suffered invasion and subjection, and the help they give must be given generously and swiftly. At the end of the last great war, unfortunately, adequate arrangements had not been made; adequate arrangements were not in operation until a full year after the end of hostilities. This time, when greater problems face us—which I have not time to develop now—we must be ready. Organisation of the collection and distribution of the necessary supplies will be a very great task, requiring the collaboration of the countries of supply and such representatives as are available of the over-run countries. It will necessitate the speediest effective administration and the establishment of some sort of United Nations organisation.
  I planned when I was in office a staff college where men and women of the Allied nations, including representatives of responsible volunteer agencies with the necessary knowledge and experience, could be trained in co-operation for the important and vital duties of bringing life and hope to the oppressed peoples and enabling them to restore their normal life. Some such international reconstruction service there must be, first, to assist in providing regular distribution of the necessities of life, and, second, to create the conditions under which the free peoples can begin to build their own free institutions, not the least of which will be those working-class organisations which have suffered so bitterly at the hands of the Axis Powers and without whose democratic assistance the new Europe will never work on democratic lines. Ambulance work and the necessary police work will not be enough. Never has mankind suffered such material destruction as in this war. The power of modern Weapons of war and the pursuit of the scorched-earth policy have resulted, and will continue to result, in enormous devastation.
  It will be the duty of those nations who have escaped the worst to come to the aid of those peoples who have experienced the worst. And so, from the immediate human tasks, we pass to the next phase, that of giving the peoples rescued from the horrors of the Gestapo and Nazi rule the opportunity of re-establishing themselves so that they can, by their own will and by their own effort, begin to lay the foundations of the life they would wish to lead. The United Nations, stretching over the
  1048
  Seven Seas and spreading over the globe, must, in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter, work for the realisation of the fundamental unity of mankind. I never remember so much meaning and so much hope compressed into such few words as President Roosevelt's simply stated Four Freedoms. Maxim Litvinov said at Geneva some years ago that peace is indivisible. So is human progress, and so is prosperity. We cannot profit out of the misery and poverty of our neighbours; we cannot profit out of their insecurity and their fears.
  The world, vast and unknown in the days of Cabot and Christopher Columbus, is now but a small unit in the universe. The increasing numbers and speed of surface craft on the seas, the swiftness and range of the world's aeroplanes, the modern facilities for inter-communication have made the earth but a small spot in God's structure, so small indeed that now there is no room in it for the animosities of the past, or those policies of the past, which divided rather than united mankind. Therefore, when mankind has bound and healed its wounds, it must begin to tread down the evils of narrow nationalisms and outworn imperialisms and to work for the prosperity of all rather than for the prosperity of the fortunate few through the exploitation of the many. There will need to be, under the authority of the United Nations, organised agencies of various kinds working creatively on these large political, economic and social tasks. I have not the time on this occasion to develop the need for the early revivification of the constructive sections of the League of Nations, the I.L.O., and the Health and Economic Sections of the League, or for the co-ordination of world transport, including civil aviation, or other similar and very large questions. Still less have I time to dwell on the larger aspects of the political government of the world in the future, or even on particular aspects of it such as the relation of the democratic nations to Colonial territories.
  There is one phase, however, of our future problems to which I should like briefly to address myself. This period of war has witnessed the passing of an economic epoch. The Atlantic Charter, the Lend-Lease Agreement, the Wheat Convention, the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, are the first milestones on the road to a new epoch. We are now passing from the

  1049
  era of the economics of scarcity, and may, if we choose, pass into the era of the economics of abundance. The underlying principle of all these declarations—and I know that some of them are open to varied interpretations—is co-operation in place of the competition of the past. Reading between the lines of these documents it is clear that the terminology of the nineteenth century is quite inapplicable to the conditions in the middle of the twentieth century. The old conceptions of free trade and protection, for example, do not square with the economic facts of to-day. Certainly, in their nineteenth century crudity, they hold out no hopes for the future. To my mind they have little in common with the two-way policy of Lend-Lease which has been adopted during the war to enable the free, fighting nations to achieve their common war purposes. I believe this enlightened policy, embodied in Clause 7 of the Lend-Lease Agreement, must find a permanent place in the post-war world for the attainment of the common peace aims, that will make this, to use the illuminating phrase of Mr. Henry Wallace, "the century of the common man." Who is there who would deny that the principle of ability to contribute, so effectively operated in wartime, is no less wise and desirable for the common good in times of peace?
  I do not believe that at the end of the war the world must inevitably face a generation of penury. One way to ensure it would be for the industrialists to squeeze the life out of the primary producers of the world. After all, the great majority of mankind still live on and by the land. To impoverish them by a policy of uneconomically low prices deprives the minority of mankind of all real prospect of prosperity. The Draft Wheat Convention, which I think, in passing, is inadequate as regards its relief provisions, is a pointer to the new policy which I think must be applied to other basic natural products if we are to secure a steady flow of them to meet the needs of mankind without alternating gluts and shortages, and to assure the producers of reasonably stable prices at a level which yields to them the standard of life to which they are properly entitled, and by so doing to provide markets for the output of those engaged in industry. That is why I assert that prosperity, like peace,
  1050
  is indivisible, and why therefore the good of the world depends upon the progress and prosperity of its parts.
  The world does not lose, it gains, through the progressive improvements of the standard of life of the peoples, wherever they live, whatever their colour, whatever the state of their economic development. Freedom from want, therefore, must be the cardinal aim of the future as a means to prosperity for all. In this direction the I.L.O. and the Economic Section of the League, both of which are alive and survive the political structure, have a great part to play. But I believe we must go much further in the direction of economic collaboration. The fundamental reason why poverty need not be the lot of mankind is that there are still extensive tracts of territory rich in natural resources which have hardly been tapped, if tapped at all. The real problem is how to make them available for the common benefit. I do not believe myself that it can be effectively solved by letting loose concessionaires, or allowing the virgin regions to be overrun by hordes of financial freebooters. What, in my view, the world must face is the establishment of what I would call an International Development Board, with a parallel Finance Board, to assist in the economic reorganisation and development of the war-stricken, impoverished and under-developed countries. Unable to aid themselves, these countries should be able to look to some authority to advance the means whereby they can add to the world's resources, and at the same time increase their own prosperity. Plans for that assistance to them should be worked out now by the United Nations, in co-operation with the countries which will require aid at the end of the war, not merely to get rid of the ravages of the war but to set their feet on the path to a new prosperity which they never enjoyed in the past.
  To sum up this aspect of the problem, it seems to me that there are three stages of economic reconstruction; first, immediate succour to those in dire need, secondly, at the same time, steps towards their rapid rehabilitation through the period of convalescence, and, thirdly, the early establishment of machinery for the long-distance development of the world's economic resources for the good of all, and the House will, I am sure, be glad

  1051
  and interested to learn of the progress that has been made by the United Nations with their plans in these directions. I will not at this stage of our discussions embark on the complex political problems which will arise as the war draws towards its victorious close. Indeed the wider issues of the future to which I have referred have already occupied a good deal of my time, but it seems to me to be necessary from my own point of view, having given some thought to these problems, if we are to get a true presentation of the problems involved, to emphasise first the world aspect. Internal conditions in all countries will be largely determined by the general world lay-out. I have tried to stress my view that we are all now "members one of another." It is said that one's man meat is another man's poison, but one nation's subjection is not another's salvation, nor are the poverty and degradation of some nations consonant with the true prosperity of other nations, even the greatest and the most powerful.
  I now turn to the home front. The tasks of the turnover of our war industries to peace-time purposes, accompanied by the demobilisation of the Forces, are tremendous. They bristle with a wide range of different problems, with which my right hon. Friend now is fully familiar even if he does not know all the answers. These problems could not really be outlined, let alone discussed, in a two days' Debate, but there is a side of it to which I wish to refer. The view is held in some quarters that, on the order to cease fire, all the controls and restrictions imposed during the war will be thrown overboard. I firmly believe that that way lies disaster. It would inevitably result, where goods were in short supply—and many will be then in short supply—in scarcity for the poor, high prices for the well-to-do and another bagful of ill-gotten gains for the profiteers. It would result, I am certain, in panic and chaos in the industrial transformation. It would hamper the proper and orderly change-over in our industry to an active peace basis. Two can play at that game, and, if such a mad policy were followed by other countries, confusion and chaos must follow and all hopes of implementing the economic understandings which have been reached during the war will be destroyed for a generation, and perhaps longer, to the disadvantage of the world at large. I assert that; so long as
  1052
  the abnormal conditions of war-time persist and are carried into the armistice period, so long the major controls must continue to operate. I am now expressing a view which will not meet with the general consent, but I believe that experience may well show that some of those controls may be an essential element in our new, economic structure. On the other hand, personal restrictions, where security reasons for their retention cease to operate, should be removed as quickly as possible and my right hon. Friend relieved from many anxieties. Any attempt, therefore, to fling away as a whole the body of controls which has been built up, and to scurry back to the old catch-as-catch-can methods, would be suicidal, and I earnestly hope that the Government will not listen to the clamour of those interests which have forgotten nothing in the past and learned nothing in the present and can only see the future as a return to the days they knew before the war.
  Three questions were referred to in the Gracious Speech on which I should like to touch. We are informed that the Government have the question of education under urgent consideration. I welcome the statement. Educational legislation is long overdue. Education Bills are few and far between, and the lag between existing legislation and the new needs is so wide that only a bold advance can adequately meet the situation. We have, I fear, been slow to appreciate that the greatest asset of a nation is its growing generation, for they are its future parents, its future workers, and its future citizens, and on that rests the future quality of the nation. I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Education will present before long a Bill worthy of the opportunity to give the country the finest educational system in the world. There are three published documents which are somewhat inter-related and in certain aspects closely inter-related—the Barlow Report, the Scott Report and the Uthwatt Report. No doubt Occasions will be found for much fuller discussions of these important statements than is possible in this short Debate. It should, however, be said now that the proper utilisation of land and the space available to us in this country, as well as the proper use of coal, power and transport resources, cannot be adequately debated without raising the question of land ownership. I am afraid that there are elements in this House which

  1053
  would regard that discussion as controversial. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In that case we shall be happy to receive subscriptions on the signing of our membership cards.
  The success of the schemes which are involved in the proposals arising out of these Reports depends on the character of the central authority to be established. In my view it ought not to reside in a single Department. There should be a National Development Board presided over by a Minister free from departmental responsibilities and composed of the Ministers whose Departments are concerned with various aspects of national development. The location of industry, the preservation of the best agricultural land for agricultural purposes, national parks, transport, housing, schools and hospitals—this wide range of problems cannot properly be dealt with within any one Department. After all, there is a difference between an architect and a master mason. The architect is presented with the first problem, and he is the man who should work out a plan. The Board which I suggest, representative of the Departments concerned, could lay down the major principles and the policy to be followed. It would then be the duty of responsible departmental officials to co-operate with one another in applying them to the many complex problems which will arise. Questions often do arise between Departments and some of them are often controversial, but the vast majority of them are settled by agreement. I feel that these proposals would provide a workable set-up for dealing with our internal devolopment in all its ramifications after the war. In fact, I had an ambition to be chairman of that development board in more difficult days.
  The third home front problem to which I wish to refer is that of social security. When I invited Sir William Beveridge to undertake his arduous and vital task—and I offer my personal thanks to him for his great services. [Interruption.] I have not seen the Report, but I believe that Sir William Beveridge is a man of vision and imagination—
  Mr. MacLaren: He is getting married.
  Mr. Greenwood: What I had in mind in inviting Sir William was the fulfilment in large part of the pledge given regarding
  1054
  freedom from want. I wish to see adopted a general plan which would secure for all—not for a single class of people—freedom from want in adversity, however that adversity might be caused, whether through lack of work, through sickness, through disability, through bereavement or through old age. Sir William Beveridge's Report, which I have no doubt will be bold and far-reaching and will form a basis for discussion, perhaps the finest the world has ever seen, will put the country under a debt of gratitude. Had it been in our hands to-day or over the week-end, I doubt whether we should have been in a position to give a considered judgment upon all the many complex problems and proposals with which it undoubtedly deals. It will be studied as a matter of urgent duty by all sections of the movement that I represent. I hope that the Government will give early and sympathetic consideration to my object in asking Sir William to go into the matter namely, social security for all, and that in the New Year the House may have an ampler opportunity than the present Debate affords to consider this important and constructive document. Now that hell's foundations are beginning to quiver, it is right that we should look forward to the future. But we must march forward towards the light of a new day. I wish to remind the House of memorable words spoken by Mazzini:
  "Education, the fatherland, liberty, association, the family, property and religion—all these are undying elements of human nature: they cannot be cancelled or destroyed, but every epoch has alike the right and duty of modifying their development in harmony with the intellect of the age, the progress of science and the altered condition of human relations. Hence, democracy, informed and enlightened by these ideas, must abandon the path of negation; useful and opportune so long as the duty before us was that of breaking asunder the chains which bound mankind to the past; useless and barren now that our task is the conquest of the future. If it do not forsake this path, it can but doom itself to perish—as all mere reaction must perish—in anarchy and impotence."
  This great war is being fought for "the conquest of the future," so that men may live in freedom and light and not "in anarchy and impotence." To that this country is pledged. That pledge must and shall be kept.
  Major Sir Edward Cadogan: It is obvious. Sir, that a great many hon. Gentlemen shared my ambition to catch

  1055
  your eye, and this circumstance may indicate not only that the subject matter of the Amendment is of universal concern, but that there may be a considerable number of expert planners in our midst. If my assumption is correct, I would like at once to assure the House that I lay no claim to be numbered among the prophets. I will, therefore, confine my observations to a criticism of the policy of planning rather than to its technique.
  While I am quite prepared to allow that the particular functions of the new Ministry of Works and Planning, as far as they deal with present and urgent needs, are of very definite value, and while I am quite prepared to concede that much of the planning which is engaging the attention of other Ministries, such as the Board of Education, is unexceptionable, I believe that in the Government's long-term policy it is in the rather more visionary proposals that there are grounds not only for criticism but also for apprehension. When we are informed of all that the various Ministries are engaged upon for after the war, I cannot help envying the Government their optimism, in which I shall not be expected wholly to share. Their own forecast seems to be to pre-suppose conditions subsequent to the cessation of hostilities rather more favourable to the exercise of their activities than are likely to be fulfilled. We who lived through the last war can bear testimony to the exactly similar proposals made by those who subsequently endeavoured but lamentably failed to carry them into effect.
  But this analogy will, no doubt, be challenged by those who argue that we shall have profited by the mistakes and the miscalculations of our forerunners. I hope we shall, but I cannot help in the first place observing that I do not think that human nature is likely to have undergone a very marked change in the last 25 years, and I am left wondering whether the planners have taken human nature sufficiently into account in building up the new order which we all earnestly hope will materialise. I must also remind hon. Members that we have made during the war many mistakes identical with those which we made during the last war, and so when hon. Gentlemen wax enthusiastic about the wonderful new England which is going
  1056
  to be built up on the devastation and ruin of the second great world war, in contrast with that which emerged from the last, I cannot help being reminded of Dr. Johnson's definition of second marriage—"The triumph of hope over experience." The gloom with which that quotation has been received suggests to me that perhaps it has gone home.
  Mr. Messer: We did not think it in good taste.
  Sir E. Cadogan: It is a quotation from the great lexicographer, of whom I have been a great student. A great deal of what Dr. Johnson said was true, and therefore not in good taste, but I shall continue to quote from Dr. Johnson and to tell the truth so long as convenient opportunities present themselves to me. To judge by the public speeches and the correspondence we have read in the Press, there are not only a very great number of persons who consider themselves amply qualified to meddle with the universe, from the great arch-planner Sir William Beveridge, whose Report we have been asked to implement before we have seen it in print, to the humble little scribbler who contributes from Upper Tooting his pathetic contribution to the general pool of ideas of world planning. Everyone who comes along with a plan regards it as sacrosanct; to criticise it is blasphemy and stamps one only as a reactionary Philistine. It has often happened to me in the House of Commons that I have been criticised for opposing a Measure, generally a Private Member's Bill, when in truth and in fact I have only been opposed to the stupid method by which the desirable object proposed was to be achieved. It is a very old Parliamentary trick, rather a dirty one; but I am not going to have it said that I am against planning because I criticise the methods of planners. I am just as anxious as anyone else that we should plan for the post-war period, but as a Member of Parliament whose vote, I hope, is far more powerful than any planner's pen, when I examine the plans of the more infatuated enthusiasts, I certainly reserve to myself perfect freedom not only to criticise but to condemn, if need be, the methods I consider we should not employ. We often hear of the "blueprint stage" of planning. I hope there will not only be a blue-print stage but also a blue-pencil stage. Bear in mind that if

  1057
  there is want of due consideration, if your plans miscarry, the effect will be just as calamitous as any defeat on the field of battle.
  My criticism of the Government's planning is that it does not seem to be in the proper sequence. The trouble with certain planners is that they start at the wrong end. They are even now hoodwinking the public with all sorts of elaborate schemes of ideally-constructed cities, national parks, green belts, gargantuan arterial roads, free public school education for all, free meals for all, and all the rest of it. They do not seem to appreciate, or they are too obtuse to understand, that there are two conditions precedent to the fulfilment of all those beautiful day-dreams. The first is to discover some more effective substitute for war as a means of settling international disputes than has been devised by the wit of statesmen hitherto. It is of no avail to set about physical reconstruction until we can improve upon the League of Nations. What will be the merit of rebuilding the Guildhall, or the Wren churches, if they are going to be blown over again a few years hence?
  Mr. MacLaren: To give more work.
  Sir E. Cadogan: Is it within the range of possibility that all our building will have to resemble that strange structure which has recently been erected upon the Horse Guards Parade? That would be standardisation with a vengeance. Let us put an end to war before we make plans of that sort, and such a happy issue out of our afflictions is not likely to be fulfilled in the twinkling of an eye, and certainly not so long as our men of science, instead of applying their intelligence and their energy to the cure of malignant disease, are fully engaged upon inventing higher and more powerful explosives, a task in which they seem to be singularly successful. Until we fulfil this condition precedent, a considerable number of our young men will, instead of being engaged on constructive work and development work, still have to man the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the munition factories. Have the Government taken that probability into consideration when calculating what resources will be available for them to carry out their short-term policy?
  1058
  This brings me to the second condition precedent which must be fulfilled before we start smearing the whole of England with ferro-concrete and tarmac. There must be a definite and immediate planning of our finance and industry and commerce. That will not be exclusively a national enterprise. The problems of currency, exports, tariffs and kindred questions will have to be settled by the whole civilised world in conference. Does anyone suppose that is going to be a swift, perfunctory process? Until we know where we are financially and commercially, it will surely be futile to talk about picking up the City of London by the scruff of its neck and depositing it somewhere else. A distinguished figure in the shipping world observed to me the other day that the trouble of the planners is that they seem to fail to appreciate that unless we can get our trade and industry and commerce well and truly planned first, there may even be a danger that we shall not be able to feed the 40,000,000 of population that inhabit these islands. When there is the possibility of a shortage of food after the war, it seems madness to talk of all the luxuries and the amenities which are going to be available to all classes, free, gratis and for nothing, when the war is concluded.
  It may be that the people of this country will even be hungry. When they are asking for bread and are offered nothing more appetising than the Bressey plan, it may be that those hungry people will become angry. We know from historical precedent that a hungry and angry people are something to be reckoned with. I want to know, and we all want to know, whether the Government have any comprehensive scheme for planning our trade. I should like the Minister in charge to answer that question. Are we to revert to the position of the inter-war period when every country was struggling for an export surplus at the expense of every other country, with the resultant high tariffs, exchange manipulation, subsidies and widespread unemployment? Have the Government any proposals for regulating the distribution and exchange of products by international settlement? Have the Government any plan for the stabilisation of agricultural products, manufactured goods and raw materials? If not, any attempt at resettlement will achieve very little. How is it proposed to raise the

  1059
  standard of living, not only within our own boundaries but in other countries? Have the Government any plan or policy for the remuneration of services rendered? From the Debate we had recently upon wage policy, I should say that the Government have no such policy. If they have not, we shall continue on our road to inflation. These are the kinds of plans which must take priority of those upon which Ministers and others at present seem to be exclusively engaged.
  Before I resume my seat I would like to say a word on one special aspect of physical reconstruction. There seems to be some danger of over-centralisation. I can, of course, see that there must be control, co-ordination and direction from Whitehall, unfortunately, but it seems essential that those who dwell in the towns and the rural areas affected should have some voice in how their own localities are to be planned. It will otherwise be difficult to reconcile the attitude of the Minister or the permanent official in Whitehall, who cannot see the trees for the wood, and that of those who live in the areas which are being dictated to, and who cannot see the wood for the trees. I am certain that no Government that flouted local feeling in these matters would survive a week. Perhaps the situation might be easier if we could get away from the obsession of standardisation. After all, the great variety of our country is one of its charms, but standardisation might merely reduce us to a low level of drab repulsiveness. It has been well said that you cannot standardise excellence but only mediocrity. I have no doubt that some of the planning may be overdone. I think it is already creating in the minds of various citizens a feeling of apprehension and insecurity which is not good for the morale of the nation. To threaten all our institutions with revolution or extinction will not make the problem of resettlement any easier.
  Finally, I appeal to the Government to give the House some assurance that before everything, good, bad and indifferent, is thrown into the crucible of the Minister of Works and Planning, Parliament will be allowed to exercise some vigilance over what is fashioned out of the material and, still better, to have some control over what is to be scrapped and what is to be salved from the melting pot. Everything that is archaic is not necessarily defective and valueless because it is archaic. Hitler has
  1060
  already wrought sufficient destruction on our ancient monuments; let us have, hold and cherish as many as remain. No doubt we shall be well advised to discard all those outworn physical and moral values of an unregenerate past, but if anyone will be good enough to explain to us which they are, I might comment that I am just as much against high ecclesiastical dignitaries sitting in judgment on our banking system as I should be against Mr. Montagu Norman attempting to revise the Athanasian Creed. Whoever is in charge of our destinies after the war, whatever Government may be in power, whatever revolutions may be effected and whatever measure of success or failure may attend their efforts, we shall certainly need some inspiration. That, I believe, can be drawn only from the age-old traditions and institutions which it is at once the privilege and the duty of democracy to retain.
  Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan), as he always does, has introduced a breath of realism. I want to follow his example and to confine my remarks to one or two of the main and fundamental issues connected with physical reconstruction. There have been three Debates in another place on this subject, and the issues are ripe for development in the House of Commons. We ought to have more days to debate them. I should like to start by congratulating the Government on securing the production of the Scott and the Uthwatt Reports. They are absolutely first-class documents. I do not wish to deal with the Scott Report now. The Uthwatt Report is a model of what reports should be. The problems dealt with in it are exceedingly important, although few people in the country are conversant with them. I do not pretend to be. The legal history of every issue discussed is set out with brilliant condensation. It really is a model Report.
  I wish I could congratulate the Government on the way they have handled this problem in the last two years, in regard to machinery. They started by making a fundamental mistake by taking planning away from the Ministry of Health. I should have thought it was obvious to anyone who has had long experience that, as the local

  1061
  authorities are, in the main, both housing authorities and planning authorities, it must lead to delay and difficulty if the local authorities had to go to one Department for one thing and another Department for another. It happened that the present Minister of Health was the only Minister who knew both about housing and about planning, and that must have been the reason why they took planning away from him and gave it to a Department and to a Minister, Lord Reith, who knew nothing about them. As soon as he started learning his job he was sacked, and somebody else was put in—Lord Portal—who had to learn the problems from the beginning. To make matters worse, the Paymaster-General was appointed, and you can see him skirmishing down Whitehall, street fighting against all the Departments that deal in any way with planning. He has had responsibility without power. I am sure this lay-out will not do. It is absolutely fantastic. It is time that an end was put to this higgledy-piggledy—if I may borrow the phrase of my colleague the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss)—and we had a wide vista of rational planning for the future. May I also join with my hon. Friend in what he said about the planners? I am sure the present lay-out and elevation will have to end, and end quickly, and some Minister of Planning be appointed with a department, and that department and he be subject to challenge in the House.
  It is no good thinking that you could have a commission which would take this out of the hands of Parliament. That would never do. If you want to bring in the planners, you can bring them in on an Advisory Council. I have no objection to a commission managing a financial estate. It may be useful. Let me warn the Paymaster-General that whenever planners start talking about the beauty of the countryside a wild light comes into their eyes, and there is no sin they would not commit. If he must have planners on his Council, I advise him to choose a few good economists who can add a little freezing mixture into those boiling solutions which have been concocted by the planners.
  Mr. George Griffiths: Could there not be a few working women On the job as well?
  Sir G. Shakespeare: Certainly. Let me now come precisely to the main issues of the Uthwatt Report. They are so vital that I make no apologies for focussing the attention of the House on these very practical issues, because on the judgment of the new Minister of Planning on these issues the home of every citizen depends, the rent he pays depends, and the whole condition and progress of post-war reconstruction depend. There are four main problems in the Uthwatt Report. First of all, there is the acquisition of development rights; secondly, a betterment levy; thirdly, compulsory powers for the acquisition of land; and fourthly, the powers of local authorities in built-up areas, particularly great areas like London. I will touch on each of those matters.
  As regards the acquisition of development rights, without going into elaborate details, the scheme provides that all development rights in land shall vest in the State, if they lie outside built-up areas, on payment of fair compensation, and such vesting is to be secured by the imposition of a prohibition against development otherwise than with the consent of the State, accompanied by the grant of compulsory powers of acquiring the land itself when it is wanted for public purposes or for approved private development. From the point of view of planning this is, of course, excellent and it is ingenious, because it enables the planners to do what they have always wanted to do, and that is get rid of the mischief of shifting values. Suppose that around London you wanted to have a wide green belt, the land could be sterilised under a scheme, but if that is done at present all the values attaching to that land may shift on to the adjoining land, sending up the value of that land and making development more difficult. Therefore, if you acquire all the development rights in all land, from the point of view of planning you collect in from the areas to which the values have shifted and you pay out compensation to the areas which have been sterilised—the green belt. It is a very attractive proposition.
  Mr. MacLaren: Will the hon. Gentleman first of all define what is a development right and then say how it is valued?
  Sir G. Shakespeare: I would direct the hon. Member to the Uthwatt Report.
  Mr. MacLaren: The matter is an important one, and I must press the hon. Gentleman for an answer.
  Sir G. Shakespeare: It is the right to use your land for any purpose you like in conformity with a scheme.
  Mr. MacLaren: And how do you arrive at the value?
  Sir G. Shakespeare: Surveyors can do so. It will be very difficult to do, and I do not differ from the hon. Member in that respect. Although this scheme helps the planners, I am extremely apprehensive as to its results on development, for the following reason. Without going into details, the basis of compensation in the Uthwatt Report results in the owner of land being compensated with a sum which will be about one-third of the amount he would get if he now sold his land in the open market. I am not arguing whether that is just or unjust. It may be justice without mercy. I simply say that if, as a result of these proposals, you offered an owner of land one-third of what he would now get, there is this result. It is one thing to disappoint a man in his expectations. If an owner of land does not develop his land and you deprive him of the right of development, you set a value on it and give him compensation, and it may well be that he would never have developed the land, so that, therefore, he gets something he never expected to get. That is one proposition. It is, however, quite another proposition to apply the same principle of compensation to all current contracts and transactions, because if that is done, it shatters values immediately, and reduces by two-thirds the security on which all housing is financed. One hopes that after the war there will be an enormous amount of development going on all over the country.
  If this proposal as regards the acquisition of development rights came into effect, you would start by shattering values, upsetting confidence, and creating uncertainty. There might be scores of millions of pounds advanced by banks, insurance companies, individuals, housing associations and solicitors based on the value of the land. All those loans would be hanging in the air, because you would have reduced by two-thirds the value of the land on which the advances were made. I do not believe the way to
  1064
  secure the intensive development which we all want is to start by destroying confidence. I do not say these difficulties are insuperable, but I bring them to the notice of the Paymaster-General so that he and the Government can reflect on them.
  The second doubt I have about the development rights proposition is that once the owner has been compensated for the loss of his development rights—and the Report says that the average value of development rights should be about £200—he has the bare site value left, the average value of which, the Report says, should be about £40. The owner has been compensated for the loss of the development rights, and he has no further interest in development. Indeed, he may be rather aggrieved: he has got less than he thought he should have got; and, thereafter, he is not interested in disposing of the site value of his land. Therefore, in almost every case of development the private developer will have to go to the central authority, as is suggested in the Report, to ask them to exercise compulsory powers to secure the prime land. This is a completely new principle, as far as I can see, in practice or in law: to exercise compulsory powers—and, indeed, the Report says that compulsory powers should be granted for approved schemes—in favour of one kind of individual against another.
  The third apprehension that I have about development rights is this. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) recognises, the question of valuation is going to be one of extreme difficulty. You cannot calculate your global sum of compensation—which the Report puts at £180,000,000 less deduction—and distribute it, until you have made the most careful surveys of all the land in the country, to make quite sure that it goes to the owners of land who had, in fact, some development rights. I asked two surveyors how long that valuation—and it is an entirely hypothetical valuation—would take. One said five years, and the other said 10 years. At a time when the nation is crying out for a maximum housing effort and the rehousing of families, I wonder whether you are going to help development if, in the first place, you start by shattering values and destroying confidence, and, in the second place, you embark on a scheme which for five or 10 years must stop all development.

  1065
  Until the valuation is made there is no basis of value on which ordinary transactions can take place. I submit those three points to my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government for their consideration. I beg them not to slow down development in the name of the preservation of beauty, because if they do a frightful Nemesis will overtake them at the hands of millions of families who will be condemned to continue to live in their vile surroundings.
  May I say a word about betterment value? I do so with great tredipation, because I know how my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem feels on this subject. I ask him to be patient for a few minutes. This betterment value, if there is any confidence left after the development rights scheme has been embarked upon, will absolutely shatter that remaining confidence. If I have apprehensions about development rights, I have none about betterment value; because I am convinced that it would absolutely slow down development. In the first place, again, it introduces an element of uncertainty into all building development, because neither the developer nor the prospective tenant has the slightest idea of what future developments are likely to be. Imagine that I have an estate in the country, in nice surroundings, and offering a fine prospect. Tenants will come there, away from the congestion of cities. Under the new scheme, I can, of course, only be a lessee; and I can offer only an interest that I myself enjoy. I cannot offer freehold ownership. The magnificent system of housing development financed by the building societies is completely changed. You cannot offer a freehold piece of England to an owner-occupier again. You may offer only a lease. There is magic in freehold ownership, but the word "lease" has sometimes an ominous ring. I do not say that you cannot educate your public to a new conception: one has seen the leasehold system in the Hampstead Garden Suburb, for example; but it will take a lot of education.
  Suppose I am trying to develop an estate. My tenant says, "What is the value of my lease; what have I to pay for it?" I do not know what sort of development will take place in the neighbourhood. It may be that a tube
  1066
  will go out there, that an industry will be located there, or that a new garden city will be put there, and, against my will and the will of my tenants, a new value will be created. When a tenant comes in he wants to know what his obligations will be. Now you are threatening to put upon him a tax which is contrary to the principle of every other tax I know—that is, that you pay out of income received or for services rendered. This tax is to be paid every five years on the increased value of the site, in respect of a hypothetical betterment which puts no money in the pocket of the person paying the tax, and which very often he dislikes. You are violating the fundamental principle of taxation in forcing the tenant to pay this rather vicious capital tax amounting to 75 per cent. of the increase of the site value. I am convinced that that will kill all development.
  Do not think that I am reactionary. I am a passionate housing enthusiast. Those who were with me in this House during the great slum crusade will perhaps agree that I am a practical housing enthusiast. I was then associated with Sir Edward Hilton Young, now Lord Kennet, who never got the credit due to him for what he did. We rehoused nearly 1,000,000 slum dwellers in five years, as compared with 200,000 who had been rehoused in the previous 50. While that was going on we provided homes for 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 persons who were rehoused by private enterprise, by the sort of activity of which I have been speaking. We have got a brilliant building organisation in this country; and the success of that five years was entirely due to the fact that the local authorities were working to the full on what they could do—slum clearance—and private enterprise was working to the full on what it could do. We shall need both. If you create conditions in which private enterprise cannot do it you will do a great disservice to millions of families.
  On the question of the compulsory acquisition of land, the Uthwatt Report is admirable, with one small exception, that you can never exclude from the value of land that part that arises from public demand. If you do, you shatter values straight away; for example, you would shatter 80 per cent. of the value of the land in Scotland. I do not think

  1067
  it is worth doing. With that exception the arrangements for speeding up the purchase, of land and doing away with all cumbrous machinery are absolutely first class, as are all recommendations in the Report which apply to built-up areas. The essence of that is that all developing, planning and housing authorities should be given the widest and fullest powers of purchase. Take London as an example. It was useless in the old days proceeding to clear the slums and just taking out the eyes in London. You wanted to purchase whole areas and re-develop as if no houses were on the site. That was why in the 1935 Act we suggested the principle of redevelopment areas, and we included it in the 1935 Act. We hope that that would be the method of advance in the future, and I am delighted that the Uthwatt Committee has come down in favour of that redevelopment method. After a long experience I am convinced that that is the only method of dealing with built-up areas. I hope sincerely that we may at a later time get an opportunity of discussing it, for I have very firm ideas of how a great deal of delay can be cut out of the process. These developments, although the total loan charges may frighten the Treasury, after a generation have paid for themselves. It has been one of the tragedies of modern times that in London there has only been one development by, public authority in 30 years, at Kingsway. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury or the Government be afraid of the cost of redeveloping great areas in our towns and cities.
  Sir Francis Fremantle: That pays for itself, does it not?
  Sir G. Shakespeare: It pays for itself. I have stated that whatever the cost of values in the built-up areas, a local authority is not debarred from buying land and building the best kind of flats. It can, whatever the cost of land values within built-up areas, provide modern accommodation in flats at rents which the working class can afford. I will not develop that point. The Government must, at the first opportunity, first of all announce the machinery of planning and development, and secondly—I do not say that they have to do this in a week or even in a month—they have to let all the developing authorities know the view of the Government on the questions of compensation and betterment and every related
  1068
  problem. I hope that in coming to a decision on some of the main issues of the Uthwatt and Scott Reports they will be guided by common sense and practical experience and will be able to compensate the planners with a leaven of common sense. If they do that, they will come to a right judgment. Above all, as regards London, they have to get the authorities to agree on a plan and all the legal preliminaries started in advance. That is vitally important. Once the Government announce their decision upon all these matters, we can save years of time, even in war, if we overcome all the legal preliminaries in dealing with these great areas. We can be in a position when the war ends, I believe, to tackle the problem quickly and urgently once the planning authority—the L.C.C.—has swept away the jungle of all the preliminaries. It will then be in a position to start building after the war is over. No time must be lost. It will be the greatest opportunity that the Government and the country and all local authorities have ever had. I honestly think that we have a tremendous chance in the next 10 or 20 year; of making an England nearer the England we would desire to see. The process of reconstruction and redevelopment itself will provide so much work and employment that it may well be the central pivot of the whole post-war prosperity.
  Mr. Ridley: I hope the hon. Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his consideration of the Uthwatt Report. I do not do so for one or two reasons, the major reason being that there will be a separate and a much wider opportunity for that examination. It would be entirely ungenerous of me if I did not say, however deeply we may differ from the hon. Member's conceptions, that it would be a good thing if, in the subsequent consideration of a very complex problem of this kind, some other Members of the House gave as much consideration to it as the hon. Member has evidently given. I desire to make one or two comments on the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan), but as he has now left the House I propose to restrict myself to the point of saying, I hope seriously, that if his speech reflects the mind, the temper and the mood of his political asso

  1069
  ciates in the face of our post-war problems, we shall not on this side of the House travel that road very far. He seemed to take the pessimistic interpretation of history and generally to subscribe to the description of the Conservative party as being a party so conservative that it failed to recognise its own conservatism.
  I got up to support the Amendment and press for more precision as to the practical conclusions of the Government in peace and post-war development. I propose to deal with only one small segment of the very wide field dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I do not disclaim altogether, limited and inadequate though they may be, the references to post-war problems contained in the Gracious Speech. They at least reflect the growing confidence in our great national effort, and they are a recognition that we must prepare now for some of our post-war problems, for nothing can excuse us if in this field we are caught unawares and unprepared, as in fact we might be. It is only a few months ago since the Prime Minister in this House said, with a little of his customary jocularity, that in 1918, when the war ended, nobody was more surprised than the War Cabinet. There will be no possible excuse, in my view, for being caught like that this time, and I beg my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General to be aware of the necessities of the situation.
  I express no opinion at the moment about the Beveridge Report in its rumoured terms, but however generally acceptable the recommendations of the Report may prove to be, it deals with only one, and seeks to deal with only one, aspect of our post-war problem. It seeks to ensure that in distress a citizen shall have a larger measure of social help. But in the matter of unemployment, which is the real test of good society, it must be our purpose so to organise humanity that we minimise in that matter the need for social help. I do not take the view that on the morrow of the armistice all we shall need to do will be to apply the blue prints of an earthly paradise, for peace hath her problems no less pronounced than war. We shall have to face the needs of a Europe, starved, famished, scorched, ridden by disease and pestilence,
  1070
  and a world in which over a very wide area there is severe social dislocation. These needs may involve for a time equally severe limitation of supplies. I do not mind that much, so long as in whatever limitation is to be experienced there is a burden of complete equality, but if there is aroused for a moment a suspicion that there is inequality in that experience, the fuse will be well alight.
  But this condition can, and must, be only temporary. We must plan against it, and it is the burden of my plea that in planning we must plan for a new society and not for a re-establishment of the old one, with all the cruelties of that society which were all around us in the dreadful years between the two wars. We were living in a world that could give us more food than we could eat, more clothes than we could wear, and more houses than we could live in, yet we condemned thousands of fine, decent people to go hungry in a world of plenty. We made them search in vain for the necessities that could have been in glut supply. The new society must have as its purpose the satisfaction of the needs of many and not merely the acquisitive instincts of the few. The housing of our people is a need of urgency and gravity. In my constituency there are two rows of houses, still occupied, that are reputed to have been built temporarily for George Stephenson's labourers. But the replacing of the ugly and inconvenient by the attractive and convenient must not depend entirely upon the materialistic views of the speculative builder. It must be a great social purpose, and to its achievement our people must be urged to bend their energies with as much devotion as we have seen during the past three years.
  But they will only do that if they can be convinced that their work is in pursuit of social purpose and not in pursuit of the improvement of the balance-sheets of limited liability companies. I know of no more cruel irony than the sight which presented itself to us in this country during the pre-war years. Millions of people were insufficiently fed, and millions of acres were inadequately cultivated. In the last few years, in the stress of war, we have seen great changes. Our soil is nearing its maximum output and should be so maintained. Our agricultural policy in post-war years will necessarily be guided by some international considerations and agreements, but I suggest that

  1071
  none of them will prevent us from tilling every acre of our agricultural soil for the purpose of creating foodstuffs with which to prevent hungry, unemployed men from gazing despairingly at the barren acres of our countryside. We must plan immediately to satisfy the primary needs of shelter and food and then call our people to a new effort in the building of a new social fabric, a fabric in the creation and maintenance of which they will be encouraged to devote their energies—in other words, to give all to a good society instead of, at the point of grim necessity, trying to extract from a bad one. We must plan for a socialist and not for a capitalist objective. Along that road, in my view, this House must travel willingly or unwillingly. Some steps are so, imperative that they must not, be avoided or delayed. Industry for the creative purposes of peace must be subject to the same social control as has been found necessary for the grim necessities of war.
  In this connection I specially mention credit and investment. Here indeed is the heart of our problems. It must not again be possible for great privately-owned corporations, in the sphere of finance, to have power and authority greater than that of the State itself. The guidance of credit into productive and socially useful channels is a matter of primary importance, and I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to deal with it boldly. But we must go further than that. There have been many Debates in this House about what is called nationalisation. I have seen Members shudder at the mere mention of the word, but an extension of this field of State activity is inescapable. I will use as an illustration an industry with which I am familiar. We shall be faced in the post-war world with a choice between a privately-owned railway system so financed as to make it incapable because of its financial structure for it to modernise itself and therefore make an adequate contribution to the life of the community, and a railway system, publicly owned so that it can be modernised and made a real artery of life and trade. There are other industries of which the same assertion could be made, and if my right hon. and learned Friend thinks along these lines—as I hope he does—I hope he will advance along that path and insist on the removal of whatever barriers may be found in his
  1072
  way to present this point of view to the House. I believe that if we neglect this point of view we do so at our peril. In the post-war world I want to see an orderly democratic society constantly expanding the happiness of its people and being courageous in the methods it uses.
  Finally, in this connection I wish to make a personal appeal to the Prime Minister. I am aware of my right hon. Friend's many grave preoccupations, but his voice now has, throughout the world, an authority almost unequalled in the long history of British politics. He has brought us from gloom and despair to the exhilarating enjoyment of great achievements. I am very conscious of, his very many grave preoccupations, but he can now, if he will, say the word that will make it plain to all people that, having retained the instruments of political democracy, we mean to use them with energy for the achievement of great social purposes.
  Captain Digby: As this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing the House, I hope hon. Members will accord me the indulgence which I believe is customary on such occasions. Our first task to-day must be to win the war as speedily as possible. I particularly realise that the first charge on Ministers' time must be the conduct of the war? and questions related to it. I also fully appreciate that at a time like the present it would be inopportune to try and introduce detailed measures for reconstruction which might give rise to controversy which would divert attention from the war. I also realise there is a difficulty that it is not very easy, even now, to foresee exactly the kind of world conditions which we shall have, to expect. But I think it is most necessary that we should be thinking about what will happen after the war, and that we should have in our minds the kind of world we want to set up afterwards.
  There seem to me to be two aspects of reconstruction, the international and national, and although these two are very different and should be kept apart in our minds, I feel we should recognise how closely interwoven the two are. For example, in the last 100 years or so this country has lived primarily by its export trade, and yet, in the years immediately preceding the war, there was a growing tendency in all parts of the world for increasing industrialisation in all countries, even in countries which had been agricultural

  1073
  up to that time, with the result that markets were harder to retain than they had ever been before. Unless some measure is taken about this by the consent of nations, presumably the same tendency will continue after the war. So we have to ask ourselves the very relevant question: How are we to continue to earn our living as a nation?
  I am all in favour of equal access to the trade of the world. That is a very good principle. But one must, I think, be careful to make certain reservations in this connection. We have to admit the fact that different standards of living prevail in the different countries of the world, and economic agreements will have to take full account of that factor unless tremendous trouble is to be caused. If the industry of this country, which is relatively adaptable, needs certainty as to the future, how much more so does not agriculture, which is a special interest to the constituency which I represent? Agriculture has suffered all too long from uncertainty, and as the prosperity of agriculture is bound up with that of the rural districts, the rural districts have, in turn, suffered very much. I, therefore, feel it is most important that we should apply the principles of the Atlantic Charter concerning improved labour standards and economic, advancement to the country districts just as much as to the towns, where economic reward is greater and opportunities are so very much more various.
  When we come to this question of equal access to the trade of the world, I think the House will agree that we cannot possibly apply that to mean that the British farmer has to compete on equal terms with the Canadian prairies, any more than we expect those who earn their living by cotton in Lancashire to compete on equal terms with the cotton mills, for example, in Japan, where I have seen girls working and thinking they were adequately paid on only 1s. 2d. a week. But there are other countries where wages are even lower, and where there is considerable industrial aptitude which is bound to be developed in the years after the war. One of the big factors at the time of the outbreak of the war was the drift from the land. Figures can be produced to show what was happening, but what was, I think, more convincing than
  1074
  any figures was to go oneself to country villages, from house to house, and there one would see very clearly that the younger men were being drawn away to the towns, and the villages had come to consist of an extremely large proportion of older people. That is a state of affairs which I hope something will be done to check, and I believe it is something which can be checked if it is tackled in the right manner. Furthermore, I believe that this war may be a very great opportunity to do that. The war has broken into the lives of a great many men, especially among the younger men, and there must be many in the Services and in other forms of employment which they did not occupy before who are asking themselves what they are going to do after the war. If they think that rural districts are to go on declining, it is not very likely that they will want to go there, but if they know that the Government are to do all they can to revive the prosperity of rural districts, I feel that this drift from the land can be successfully checked.
  I would like to say a word or two about the Scott Report, which I have read with very great interest, as I think it sets out in a most attractive way rural problems which I have been mentioning. I was interested to see that at the beginning of the Report it was found necessary to say that the Committee were unable to subscribe to the view that the countryman is inferior to the townsman. It seems to me a very unfortunate thing that that kind of thing still has to be said in 1942. I admit I am prejudiced—I am a countryman—but I do not feel we can make that distinction when dealing with the welfare of the country as a whole. I welcome the analysis of problems which the Scott Committee set out, and there were very many points there, I thought, which were very good and needed making, and which I know will be widely read. I feel sure in my own mind that the Scott Committee were right in thinking that one of the primary causes of the decline of the agricultural districts was the inadequacy of local housing. In that respect I feel that their recommendations have a lot to be said for them, especially with regard to the provision of electricity at cheaper rates in the country districts.
  The Committee go on to speak of the revival of village life. That is a very good thing indeed, but it seems to me

  1075
  that they rather make the assumption that, by reviving village life to a greater extent, country people will no longer take any interest in the towns. That, I do not think to be the case. Although village life is of the greatest importance, and although it is most important that village halls should be provided in every village, as is advocated among the recommendations, which I fully endorse—a most important thing—at the same time the town has and will continue to have its attractions. I am afraid that, as far as young people are concerned, we cannot expect whist drives to act as a substitute for the cinema, and therefore I think it is a pity that more was not said about rural communications. My experience in my constituency has been that a number of the villages complain, or did before the war, about the inadequacy of bus services, and I was only able to find a very fleeting reference in the whole of the Scott Report to the question of bus services. I hope the Government will bear in mind this very real problem for small, isolated communities; even if it might involve some expense upon the Exchequer.
  I have dwelt at some length on the application to agriculture of post-war reconstruction, because it particularly affects my part of the world, but obviously it is bound up with the wider problem of national reconstruction and the much wider problem of international reconstruction. International reconstruction is a thing which it is very difficult to discuss at the present moment. Just as I feel that in the countryside we have, through the war, a great opportunity to change things after the war, so in the international sphere we have a great opportunity to re-plan the world in agreement with the other United Nations more in the fashion that we should like to see. The Duke of Wellington once said, "My rule always was to do the business of the day in the day." Sometimes I think it best to consider the business of to-morrow, and I feel that, if we consider the business of to-morrow just as we do that of to-day, it will help a great deal in our post-war policy.
  The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): It falls to me in the first place to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Western Dorset (Captain Digby) on the magnificent way
  1076
  in which he has got through the ordeal of the first speech. To him it did not seem to be an ordeal at all. He has brought to our Debate some of the charm of his native county of Dorset, and I hope that we shall hear him on many future occasions.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who supported the Amendment, said, this is the first of many Debates which we shall, no doubt, have on reconstruction. It is the beginning of the beginning. May I suggest certain principles to which I, at any rate, shall always try to adhere in the course of our reconstruction Debates? The first is this: I believe we must always remember that victory, complete and unqualified, is the necessary foundation for any reconstruction work at all. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted by talk of reconstruction from the stern task of securing that victory. In the second place, all talk of reconstruction is a mockery if the world is to remain hereafter under the constant fear of aggression. A system which secures us from aggression, whatever the cost, must be built up if we are to have any effective reconstruction. Thirdly, let us by all means be completely realistic in our approach to reconstruction problems. Let us face up to the difficulties, which are very great, frankly and squarely, because, though the difficulties are great, I firmly believe that the opportunities are even greater. Fourthly, I shall by throughout to avoid slogans—Homes for heroes, wars to end war, the promised land, land of promises and the like—for after all, better times will be won not by slogans, but by the enterprise and the efforts of the common people. Lastly, when I hear some of this criticism of the idea of planning I believe that the greatest asset that we have, or have ever had, is the character and the ability of our own people. Planning is good if it enables our own people to develop their own personalities. It is bad if it reduces us all to the level of ants in an ant heap.
  It is difficult for a man to grow to his full stature, mentally, morally or physically, if he lives in a slum, if he is undernourished, if he is diseased or if he is half educated. If, therefore, by good planning we can remove some of those evils and bring about some system of social security, we need not fear that our people will lapse into a dull, drab uniformity, like the Hitler Youth. On the contrary, we shall

  1077
  enable our citizens each to develop his own personality and individuality, and we shall rear a race of free men fit to rule in a democracy.
  That mention of social security leads me to say this. The House is to receive to-day the Report of Sir William Beveridge. I myself received it a day or two ago, and I think it falls to me on behalf of the Government, I think I may say on behalf of the House, indeed I think I may say on behalf of the nation, to thank Sir William Beveridge for the untiring work which he put into his Report. The ideal of social security is one to which all thinking men and women will subscribe. What steps can we take in the immediate future towards the attainment of that ideal? We must survey his work not in isolation, but as a part of our reconstruction work as a whole. He covers a vast field, he proposes sweeping changes, and it would be foolish to suppose that the Government can here and now make any pronouncement of their views upon these matters. [Interruption.] We prefer to read and consider the proposals before we make a statement about them, and Members in all quarters of the House would be well advised to follow that example, to spend time in studying what he says and to consider his proposals in relation alike to finance, to industry, to the maintenance of international security as well as to our social services generally. We shall lose no time in embarking upon a close examination of his proposals. In the meantime, I shall be ready on behalf of the Government to receive any representations which persons interested may desire to make. I should hope that early in the New Year Members of the House will be in a position to discuss the main questions raised in the Report. When the Government have had the advantage of hearing their opinions expressed in Debate they will be able to indicate to the House their general attitude.
  Sir Percy Harris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used a phrase which is capable of wrong interpretation when he said he would be prepared to receive representations from persons interested. Does he mean vested interests?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I mean from anybody who can throw a useful light on the proposals which are being considered.
  Mr. Granville: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government will consider the Report. Does he mean that the Government received the Report only in the last few days, or have they had the Report for a week or so, and has there been a critical examination?
  Sir W. Jowitt: We received the Report only in the last few days. A part of the Report I received only the day before yesterday.
  Mr. Gallacher: The Minister said that the Government will give their decision after they have heard the discussion in the House. Shall we not get a deliberate statement from the Government on their attitude to the Report as an introduction to the Debate?
  Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir; surely the suggestion I make is a sensible one. The House is a very mine of practical experience and information on these subjects. Why should not the Government come to the House, not shirking the issue, but asking the House to help us by telling us what their experience is on these difficult problems, and in the light of that discussion coming to the conclusion which they think right?
  Mr. Greenwood: May I put it this way, because this is what I would prefer—that early in the New. Year there will be a fairly reasonable opportunity, before the Government have made up their mind, for the House to express its considered opinion after giving the matter proper thought?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is just what I had in mind. I am afraid that I have a large area to cover, and I think it would be useful to the House if I were first to give a brief sketch of the post-war position as it seems to us likely to develop, pointing out the difficulties and also indicating the opportunities. Then may I tell the House the machinery which we have adopted in order to try and think out the answers to some of those difficulties? Finally, may I select some of the problems—and it must be an arbitrary selection, because there is not time to deal with more than certain of the problems on which we are working—and make a few observations about them?
  I start with a sketch of the post-war position. It seems obvious that however

  1079
  the war ends the immediate post-war period must be one of acute difficulties. The extent to which our people and our industries have been mobilised for war is far greater than it was in the last war, and the transformation of those industries from war to peace cannot be easily accomplished. There will be for a time, but not for a long time, shortages of all kinds of war materials which will prejudice the change-over. However skilfully we plan, these difficulties are bound to arise. They will call for the utmost tolerance, good temper and unselfishness on the part of all sections of the community, and the House can help by preparing the country for them, but making it quite plain that this period will not last long. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field asked a question about rationing and control. So long as these shortages last, we regard it as inevitable that we must continue with a system of rationing so as to ensure that what is available is fairly shared. Moreover, it is out of the question that all the measures of control which have been necessary to direct our whole national resources to the war effort, covering as they do every form of industry, manpower and raw material, can be immediately relaxed.
  Clearly we can lay down no hard and fast rules. Each measure of economic control and the question of its continuation must be looked at in the light of the post-war circumstances. Otherwise, the difficulties of the transition will be multiplied, and essential raw materials and resources will not be directed, as they should be, to turn our economy over speedily from war to peace. I believe that there is a psychological difference between this war and the last. After the last war nearly everybody was saying, "Let us get back to 1913." I am by no means so sure that everybody will say now, "Let us get back to 1938."
  Sir Herbert Williams: Was not a large difference that we were able to buy bananas and a few odd things like that in the last war?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I have a great deal of ground to cover, and I am trying to deal with serious issues. Facing this thing realistically, there will be one other danger hanging over our heads. That is the danger of inflation. In a situation in which there will be a shortage of consumer goods and a large amount of pur
  1080
  chasing power competing for a small supply, we have all the classical conditions for inflation. Let me say a word as to my understanding of this complicated question of finance. Most of us will agree that finance must no longer be our master. It has to be our servant, but let us not forget that a servant may be ill-treated or over-worked. All our plans must be subject to the limitation of our financial resources.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a distinction between financial resources and economic resources and that there are limitations only to economic resources?
  Sir W. Jowitt: There are limitations to all kinds of resources, and we shall not be able to do everything at once. I do not believe it is realistic to think that you can step straight from the rigours of war into a world of abundance. You must take first things first and try to find by good management an order of priorities which reflects the priorities of the national needs. If we do this properly we may reasonably hope that the resources for the execution of our plans will become available at a steadily mounting rate. I must not be taken as meaning that we must, in order to avoid inflation, take the opposite course of deflation. The one does not cure the other, any more than you can cure a burn by a frost-bite. I think it will probably prove desirable to maintain so far as we can our existing price structure, so as to avoid the consequence of disequilibrium which must arise from any rapid alteration of that structure. After the war there will be an immense demand for capital goods and consumer goods alike in this country and throughout the world. As soon as we have got over the temporary difficulty caused by shortage of raw materials and as soon as we have turned over our plant from war to peace production we shall be ready to play our full part in meeting the pent-up demands of our own people and of the rest of the world. This should result in years of very good employment, during which we shall have the time to perfect our plans for keeping our industry and employment at a high and stable level.
  After the people of this country have experienced the benefit of brisk employ

  1081
  ment in two wars they will not accept the view again that a large volume of unemployment is inevitable. We have learned much in the last 20 years, and it should not be beyond our powers, by a combination of methods, to achieve far greater success than in the past. We have had trade cycles, booms and slumps. Nothing seems to be more certain than that if you allow an artificial, unregulated boom to take place, it will be followed in a few years by an artificial, unregulated slump, artificial in its origin but real enough in its consequences. In the past, when the first sign of slump became obvious, everybody drew in his horns, everybody ceased his expenditure, with the result that the slump became worse. I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman said, if we can only see that the primary producer receives, and continues to receive, a fair return for that which he produces, we might go a very long way to breaking this trade cycle; and if notwithstanding our efforts the slump shows signs of coming we shall then—not in the boom times, but then—embark on our schemes of capital construction so as to secure a steady level of employment.
  I have always felt that war has this advantage over peace. In war you have a perfectly simple direct objective, the defeat of the enemy, and everything which stands in the way of that objective is put ruthlessly on one side, but in peace-time the objectives are so diverse, so different, one does not know which to aim at. I myself suggest that the objective we ought to aim at is the maximum employment of our people, and that to that end all our policies should be subordinated. We should allow nothing to stand in the way of our success in the fight against unemployment. The more efficient our industry becomes the more likely we are to succeed in that fight. If we can produce adequately we can consume adequately, and if we consume adequately we can produce adequately.
  The difficulties that have arisen in the past are not difficulties of production but of distribution. We have been in the past a creditor nation paying for our supplies of food and raw materials in part by exports, in part by services such as shipping, and in part receiving them as interest on
  1082
  our overseas investments. Our investments have been depleted, our shipping, at least for a time, has been seriously reduced. Yet we shall continue to need a supply of raw materials from abroad, and producers of those raw materials, if they want to sell them, as they certainly will, must take payment for them in exports. No nation can in the long run import unless she is prepared to export, and equally no nation can in the long run export without being prepared to import, unless she is prepared to upset the whole world economy. And we must realise this simple truth. The more prosperous other nations are the more prosperous we shall be ourselves. We must aim deliberately at improving the standard of living not only in this country but throughout the world in order that consumers abroad may be able to buy that which we produce. We must pursue on expansionist policy. It will not be enough for industrialists to follow the methods of their fathers or their grandfathers. Industry must be on its toes; it must show the same energy and activity as our armies in North Africa.
  But, given freedom from fear of aggression, I suggest to the House, and I am not being unrealistic, that the prospects of an increased standard of living throughout the world are almost unlimited. Think of Russia being able, assuming you get a satisfactory system against aggression, to devote to the services of peace all those vast energies she has had to devote to the service of war. Think of China, waking from her long sleep, and, under her great leader, looking forward to years of peace, order and good government. Think of India, with the leaders of India settling among themselves and for themselves their great political problems and being able to pay attention to improving economic conditions. Think, too, of our Colonial peoples—and surely the last word in Dominion trade has not been said.
  The misuse of science has got us into this trouble, and the right use of science has got to get us out of it. I believe we must become as a nation more scientifically-minded, prepared, whatever industrial system we may adopt, to adopt scientific methods and to aim at the greatest efficiency in those methods.
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether that is the reason why the Government only have two Members with a scientific training?
  Sir W. Jowitt: The problem which I have been putting to the right hon. Gentleman who began the discussion does not concern ourselves alone. It plainly concerns the whole British Commonwealth of Nations. It concerns that group which we have come to know as the United Nations. Indeed, it concerns the whole world, but in the first place the idea of the United Nations holds out the greatest hope for the construction of a system for the future. Collaborating in peace—as we have already collaborated in war—to banish the possibility of aggression, and then, in a world freed from the fear of aggression to build up, by joint action, a higher standard of living through the world, is the task which the United Nations should undertake. We have signed the pacts to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the Atlantic Charter, the Mutual Aid Agreement and the rest—and they point the way, but they have to be worked out in far greater detail.
  We have given much preliminary thought and work to these matters, and we are ready, and indeed are anxious, to press on with these discussions with our Allies. We are confident that, given good will on all sides, these discussions will lead to international collaboration of a kind which will carry the United Nations over the grave difficulties of the years immediately following the war and will lay the foundations of a new era of international trade. That is what we hope, and to that we are prepared to make our contribution. It is a great satisfaction to us to know that the International Labour Office, which has developed since the last war, has not only maintained itself but has functioned with great efficiency during this war. In working out schemes for raising international standards, His Majesty's Government will continue to collaborate with that organisation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to deal particularly with these aspects of reconstruction in the course of the Debate at our next Sitting.
  That is a sketch of the post-war world as we see it—temporary difficulties, a period of very good trade and a very fair prospect of reaching and holding a very great advance in our standards and the standards abroad. Now let me tell the House the machinery we have adopted in order to try to do some of those things. I am not a Minister of
  1084
  Reconstruction. There is no single Minister who could take sole charge of reconstruction problems. The problem is so vast that I doubt whether any one man ever lived who could tackle it. My task is merely to try to organise and co-ordinate the work of reconstruction which is being carried out by various Departments of State. Departments and their Ministers are immersed in immediate war measures, and it was thought desirable that there should be a Minister, standing a little apart from the immediate conflict who could consider all post-war problems as a whole before those problems become actual problems of day-to-day government. I am, therefore, head of an organisation which co-ordinates the views and anticipations of Departments about post-war problems. I should make it quite clear that my position in no way derogates from the responsibility of Departments to their Ministers.
  I preside over a Ministerial Committee. We try to work out practical schemes of reconstruction to which effect can be given in the first few years after the war. We presuppose in our plans a social and economic structure designed to secure equality of opportunity and service among all classes of the community. We do not confine ourselves to domestic problems. We must have regard to the economic needs of the various nations and, in particular, to the problem of adjusting the free life of small countries in a durable international order. To assist us, We have two official committees, one external and one internal, composed of highly placed and experienced civil servants. So far as my own staff is concerned, it is relatively small. It consists of ten or a dozen people as I am able to avail myself of the knowledge and experience in the possession of other Departments. Nearly all problems can be classified as falling primarily within the province of one particular Department. When any given problem comes up in our survey we ask the Department primarily concerned, in the first instance, to prepare a paper analysing the problem and suggesting methods of dealing with it. That paper then comes before the appropriate official committee. May I say that the work of these official committee's is most valuable? I can say that because the scheme was started by the right hon. Gentleman who is sitting opposite me. The idea is that you should

  1085
  have that problem, which is set out only from a departmental point of view, looked at from a much wider point of view from all angles, by experienced people. When that is done, and it is most valuable that it should be done in that way, it is passed on to the ministerial committee. If we come to a conclusion of sufficient importance it is then passed to the War Cabinet for approval.
  Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether any major decisions have already been taken?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I am coming to some of the actual problems. If the hon. Member will wait, he will hear one or two of them. I have described the machinery. May I make it plain, when I am asked about my plans, that when any particular scheme comes to fruition it is for the Minister primarily concerned to announce it to the House? He will get the ha'pence, but he will also have to bear the kicks. When he gets the ha'pence I shall like to think that the Ministerial Committee did something in the way of winter digging which has enabled him to harvest his crop. When he gets the kicks I shall bear them with that degree of fortitude which is appropriate in a colleague's troubles. There are instances where you cannot say which is the primary Department. For instance, with forestry, which I have been looking into, there is no Department primarily concerned with forestry. There is also demobilisation, which is the concern of many Departments—the three Service Departments equally. You can hardly say there is any Department primarily responsible. In those cases I take the role of what I call the primary Department.
  That is the machine. Now I shall turn to some specially selected problems. The first I take is one that was mentioned in this Debate, and I take it first because it may come upon us even before the war ends. It is the problem of the Occupied Countries. Many countries have been occupied, and I beieve that, on the whole, the occupation has been more ruthless and more brutal than any occupation recorded in history. The condition of some of those countries to-day is appalling and is likely to get even worse. Millions of people have been deprived not merely of the necessities of civilisation but of the
  1086
  necessities of life itself. "Plague, pestilence and famine," from which we pray to be delivered, will be stalking through those countries. The people are deprived of their transport, their industries and their machines. Their medical services have been sometimes uprooted and sometimes destroyed. Not only Christian principles but elementary principles of common sense make it incumbent upon us to do all we can to put these things right and to do it at once.
  More than a year ago, an inter-Allied Committee was set up in London to work out plans for European post-war relief. The preparation by the Allied Governments of their estimates of requirements is now well advanced. Since that Committee was set up, the war has extended to the Far East, and the relief problem now becomes a world-wide problem and not merely a European problem. Discussions have been initiated with the United States Government, which is represented on the London Committee, as well as with the Dominion Governments, and there is general agreement that the United Nations must be fully ready to meet the problem, when the time comes, as the first step in the restoration of economic conditions after the war. Consultations are now proceeding as to the best method of achieving that common purpose.
  I come now to a different topic which will come upon us immediately the war ends—demobilisation. It is quite obvious that we must prepare plans for demobilisation in advance. They cannot be extemporised. It is obvious, secondly, that any scheme of demobilisation must be subject to military needs. No fighting man can expect to be demobilised at all if and so long as his services are required for some definite military purpose. Subject to that, the broad principle on which we have drawn up plans is this, that discharge will be based in the main on age plus length of service. I do not want to say more about this at this time, because I think hon. Members will agree with me that it is probably undesirable to get into a demobilisation discussion at this present stage of the war. If I may use a golfing metaphor, I think it would be a glaring case of taking our eyes off the ball. What I would suggest is this. It is all a matter of time, but in good time and in due course we may disclose to the House the plans we suggest in order that they may be subject to discussion and debate and in

  1087
  order that we may see to what extent, if at all, those plans need amendment in the light of that discussion. It is of the greatest importance, first of all, that our scheme should be fair, and secondly, that it should be recognised as fair, because unless it is so, the scheme, however subtle and clever it may be, will not be followed. I would add that in our plans we have not overlooked the question of education and training for the young whose educational careers were interrupted by the war. Neither have we forgotten the disabled. We owe it to them to see that special provisions are made for them. We have got all those matters under detailed review.
  Then, of course, after demobilisation, we have to get the workers back into peace-time industry. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that we must survey the industries, industry by industry, because there is no one common problem that applies to all industries. Different industries have different problems. The structure of industry will not fit into one common mould. In some cases, perhaps, we should run the industry as a national concern, using possibly the method of the public corporation. In other cases the system of unlimited and free competition may serve us best. There are intermediate forms and types of structure between these two extremes. So long as the consumer is adequately guarded and is not crushed between the upper and the lower millstones, and so long as absence of competition is not used as an excuse for and does not lead to inefficiency, the Government will be very ready to take part in these discussions. For my own part, I feel quite convinced that in the future the points of contact between the Government and industry need to be strengthened.
  Mr. A. Bevan: Are we to understand that the Government have taken no decisions on these matters at all?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I am myself about to engage in discussions with the representatives of Industry and the Trades Union Congress on these questions, together with the question of the export trade. No, we have taken no decisions with regard to any particular industry at the present time. We want, before we do so, to hear very clearly what the industries want, how we can best help them. They
  1088
  are studying their own problems and they are likely to be able to judge their own problems better than we are.
  The export trade is, of course, a matter of great importance, because we shall always be dependent upon getting a substantial proportion of our food and raw materials from abroad. It must provide in the future as in the past a considerable source of employment for our people. That involves very energetic action by our own producers, and I hope it will involve this, too—I hope international co-operation will be forthcoming, so that we can secure an equitable distribution and orderly marketing of world supplies, so as to avoid the excessive variations in the prices of primary products which, from time to time, we have suffered from in the past Of course, it may well be that some of the export industries we used to rely upon in the past are no longer open to us to the same extent. We shall have to rely on technical advance, and the capacity of the human race to adjust itself to new conditions, to get out of that difficulty. Capital must be ready to seek new opportunities and labour must be prepared to be more fluid. The Government must be prepared to help in both directions. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade is presiding over a Committee of officials and business men on this question of the export trade, and we hope to receive their report shortly.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is touching a most important topic, namely, the rehabilitation of our export trade. I think he might amplify a little what he has said. He said the Government must assist in both directions, meaning as regards providing the capital and providing for the fluidity of labour. As regards the first matter, have the Government any plans in mind as regards assistance to industrialists in regard to the export trade? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says the Government "must," is that an exhortation to the Government or is it his own intention?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I said two things. First, that capital must be ready to seek new opportunities, and secondly, that labour must be prepared to be more fluid. I said the Government must be prepared to help in both ways. The actual help they are giving at the present

  1089
  time is this. First of all, they are entering into discussions to see what they can do to help. At the present time industry and industrialists are very much concerned with the war effort, and we are constantly up against the difficulty that if we ask people to switch over from that and give their time and attention to these baffling post-war problems, they say they can do it only at the expense of what they are doing now. Therefore, we have to proceed with caution and tact and at the same time with determination; and I think the most practical thing we can do is to go through this survey of the various industries and to make it quite plain that we as a Government are quite ready to listen to any representations from industries concerning their problems of the future. I am sorry to deal with these subjects very briefly, but the trouble is that we are debating the whole field of reconstruction, and there are so many problems. That problem alone would afford ample material for a day's Debate, but I must pass to the next problem.
  I want next to say somthing about housing, because it is obvious that in our plans for the future that must be given a very high place. Tremendous need arises for the repair of war-damaged houses, and for the building of a large number of dwellings of the right kind in the right places for those who have lived in slums or overcrowded houses, for families separated by the war, for young, couples who have married since the war started, and for others. If we are to get right down to it and to avoid delays, much preparatory work must be done before the war ends, such as the acquisition and surveying of sites and the preparation of lay-out plans. That is the background against which we are examining this problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has his Central Housing Advisory Committee, and, in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the rural aspect, he is busily assessing the needs and preparing ways and means of meeting them, just as my Noble Friend the Minister of Works and Planning is busily dealing with such problems as those of raw materials. I have not been unmindful when studying the Scott and Uthwatt Reports that housing raises the whole question of the acquisition and development of land. Housing in Scotland raises
  1090
  problems of great magnitude and complexity, and to these my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is already giving the most active consideration.
  That leads me to a few words about the Barlow, Scott, and Uthwatt Reports. I cannot say more than a few words, although each would be worthy of a separate Debate. All three advocate, though not in precisely the same terms, the establishment of a central planning authority. The Barlow Report discussed the geographical distribution of the industrial population and analysed the effect on our urban population of the industrial spread between the two wars. The Scott Report called for the rehabilitation of rural England. Then came the Uthwatt Report, with its two problems of compensation and betterment. All those reports performed a very useful service. I shall select one of them to-day—time forbidding the rest—and say something about the Uthwatt Report.
  That Report raised four main propositions; first, the machinery of the Central Planning Authority; second, the acquisition by the State of development rights in all undeveloped land outside built-up areas; third, the conferment on local authorities of wide and simple powers for the compulsory acquisition of land; and, last, a periodic levy on increases in annual site values. Some of these matters have been considered by our Ministerial committee and passed on by them to the War Cabinet, and I am able to-day to announce certain decisions. With regard to the first point, the central machinery, the Government have been giving consideration to the recommendations in the recent reports of the committees presided over by Lord Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Uthwatt in regard to the constitution of the Central Planning Authority.
  Both Reports rightly attach great importance to the correlation of Government policy in regard to town and country planning with the policies that are being pursued in agriculture, transport, industry and labour, public utilities, etc., policies compendiously described by the Scott Committee as "national organisation" and by the Uthwatt Committee as "national development," and both recommend the appointment of a Cabinet Committee for the purpose, under a

  1091
  specially nominated senior Minister as chairman.
  The Government fully accept the need for such correlation. It would not be appropriate for me to say anything at this stage which might bind this or future Governments to final acceptance of the Committees' view that this correlation could best be carried out by a Committee of Ministers presided over by a senior Minister. It is also relevant that, as the House is aware, the consideration of future policy in reconstruction matters is already proceeding under the supervision of a Committee of Ministers over which I preside, though all decisions of major importance arrived at by that Committee are submitted to the War Cabinet for their approval. In the initial stages it will naturally fall to that Committee to deal with the preparatory work which will be carried out during the war for bringing a national policy in regard to the control of the use of land (including town and country planning) into close accord with the general economic and social programme.
  With regard to the machinery for the control of the use of land and the administration of town and country planning, the Government have come to the conclusion, after giving full weight to the views expressed by the Scott and Uthwatt Committees, that in a matter so vitally concerning the lives and interests of everyone in the country the fullest measure of direct responsibility to Parliament must be maintained, and that executive responsibility must rest in England and Wales with a Minister of Town and Country Planning and in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In view of the increased responsibilities which will attach to the post of Minister of Town and Country Planning in the future, and of the importance of the Minister being able to devote the necessary time and attention to his task, the Government have decided to ask Parliament to constitute a separate Ministry of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales, under a separate Minister. This Minister will be a Member of the Ministerial Committee already referred to. His main function, in association with the Departments concerned, will be to ensure that the translation of the agreed national policy into terms of land use and physical development
  1092
  is conceived as a single and consistent whole.
  While they have not felt able to accept the recommendations of the Scott and Uthwatt Committees for placing the main responsibility for the control of town and country planning in the hands of a permanent Commission, the Government fully recognise the value of a permanent body of this kind as part of the machinery of the new Ministry. In then-view, there will be important functions for which a permanent Commission, acting under the Minister of Town and Country Planning, would be the most appropriate body, in connection, for instance, with the acquisition of development rights, if some such scheme were to be adopted. There are, no doubt, a number of other matters, such as the management of property, which could be usefully delegated to a Commission. In the legislation to be submitted to Parliament, therefore, the Government contemplate making provision for the appointment of such a Commission to assist the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
  Sir H. Williams: What is now to happen to the Ministry of Works and Planning, which has had three different titles in about three months?
  Sir W. Jowitt: The necessary adjustments will be made. This constitutes a separate Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
  Sir H. Williams: But what will happen to the Ministry of Works?
  Sir W. Jowitt: It will go on.
  Mr. Bevan: I think the whole House will have welcomed this decision by the Government; but will the Government undertake, as an additional Ministry is being appointed, a reconsideration of all the Government machinery, to abolish some of the redundant Ministries? If we have many more Ministries, the whole House of Commons will be in the Government.
  Sir W. Jowitt: I look forward to the day when I shall see the hon. Member associated with me. The second question is the acquisition by the State of development rights in all undeveloped land. We have as yet come to no conclusion on that

  1093
  very difficult problem. Our investigations are proceeding, and we shall welcome any representations—no doubt, we shall receive them—to see whether we should advance on these lines or on some similar lines or on different lines altogether. With regard to the third point, which is very important, the Government are proposing, in forthcoming legislation, to confer wide and simple powers on local authorities for the compulsory acquisition of land. It is, of course, no good having the powers unless you have the wherewithal to exercise the powers. The Government consider that local authorities, when preparing their schemes, should have in mind the objective that they should ultimately become self-supporting.
  This aim may not always be possible of achievement, at any rate for some time, and the extent to which schemes are not self-supporting will no doubt vary with their nature and general objectives. We shall be prepared to discuss with local authorities the extent to which, and the manner in which, assistance can be afforded by the taxpayer towards specific purposes forming part of the new plans in association with the assistance which is already given for such purposes as housing, schools or roads.
  In regard to the fourth point—a levy on increases in annual site values—we have come to no conclusion. That is probably a highly controversial matter. At any rate, it cannot become effective for some seven years. In any case it is not so urgent as the other problems.
  Mr. Messer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate any change in the form of local authorities?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I am not going to attempt' to deal with that now.
  Sir Joseph Nall: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer rather an important question relating to town and country planning? He will be aware that of some 56,000,000 acres already within the purview of existing legislation, some 26,000,000 acres are already the subject of plans in preparation or in draft, and are these plans already prepared or in draft to be thrown overboard, or will they be considered?
  Sir W. Jowitt: We certainly hope we shall be able to make use of all the existing plans. There are a few other problems I am selecting. I shall not attempt to say anything about health to-day. My right hon. Friend has had under active review all the health and hospital services of this country. He has made one statement, not long ago, and in due course I expect he will have something further to say. But I do want to say something about the whole policy of food and nutrition which underlies this. Surely, here we have learnt something during this war. The Ministry of Food has built up an organisation which has given us a distribution of food so organised as to secure the proper feeding of all classes to a degree never before achieved. Means have been devised for getting the food to the people in the best condition, in the right proportions, with a minimum of waste and with little regard to the extent or the size of the individual consumer's income. We have acquired, what is perhaps more important than any piece of administrative mechanism, a new sense of corporate responsibility. We are satisfying the basic needs of even the humblest individual citizen. Works canteens and British Restaurants in ever-increasing numbers are being installed to provide for Working people an opportunity of having a hot meal during working hours. Never before has so much attention been given to the food requirements of mothers and young children as in these war years. Thoughtful people ask, "Is it only in a period of war that special priorities are to be provided for workers, mothers, young children and infants? Is it conceivable that what has been done to keep our people in good health and good heart in a period of food shortage shall cease to be done when supplies become abundant again?" I for one cannot believe that the wise development which has taken place in the last few years should be abandoned after the war is over.
  Closely connected with food comes agriculture. What of the question of agriculture? It is a matter of common sense and common prudence for our own safety and our own well-being that we should never allow agriculture to drift back. My right hon. Friend announced a temporary policy on 26th November, 1940, which was to hold the field until some permanent policy could be worked out. We

  1095
  have been giving very close attention to formulating a satisfactory, permanent post-war policy. Of course, it is a problem which covers a very wide field, and it has to be considered in connection with other studies and considerations of national policy. They must take time, especially as many of those engaged on them are also engaged on urgent wartime work, but we have made considerable progress. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland hope that they will be in a position early in the New Year to embark upon preliminary discussions with the industry. The fisheries have also been under review. We have been studying the post-war condition of the fishing industry. As regards herrings, a committee is now investigating the post-war prospects, and as regards white fish the closest consultation is being maintained between the Departments and the fishing industry so as to try and put the whole industry on to an economic basis after the war.
  I pass to say something for a very few minutes about another topic—forestry. I cannot leave the home front without saying something about forestry.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves agriculture, will he assure us that consultations with the Dominions and other countries will also be carried out at the same time?
  Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly, Sir, it would be quite wrong to think that you could settle your agricultural policy in isolation. The whole problem has to be fitted in and considered as part of a concerted whole and as part of the reconstruction work as a whole.
  Mr. Granville: With regard to the reconstruction of the agricultural industry, does it mean that only the farmers' union will be consulted or does it mean that the workers' union will also be consulted?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I can leave that in the thoroughly competent hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who will consult whoever should be consulted on the matter. I am very ready to give way to hon. Members, but I have such a vast field to cover, I have already been a long time, and I want to be as
  1096
  short as I can now. But I want to say something about forestry. We now have had two wars, and in two wars we have come to realise the extreme danger of our position by reason of the fact that we are so entirely dependent upon the import of timber from abroad. That is so in time of war. We have had Commissions and Committees sitting on this matter. We had in 1908 a Commission recommending a planting programme of 150,000 acres a year, and if only we had planted 150,000 a year from 1908 we would have—assuming, and it is a big assumption, that we had the necessary knowledge to do it—been in a very much better position than we are now. In 1917 we had the Acland Committee, again set up under the stress of war, and it was thanks to that Committee that the Forestry Commission was established, although the recommendation of that Committee of the planting of some 20,000 to 30,000 acres a year spread over something like 80 years was a much too small programme and was dealt with in a much too leisurely manner. Even assuming we are going forever afterwards to live in times of peace and there is never going to be another war or a difficulty of imports in war does not arise, common prudence would call upon us to ask ourselves, "Are we quite sure we shall be able to get the timber?" We were spending something like £65,000,000 a year on timber imports before this war, and even if we are prepared to go on doing that, can we get it? We do not aim at autarchy. We do not want to become self-supporting; we want to see whether we are going to get our timber. Can we disregard the warnings we have had? The Acland Committee pointed out the danger of a world shortage, and a sub-committee of the Imperial Conference repeated the warning in 1926. The Economic Section of the League of Nations as recently, I think, as 1932 pointed out the danger, and no one with any knowledge of this subject has ever said that these are mere alarmist rumours.
  What are we to do? The Forestry Commission, although its work has been small—its grant has hopped about from year to year, sometimes high and sometimes low—has rendered extremely valuable service. It is, however, impossible to run a Forestry Commission on these lines. You must have a programme, be it large or small, to which you must

  1097
  adhere in good times and bad alike. Nevertheless, the Commission have demonstrated that no country in the world is more suitable for growing timber than our country, and they have also established a school of forestry in this country which is as good as any school of its kind in the world. Perhaps some hon. Members may have experienced the difficulty we had in the last war when working with English-grown pit props. If there was such a difficulty, if they were not up to the mark, it was because they were not grown under the best silvicultural methods. All that is now finished. We grow them as well as anywhere else in the world.
  As I have said, what are we to do? We have this danger in war and we have it in peace. As there are plain warnings that in time of peace we may have difficulty in getting the goods we want, as we grow timber as good as anywhere in the world and have a school of forestry as good as anywhere in the world, the Government have come to the conclusion that we must, after this war, embark upon a really vigorous forestry policy. We have given instructions to the Forestry Commission that so far as they possibly can, and as soon as they possibly can, they must take all necessary steps to get ready to go in for this programme as soon as the war ends. We have not worked out the precise details of our programme; it must be worked out as part of our reconstruction programme, but we are prepared and determined to embark upon a vigorous forestry policy, a policy which, I am sure, will commend itself to the House as a whole.
  Mr. Clement Davies: Have the Government decided to put this Commission under a Minister who will be responsible to this House?
  Sir W. Jowitt: That has not been considered, but it is one of the matters which is bound to come up for close review. I am appalled at the length of time I have taken and at the vast number of topics I still have to discuss, but I think any survey such as this would be incomplete if it did not make at any rate a passing reference to the question of the organisation and development of our utility services. Each of these problems is receiving the attention of the appropriate
  1098
  Minister to see whether any alteration should be made and, if so, what line the alteration should take. Take, for instance, electricity. I think everybody who thinks about it agrees that something should be done, although in the past there have been acute differences as to what that something should be. The McGowan Committee reported in 1936 and called attention then to what they described as "the complicated and in many cases uneconomic structure" of the industry. Yet the structure has not been altered. I say quite frankly that I am not in favour of change for the sake of change, but I believe there would be a large measure of agreement in all sections of the House with this proposition, that no vested interests and no politics, be they local or national politics, should prevent the business of electricity supply being organised on the most efficient possible basis. I believe that one of the most important means of helping our industry in the future is to provide it with cheap power, and the best chance of doing that is to see that your industry is so constructed as to be as efficient as it possibly can be.
  As regards water supply, we have had this problem under the closest review. Before the war, the Milne Committee had been appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and had made a series of recommendations, which came to this House in the form of a Bill from another place a few days before the outbreak of war. This Committee has been asked to get together again, to consider the whole problem, because if, as I hope, we intend to improve our rural conditions by putting in water supplies and proper sanitation, let us remember that it will make a very much larger demand on our available water. It is quite obvious that this must be carefully worked out and thought out, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend has asked that Committee to complete their recommendations so far as they can, as soon as they possibly can.
  Mr. Levy: Does not adequate water supply in this country involve the need for main drainage as well?
  Viscountess Astor: Does it include the provision of running water?
  Sir W. Jowitt: We are most anxious to bring that about. I agree that the problems of water and drainage are

  1099
  closely linked. I have selected some of the problems to try and show the House what we are trying to do. I could have gone on to some 50 others, but if I had done so the House would have been very impatient with me.
  Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend intend to say something about the future educational programme of the Government, because it is fundamental?
  Sir W. Jowitt: I intended to conclude with that. I wanted to clear up these matters first and conclude with education, which, I agree, is fundamental. Many of the problems I have indicated and discussed depend for their solution on international action. They must be held in suspense until we know whether we can or cannot come to satisfactory arrangements on the lines I have indicated.
  So far as Wales is concerned, I have appointed a Welsh Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Principal Rees. I have kept in touch with their work, and I feel confident that they will give me most valuable assistance. In the same way I should like to be kept closely in touch with the opinion of Members in this House in regard to many of these matters so that I may know on what lines we might try to tackle some of these problems.
  Now I want to conclude by consideration of the problem which I believe lies at the root of all our reconstruction problems and which is a sure foundation for the future, namely, education. During the last war the Fisher Act was a millstone—a milestone [Laughter]—a millstone round the neck of ignorance and a milestone in the way of education. I hope that in this war a Butler Act may prove another step along the road of advance because my right hon. Friend has had many discussions on the educational needs of the post-war world with representatives of the local education authorities, teachers, Churches and other bodies. There is no field of reconstruction in which there is a wider measure of agreement as to the need for educational advance or as to the main lines that advance should follow. The first task of any scheme of educational reform must obviously be to put the full-time schooling of the child on a sound basis. A satisfactory settlement
  1100
  of the necessary antecedents to educational progress is not quite so simple as is sometimes imagined, but my right hon. Friend's progress has been considerable, and there is good cause for hope that a measure of agreement may be reached, though the time is not yet for the House to take decisions, because there are many details still to be settled. I hope that at a very early date my right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of describing to the House the main topics under discussion.
  One aspect particularly concerns me. My right hon. Friend has asked me to advise him upon the units of local education administration; that is to say, the question as to the desirability of retaining separate local education authorities for elementary and for higher education respectively, and I am to receive evidence in due course on that topic from the associations of local authorities. I would only say this: In all this question of the differences which exist, and the prospect of agreement to-day, I hope that all these differences will be reconciled in the interests of the nation's children, and that a measure of agreement will emerge which will give us an education system of which we may be really proud. In Scotland the particular problem I mentioned about the separation between the two units of education authorities does not arise, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has this subject of education very near his heart, and he is reviewing all aspects of the Scottish educational system. One of his declared objects is that training in citizenship shall take its proper place in post-war education.
  I have done my long review, and though it has been very long I can plead two things. First of all, the task is an immense one; and, secondly, this is the first time I have had an opportunity of describing to the House at all the technique and the machinery which we have adopted to try to come to a solution. I said before that I did not think our problems would be solved by slogans. I am equally confident they will not be solved on the principle of "Wait and see." We shall need the best contribution which all parties and all sections of this House can make. May I say that I believe that underneath all our superficial differences, having regard to the experiences we have gone through together in this war, there

  1101
  is a deep underlying unity of purpose? I believe we are all of us determined to try to build up a better and happier Britain in a better and happier world. It will not be an easy task. It will need consideration, good will, unselfishness—if we can get it, international co-operation—but for my part, while I am quite realistic, I feel that if this nation can show those same qualities which it showed in those darkest days, we shall pull through to better days and happier times.
  Sir Cyril Entwistte: I desire to dwell upon one aspect of our reconstruction. I think that the aspect of our future foreign trade is fundamental to any of the schemes which we all desire. I think we are apt to overlook, in the full employment which we enjoy to-day under war conditions, the position in which the country was before the war. It is not only axiomatic, it is a commonplace to observe that the country depends on the maintenance of a certain quantity of exports if it is to live at all. The pre-war position was that we had an adverse balance of trade. That position will have been aggravated very much when we come to the end of the war. We have had to sell a large part of our foreign investments and our revenue from shipping will probably be reduced. In addition, we shall be faced with the increased industrialisation of those countries which before the war were our best customers for manufactured goods. Take the trade in which my own constituency is mostly interested—the cotton trade. That was and still is the largest export trade, but it is only a small fraction of what it was 10 or 20 years ago. There are two reasons for that. One is the development of the cotton industry in India, and the other increased competition from Japan. There is no doubt that in our Dominions, and in other parts of the world, owing to the stress of war, there will be an enormous increase in machinery and in the capacity of these countries to produce for themselves the goods which they formerly bought from us, and the position which will face us after the war, when there will be a big depletion of stocks, will be a very alarming adverse balance of payments.
  What is the Government's proposal for dealing with this position? Unless we
  1102
  can export sufficient to pay for our necessary imports of food and raw materials, none of the schemes of reconstruction which we all desire will be possible. The Paymaster-General has told us that reconstruction will depend for many of the things of which he has spoken on international co-operation, and he pointed out that it is essential, if international trade is to be prosperous, that countries shall regard it as an obligation and that if they want to export they must also be prepared to import and vice versa. I suggest that it is vital that the Government should be taking immediate steps at this time towards attaining this necessary international agreement on this vital factor.
  What was the position in international trade in the pre-war years? Some countries had export surpluses, notably the United States of America. I know we have had an anlysis of the causes that led to the world depression of 1929–31. It has been analysed time after time and various causes have been given for it, but in my opinion the most important cause was the alteration in the respective positions of creditor and debtor nations which had resulted after the 1914–18 war and the fact that, due to that war, the United States had developed a large export surplus. For a time she was willing to lend this surplus, but unfortunately she lent in certain directions, such as Germany, where there were so many defaults that she went to the other extreme and passed the Johnston Act which forbade any loans. Great Britain built up its trade prosperity on export surpluses, but we always played the game and those export surpluses were always lent for the purpose of developing different portions of the world. The export surpluses which the United States was not then prepared to take in the form of imports of goods, resulted in a large transference of gold to the United States which deranged the whole monetary system of the world. Other nations also tried to develop export surpluses, but most of them did so under conditions of extreme and violent competition in the neutral markets of the world, and there developed a trade warfare which was also one of the main causes of war.
  I submit that we have come to a stage in the world to-day when it is not possible to allow economic factors to work their own will under the free competition of nations which have enormously different standards of living. It is no good telling

  1103
  the manufacturers of Lancashire that by buying new machinery and reorganising themselves better they will be able to compete in the neutral markets with Japanese cotton manufacturers who not only have the latest machinery and an industrious people, but are paying probably one-fifth or one-tenth the wages which the manufacturers in Lancashire are paying. There is no possible basis on which Lancashire can compete with manufacturing conditions of that kind. What is the remedy? We often hear that we have to find some cure for poverty in the midst of plenty. We hear about the coffee and other articles which have been produced in surplus of the needs of the world and thrown into the sea. On the other hand, every one admits that the potential capacity of the world to produce is not now in excess, nor is it likely to be in excess for generations, of the actual physical capacity of the world to consume that production. How is it then that we are faced with this position of enormous potentiality, taking the world as a whole, and an apparent inability under existing conditions to absorb that potentiality?
  It is very difficult to find one simple cause for a result which has arisen, probably, from centuries of complex causes, but I think the main reason why the world is in this position is a non-recognition of what I think ought to be recognised as a fundamental fact, and that is that every nation if it wants to sell goods must also be prepared to buy goods. Let us suppose that that was the general rule of the nations of the world; and that they could do it in any way they liked, could do it under a Socialist system or under a capitalist system, do it by controlling their trade in whatever way they liked. Let us suppose they all agreed—and nations do enter into agreements. I am going to lay particular stress in a moment on the Wheat Agreement in which this country, the United States of America, Australia and Canada have entered into certain obligations which necessitate domestic measures being taken which are not yet settled but which they undertake to carry out. If each country entered into an obligation with the other countries of the world so to arrange its domestic affairs that its exports and imports will balance—and in exports I of course include the invisible items with which we are all familiar—then I think it follows irrefutably
  1104
  that provided each country were prepared to buy as much as it sold, the world could produce to its utmost capacity and there would not be any surpluses.
  Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman desires therefore to prohibit all export of capital, which, of course, involves the necessity of having a so-called surplus of exports?
  Sir C. Entwistle: My hon. Friend has asked about the export of capital. In the remarks I have made I want to eliminate money transactions. I am speaking of the balancing of exports and imports, and I said you would include in exports invisible items, but not movements of capital.
  Sir H. Williams: An export, of capital is an export of a lot of capital goods, not an export of money. Therefore, that involves that the exporting countries must have an excess of exports over imports.
  Sir C. Entwistle: If my hon. Friend will have patience I will deal with that point. With regard to the export of capital in the form of goods, which he says must of necessity be a surplus of exports over imports, I suggest that the only satisfactory way in which that could be dealt with would be under international regulation. We have heard how in the Wheat Agreement surpluses are to be taken care of by an international committee for the purpose of providing wheat for depressed or backward countries such as China and also the enemy-occupied countries, which will be so denuded of food. If in the past a country had a surplus of exports which it wanted to get rid of it was able to export that surplus under loans or credits and so on, which you may call an export of capital. They have generally been loans, which could be put an end to at any moment, as was the case in the United States which I have mentioned and then one immediately got a derangement of the monetary system. Why should not those surpluses be dealt with in an orderly and regulated manner by an international development commission which should have actual practical schemes of world development in countries like China and India, where these things are properly organised, and where there will be a complete distribution of any surpluses which are available on a basis of full employment? That is the

  1105
  satisfactory way of dealing with surpluses; but there must be an acceptance of the general rule that a country, except to the extent that its surpluses will be absorbed in a regularised way by a world development commission, must accept the obligation of balancing its imports and exports.
  If that is done, however much science may increase the capacity of production and however much the machine develops, at no time will you be faced with the position of a production and supply of goods in excess of the available demand. [An HON. MEMBER: "It never happens."] Oh, yes, it does. You get them in excess of the present purchasing power. What has happened under the laws as they worked in the past? Supply is immediately in excess of the apparent available demand, and then there has to be a steep fall in prices before any of that increased quantity can be absorbed under existing purchasing power. You may say that that would be all right if it ended there, but under the system by which industry was carried on by these countries, it did not end there. Every industry was then making heavy losses and could not go on. Bankruptcy was facing the whole of the industrial system, which was forced to adopt the remedy of restricting trade to try to get rid of those very surpluses which have depressed world prices. It is this blight of the unregulated surpluses, for which there is no available demand under existing channels of purchasing power, which causes world slumps and world depression of prices.
  We ought to try to ascertain the fundamental cause of the ills under which countries have suffered in the past. I submit that if countries are under an obligation to purchase as much as they sell, you will get rid of the trouble, but you want machinery for facilitating countries to buy as much as they sell In my opinion that machinery has already been provided for us in an agreement to which very little allusion has been made in this House, but which I consider to be one of the greatest achievements of this Government, and that is the International Wheat Agreement. The significant thing about that agreement is that its initiation came from the United States of America. It is clear that I am advocating international co-operation, and the reason why
  1106
  I am advocating it now and why it has to be considered during the war, is that there will be no other opportunity for bringing about world agreement with desirable aims such as will arise at the end of the war, when the United States, the British Empire and the Soviet Government of Russia will have been the main authors of the victory of which we are all so confident.
  The United States of America is one of the countries where one would naturally expect the greatest difficulty in getting recognition of the principle of balancing exports and imports, because they have a large surplus of exports. But from all the public declarations that have been made by President Roosevelt and Mr. Cordell Hull, it seems to be quite clear that, as far as the official view of the United States Government is concerned, there is a substantial recognition of this basic principle, and at any rate a desire for a sympathetic approach towards it. That does not mean there will not be great difficulties in their getting the consent of the United States industrialists, but it is important that they have made a wheat agreement which recognises that the production of an article that enters into world commerce, and one of the greatest of them, namely, wheat, is internationally regulated. The production is regulated on the basis of the existing capacity of these countries. The proportion in which the production shall be allocated between the main wheat producing countries is arrived at, and then adequate machinery is set up for building up stocks and surplus stocks and for making these surplus stocks available to meet the needs of countries like China and India where the purchasing power is in a very low condition. If you have similar international product agreements with regard to the main products that enter into the foreign trade of the world, you will get a substantial basis of countries balancing their imports and their exports.
  You will, of course, have a large quantity of specialised manufactured goods about which you will not need to have world product arrangements, but they will be subject to that one fundamental condition of all foreign trade—that countries must balance their imports and exports. In my view, these principles should be recognised and there should be international product committees for taking

  1107
  the potential consumption of the world of all those commodities which enter largely into foreign trade, not on the basis of any former pre-war agreements with regard to commodities, known as international cartels which were all on a restricted basis, but on the basis of full employment in the industries producing those articles that enter into commerce—an amicable arrangement with regard to the proportions in which the product will be produced between various countries and then an assured disposal of that production by the recognition of the fundamental principle that a country must buy as much as it is prepared to sell. Another fact which must be recognised is that when you have arrived at these international product committees, there must be a stabilised price for the commodity over a given period. I know that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who is perhaps one of the most violent individualists in the House, hates everything I am saying, because he dislikes anything in the nature of an agreement or a regulation, but can anyone doubt that if you had stabilised prices for the main products which enter into the commerce of the world, it would be an inestimable benefit to the world as a whole?
  Sir H. Williams: Would the price of potatoes be the same in a year when there was a glut as in a year when there was a shortage?
  Sir C. Entwistle: No, the price would not be fixed in that way. It might only be fixed for one year, or for two years, or it might be fixed for six months. The factors will then have to be redetermined. But there will not be this glut if you have surpluses properly regulated, and channels available for their distribution. I was pointing out the advantage of having a stabilised reasonable price for the commodities which enter into world trade, instead of a scramble and cut-throat competition.
  Sir Alfred Beit: How can this international commission dispose of these export surpluses better than anyone else; and will not the fact that they have large stocks have an equally depressing effect on the market?
  Sir C. Entwistle: No. This international commission would make a percentage levy on the export trade of every
  1108
  country. That is a common form provision in rationalisation agreements in industries in this country to-day. There is nothing unusual about it. A great many industries have recognised the tremendous advantages to be obtained from a fund which is able to purchase surpluses and dispose of them. Let us assume a stabilised price in a commodity which enters into international trade. Let us take cotton goods. Can anyone doubt that if the Lancashire cotton trade knew that it had an assured market for a given quantity of cotton goods at a price, even if that price were lower than the average price that had been obtained in the past, the very fact that they had an assured market with an economic price would enable them to plan for their own home production on lines which had never been possible before? It is only on such lines that there is any hope for the export trade of this country, the future prosperity of this country, and the prosperity of the world. One would think from the interruptions I have had that I was suggesting something very revolutionary, Utopian, or unpractical, but all I am pleading for at the moment is that we should adopt, this International Wheat Agreement which the Government have entered into with the United States and other wheat-producing countries as a model for other agreements with regard to other main products in international trade. The firs' article to the Wheat Agreement has these words:
  "The Government agree that this requires the adoption and pursuit of national and international policies aimed at a fuller and more efficient use among nations of human and natural resources, and thereby a world expansion of purchasing power. Recognising, therefore, that much that is called for transcends the scope of the wheat agreement, and requires action on a broad international basis.…"
  So there is a recognition by the United States, this country and other countries concerned that the Wheat Agreement is only a stepping-stone, and that similar international action is necessary for increasing the world purchasing power, to enable a vastly increased world production of goods to be absorbed by the world as a whole. I think the Wheat Agreement took a long time to negotiate. It was by no means easy to negotiate. But that does not mean that 20 or 30 or 50 more such agreements cannot all be done simultaneously. The representatives of the trades concerned could all meet at the

  1109
  same time. You would not want the same numbers on each of these committees. I appeal to the Government to see what can be done, by approaching the other Governments, with a view to entering into as many agreements on the lines of the International Wheat Agreement as they can at the earliest possible moment. Having done that I hope they will carefully examine the implications of that wide agreement and of the principle which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Paymaster-General himself enunciated, that if trade is to continue on orderly lines and if the world is to be prosperous, as it is capable of being, it can only be done on the mutual basis of give and take and that countries which want to sell are prepared to buy. They have to recognise that as an international obligation, and I am sure that with the influence of the two great nations—if we can get the United States of America to agree on the problem—the rest of the world will be prepared to follow. If that is recognised as a fundamental principle then there is something to be said for the possibilities of the future prosperity of the world, and the old cry of poverty among plenty will be rendered unnecessary in the future.
  Mr. Graham White: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir C. Entwistle) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the special theme which he has made the subject of his remarks. In connection with all these international agreements which we may make, we must remember that the overriding document is the Atlantic Charter. I would remind hon. Members that there is a Tin Control Agreement, which should be looked at very carefully. It is already the basis of some suspicion and doubt in this connection.
  The House has welcomed this Amendment as giving an overdue opportunity for discussing Britain's war aims and peace aims. Everyone who heard him will, I know, be grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Paymaster-General for his exhaustive survey of the whole situation, and with most of the statements he made and his forecast for the future, I think, very few people will quarrel. I am bound to say that it is a little disappointing at this time to find that in a survey of a field of that magnitude there are still only
  1110
  four decisions which have been taken, and two of these were negative. Now that this Debate has taken place it is not only important from the point of view of our people at home, but it is also of the utmost consequence in America, in Soviet Russia and in all the Allied countries that it should be clear beyond doubt that present unity in war aims is an essential condition of Allied unity at the end of the war. That is why I welcome the Debate to-day. Do not let it be said that Britain's war aim is Britain's best-kept war secret. We do hear that said, and it is important that that sort of sentiment should disappear.
  My right hon. and learned Friend was by no means exaggerating the difficulties we should find before us from now onwards. It is quite true, as he said, that everything will depend upon co-operation but we do not need to be reminded that when the war comes to an end we shall be confronted with a situation the like of which man has never seen before. In the first place, we shall have a nation of 90,000,000 from whom truth and reality have been carefully concealed for 10 years. What will those people do when they are disillusioned? In addition, can anybody estimate what will be the effect upon the state of Europe when the mass martyrdom of mind and body which has been inflicted on the occupied countries ceases and the most elementary emotions of hatred are given free play? It must, indeed, create a grave and difficult situation. It will require not only leadership of high quality and tolerance to a remarkable degree but it will also require a very much wider understanding of the issues which are involved by the peoples at large, than has been shown up to the present time.
  We have travelled a long distance since we were told that Britain's war aim was to beat Hitler and destroy all his works. I very much doubt whether the people of this country realise that in future all our affairs will be foreign affairs. I see that groups of industrialists and others have been considering problems of reconstruction after the war as though they will be free to work very much as we in the past. I entirely agree that the sole responsibility cannot lie on this House. If I were speaking in Hyde Park I would say to people, "Do not leave it to the 'know-alls.' They cannot do everything;

  1111
  you must take a hand yourselves in these transactions. It is not possible for the reconstruction and regeneration of this country to be carried through by those whose sole business it is "to know rather than to act." It is of the greatest importance that the people should realise that whereas at this moment, there is one supreme aim—to win the war—when the war is over there will be a magnitude and diversity of tasks of every variety for everyone of public spirit. I do not believe anybody will quarrel with the four principles which my right hon. and learned Friend laid before the House as the basis of reconstruction. First, he said, there must be complete victory. There is nobody who has any doubt about that.
  The second conclusion was that we should not get very far unless we could really depend upon freedom from fear through some organisation which will place power and authority behind the hands of justice. Then my right hon. and learned Friend dealt with machinery and, lastly, said that no reliance should be placed upon slogans. I think one ought to place reliance on slogans a little higher in the list, because there is no more misleading thing than a slogan. It is seldom realised that the most effective slogan is one which makes the least contribution to the solution of the practical problems which are in hand. He is quite right in saying that in the problems we are attempting to deal with, and the manifold difficulties which will confront us after the war, we shall get no help from slogans.
  We can get no help from wishful thinking, but only from hard work and clear thinking. Also, unless people are seized of the importance of their individual contribution, we shall not necessarily succeed by means of adroit measures in this House. It is only if we can succeed in securing, not only leadership, but a people anxious to be led, anxious to make their own individual contributions, that we shall come through the difficult times ahead of us. I am sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has left the House. I was on the point of making a very helpful suggestion that he might take into consideration. At this time of the year the financial pundits are always busy looking for expedients to help to relieve the finances of the country. I was about to suggest, when the Financial Secretary precipitately
  1112
  left, that he might very well devise a scheme of graded taxes upon slogans of various degrees for the reduction of the national debt. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education will be good enough to pass the suggestion along. I think there is a good deal in it.
  On what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said regarding planning in relation to industry I think there will be different opinions, but at all events a considerable measure of agreement. I think I speak for a large majority of people in this House when I say that all our post-war planning must be planning for freedom, planning in fact for what our people in all the Services—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Is that a slogan or not?
  Dr. Edith Summerskill: It is not dangerous, anyhow.
  Mr. White: I was proceeding to say that my hon. Friend must plan for freedom, that is to say, that all our machinery, all our policies, must be continuously and consciously devoted to an extension of, freedom, what, in fact, our Forces are fighting for, and for what, with our Allies, they are making such immense sacrifices at the present time. If we do not follow that policy consciously and continuously we may very well, if we listen to this or that group, seeking to manage some section of our common life for us, approach the totalitarian State without in the least realising where we are going. We must work consciously and continuously for democracy, bearing in mind the terrible example of the totalitarian State.
  One announcement made by my right hon. and learned Friend will, I think, give satisfaction so far as it goes; that is the statement that there is to be a central body for planning and a Minister of Town and Country Planning. That is a matter of the very greatest consequence, because from one end of the country to the other there are local authorities who are waiting for decisions on this point in order to get on with their work. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) in the course of his observations said he felt there were a great many people who thought that all planning and policy-making should be put off until the end of the war. I do not

  1113
  think there are very many people like that, but there is one policy which cannot be left until the end of the war, because if the matter is left until the war is over it will never be done at all.
  That is a comprehensive scheme for dealing with unemployment. It is also the most important of all the plans psychologically. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not more forthcoming in what he said on that matter. There is nothing that would put greater heart into everyone concerned than a plain statement from the Government that they believe that a policy of full employment is possible and are determined to work to that end. Experience in the last few years ought to teach us that it is possible. There is nothing more ridiculous than to say that if we are spending £12,000,000 a day for war and destruction, at least we can spend £6,000,000 for the glorious purposes of peace. Nothing could be more futile than observations of that kind. But if we are to look at the problem in its proper dimensions, we can see great possibilities in the light of the experience of the last two or three years. In 1938 the total expenditure from private and public savings on capital goods was £900,000,000. It was a year of rather indifferent employment. In the light of recent experience it would appear that, had the national income at that time been raised by 10 or 15 per cent., that is to say, if the expenditure had been increased to £1,250,000,000, we should have had a state of employment very much greater and bordering upon full employment. There is nothing impossible in it if we are prepared to pay the price. We have to pay the financial price and the price of much greater mobility of labour, and to get rid of many of the restrictions which have hampered our national life and development in one way or another in the past.
  I should like to refer to what I, and I think my Friends, think should be the policy of full employment after the war. I think not only that democracy requires a long-term policy, but they ought to see very clearly before them the ideals of the immediate future. If I had the responsibility for directing post-war policy, I should wish to see that the rebuilding of Britain in all the aspects of rebuilding which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned—housing, rehousing,
  1114
  public building for every form of human requirement—should be set on foot. Let us keep that vision before us, and let the people see it clearly. If we set that process on foot, there is no reason why in three or four years we should not employ for 20 or 25 years twice as many people as we employed in the building trade in 1938. Think of the immense ancillary employment in a multitude of other directions that it would create. I wish that we could have had from my right hon. and learned Friend a more positive statement of intentions with regard to employment. It would have done much to remove the anxiety, doubt and cynicism which are in the minds of very large numbers of people. I saw a document the other day which had written across it, "What is to happen to me after the war?" It was an alleged complaint from a serving soldier. That is not the way to serve the serving soldier. We in this House can do something to clear the way. I do not think that questions of that kind are in the minds of serving soldiers. It is rather what they are going to do after the war, and we should do what can can to set them on their feet in times to come and to help them to create a Europe and a world fit for human habitation. On all these grounds there is room for optimism.
  My right hon. and learned Friend reminded us that there would be a great demand for capital for purposes of industry and development. This is a matter which interests not only industry but the consumer. I would quarrel with him a little on this question, because he seemed all through his speech as though he were talking of industry from the producer's point of view. We need a policy of expansion, turning our backs on the policy of restriction which obtained for 15 years before the war, a policy which was not, as is so often said and, I think, wrongly said, due solely to a desire to make great profits. It was more often a device for the purpose of avoiding what appeared to be inevitable and substantial losses. We must get away from that policy of restriction in both our domestic and international trade. We must have a policy of expansion in the interests of consumers.
  I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would, as an immediate practical step towards post-war policy, set on foot a continuing inquiry into the effects of the present heavy rates of taxation and

  1115
  Excess Profits Tax upon the future position of industry. I am not making any plea for reducing the Excess Profits Tax, but, as far as I can make out, the Treasury are woefully neglectful of the effect on the capital market after the war of the constant draining away from industry in the form of taxation of the money which would normally be put on one side for the renewal of plant and machinery. That is a matter of great importance which is not generally recognised. I know one plant which will require millions of money to be spent on it when the war is over. Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Paymaster-General that it will be quite impossible under present conditions for industry to find those sums of money unless some such expedient as a development of the Trade Facilities Act is adopted. I am not mentioning that in the interests of any industry but simply stating it as a fact which I believe, and I invite the Treasury to set up an inquiry into that aspect of the matter.
  Mr. Boothby: The hon. Gentleman will not forget that industry does expect to receive back and will receive a substantial part of the payments under Excess Profits Tax.
  Mr. White: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He refers, I take it, to the "cushion." If he is referring to the 20 per cent., I would remind him that that is less 10s. tax, and that the capital requirements of industry as a whole will be out of all proportion to the 10 per cent. left. That 10 per cent. will be quite insignificant. It will not be a difficulty which will confront industry alone but the nation as a whole, and it is a difficulty which must be faced.
  Another aspect of the matter which I would mention is that in any future development of industry from overseas the headquarters and sales departments of businesses will not be centred in London or in this country if taxation is at a level which is very much higher than it is in other countries. That is another matter which I should like remitted to the inquiry, because it is one of immediate urgency. What would happen to the engineering industry and the engineering profession in this country if mining businesses which now have their headquarters in London were driven away because taxation was so much higher here than in
  1116
  other countries? This is another matter for international co-operation, and I ask the Government to take action with regard to it. I leave it there now, because I have already spoken much longer than I had intended.
  When the wave of violence which has advanced over Europe and submerged the possibility of decent life passes away, we shall have to reshape our courses, and there will be an opportunity, the second opportunity in a lifetime, of trying to make a better world. We failed after the last war. There was an uncontrolled movement, a clever combination of cash and crooks which killed the idealism with which people were imbued at the end of the last war. In the present state of Europe and after what it has been going through, we can only pray, after the efforts which have been made by ourselves and our Allies, that, on this second opportunity, we may not fail as we did before.
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I correct him—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bowles.
  Mr. Bowles: I do not often have the privilege of addressing this House, but I am grateful for the opportunity of doing so now. I listened with very great interest to the rather long speech of the Paymaster-General, and I came to the conclusion, in which I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that it was difficult to find any positive evidence as to any decisions yet come to by the Government. We have had several Ministers of Reconstruction, commencing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). For the last two and a half years we have had a Minister of Reconstruction inquiring and inquiring. Apparently, committees are still being set up to go on making further inquiries. It seems to me, the war news being as good as it is, that the war might come to an end much earlier than the Paymaster-General would like and that he will not have his plans ready if the war comes to an end in the next 12 months.
  Was there anything in his speech that would give comfort to the soldiers or to the great mass of the people in the working classes, who remember, or who have been told, of the great mass of unemployment which existed in this country two

  1117
  years after the last war? Towards the end of Coalition Government days, the number of registered unemployed in this country was not less than 3,000,000. Those facts are not forgotten by the great mass of the people. They do not forget what they came back to, when the industries were very largely being glutted by reparations imports or imports of shipping from Germany, and that for many years the mass of unemployment that existed undermined the morale of large numbers of people. Had I spoken before the Paymaster-General made his speech, I would have said that about half our industrial population was cynical and half hopeful about after-war prospects. When they read his speech to-morrow they will no doubt look at it carefully, and they will be disappointed. I imagine the proportion of cynics will go up from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent.
  From speaking to people in my constituency and from what I learn at meetings I address, I know that nothing is likely to raise larger cheers than to promise that you will do everything you can to see that the world is not the same as it was after the last war. Cheers are an indication of some kind of feeling. On Friday last I heard on the wireless, after the Secretary of State had addressed the Foreign Press Association, the B.B.C. go out of its way to report that his reference to General de Gaulle was received with very great cheers. The Government are prepared to use cheers as an indication of the popular view. There is nothing that will enthuse people more than a promise that you will see to it, if possible, that the old world will not be repeated. Of the 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. who, I think, are hopeful and without the cynicisms of the older generation, it would be disastrous if they were let down in any way. It is the duty of this House, which is made up of elected representatives of the people, to see to it that this war is not fought in vain as the last war very largely was.
  People are fighting Fascism and to get rid of the bad conditions under the old system. They are concerned about having a decent world after the war. I find a great deal of cynicism about what is to happen after the war. Many have a fear that they will lose the good wages which they are now getting. They have a great dread of mass unemployment. It is a
  1118
  most awful thought that peace has more horrors than war for most people. On Saturday I came across one of the most terrible cases I have ever heard of. I have here the local Press report of a coroner's inquest. A miner pinched his finger in the pit, on 7th December, 1938. The accident caused a large black blister. He worked for three days and, owing to pain, had to stop work. On 20th December, the finger was lanced and the nail was removed. A week later part of the finger was amputated, and in the last week of 1939 he had the whole finger amputated. He started at the colliery as a night watchman, but, owing to his feet being discoloured and paining him, he was sent to a certain infirmary where they could do nothing for him.
  In September, 1940, the deceased went to Nuneaton general hospital and had his right leg amputated just above the knee. He came home in December, 1940, and after being in bed for some months, was able to get about on crutches. In February of this year, one of his thumbs had to be lanced and half the nail taken away. There were then symptoms in the little finger of his right hand, and one Monday in August last he had, his little finger amputated. On the Tuesday he went to bed, and he died the next morning. The widow of this man gets no workman's compensation. So far the case has been turned down, but I intend to go into the case myself. It seems incredible that a person should have to go through the most tremendous legal expenses to fight for these things. In my own office, as a solicitor, I have a row of books on workmen's compensation cases as broad as two arms. It is fantastic that a widow in conditions of this sort should not be looked after by the community, as I hope will be recommended in the Beveridge Report, within a system of social security such as we are fighting for.
  As I have said, great hopes still persist in the minds of many people in regard to post-war reconstruction, and nothing could be worse than that those hopes should be frustrated. The House has the bounden duty not only to consider what it might do or what ought to be done, but to make certain that something is done. It seems to me that the outlook is hardly reassuring. It will be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)

  1119
  was dismissed from his position in February of this year, at a time when the military situation was not very satisfactory, and yet he was a person who had little, if anything, to do with the central direction of the war. In his place, although not in the same position, the Government brought in the right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—and it was right that they should do so—because of a great popular belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would represent something which the country wanted to see done, and that thing was in reference to the post-war world. About a week ago, at a time when our military situation is on the face of it better, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was demoted to the position of Minister of Aircraft Production. Then we find that the Prime Minister has made two speeches recently, one at the Guildhall and one over the wireless last Sunday night, and those speeches make one wonder whether the Government are really in earnest about post-war reconstruction. May I quote one sentence from the Prime Minister's speech last Sunday? He said:
  "The most painful experience would lie before us if we allowed ourselves to relax our exertions, to weaken the disciplined unity and the order of our array, if we fell to quarrelling about what we should do with our victory before that victory had been won."
  Does that speech, and the speech at the Guildhall, square even with the no doubt perfectly sincere and earnest desire of many Members of the Government and many hon. Members on both sides who support the Government that reconstruction should take place? It was noticeable to some extent that Members of the Conservative party were not very anxious during any moment of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Paymaster-General. I saw no attempt on their part to rise on their toes or to ask a question, except for the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), who asked a question about water, on which he is an expert, on the whole, I rather feel that the Conservative party are not anything like so interested in the question of reconstruction as we are on these Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall just see how each party behaves when the real light starts in February. Whether it is worth having any Debate on this matter in February, I do not know. The Government are still in the stage of inquiry, and have not come to any decision, except on
  1120
  two points which are negative, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White).
  Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member has plenty of representatives of his own party in the Government. Why does he not approach them, as they are just as much responsible as, and even more responsible than, our representatives?
  Mr. Bowles: I have discussed it with them; but the main body of the Government consists of Members of the party opposite.
  It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of, moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and forty-three, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-four, being expenses which, under any of the four last mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December, and the said thirty-first day of March, respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Captain Crookshank.]

  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

  WEAVING MILL, TAYPORT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to raise the question of the threatened closure, under a Concentration Order, of the firm of Messrs. Scott and Fyfe's jute weaving mill in Tayport, Fife, about which I have addressed Questions to the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade. I had hoped to be able to avoid bringing this question to public notice, because I realise that there are questions of public security involved; but all my efforts to settle the matter behind the scenes has failed, and, as the subject is of vital concern to the life and livelihood of my constituents, I have no alternative but to bring it before the House, and to seek its justice. The jute industry, like many others, has been compelled to suffer contraction because of the needs of the war effort. Some time ago a first measure of contraction took place which proved insufficient, and a further instalment has been ordered. I do not contest the basic need of that step, although I have the gravest doubts of the wisdom of its direction, even in theory. But I am here to protest against the form which the new contraction has taken and the method adopted to carry it into effect.
  It is on this point that I appeal for the sympathy and protection of the House. I do not know the extent of contraction decided upon. The concentration committee in Dundee declined to meet me or to provide any information to the Scottish Advisory Council of Industry set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I do not fancy that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is going to give me any more information to-day, though he is chiefly responsible for the scheme. Nor have I any exact figures, because these too are wrapped in secrecy, of the extent to which the scheme of concentration is to be spread over the various towns and mills where jute is now spun or woven. But this I do know, that while many large weaving establishments will remain in operation in Dundee—that city of the jute baron's and that great trade union with whom they collaborate—the small town of Tayport—and there may well be other small towns
  1122
  similarly threatened—where there is neither big business nor big unions but only a small independent enterprise, the only weaving mill in existence has received sentence of execution. The weaving mill concerned has been established and has been working with scarcely a day's idleness for over 70 years. It is one of only two substantial work places giving employment to the 3,000 people in the town. It is therefore not only part and parcel of the community, but a vital element in their life. Close down the mill and you will rob the citizens of that town, the people immediately employed and all the humble merchants and tradesmen serving their needs, of the sure means of livelihood. If there is any doubt as to that, let the House look at the appeals made by the Fife County Council, the Tayport Town Council, the Scottish Advisory Council for Industry and the Scottish Office—all appeals addressed to the Board of Trade. Why is this mill closed down? Not because it is old-fashioned. It is very well situated for transport by road, rail and sea. It is much more modern in machinery and layout and has very much more harmonious relations with its workers than many of the mills on the other side of the Tay. It is not because it is inefficient or idle. On the contrary, it has competed, and has always successfully competed, with its rivals in the field in price and quality. It is and has always been busy, with its books well filled with orders, every one of these orders being for vital elements in war production.
  Why then is this firm being concentrated? I have no difficulty in getting the official answer. It is, according to the Board of Trade, and the Jute Control in Dundee, to be closed because the looms now operated in the Tayport Mill are mostly of the 76-inch size, which cannot take two 40-inch widths. These, it is said, are too wide or too narrow for the bulk of the present requirements of Supply Departments. Therefore, says the President of the Board of Trade and his panzer division of controllers and committees and officials, the Tayport Mill must close. If that edict were to be made applicable universally throughout the jute trade, I admit that my case would be less strong than it is to-day. But I found on making inquiries in Dundee that there are many looms of exactly the same size, suffering apparently from exactly the

  1123
  same defects, still in operation and designated to remain in operation after this concentration scheme has been set going. I was not given the number of such looms. It would have been rather dangerous, I suppose, to make the figure public, but I am advised that the number is large. The Parliamentary Secretary may well reply that it is more economical, if certain types of looms are to be stopped, to stop them in large, blocks rather than in twos and three in different mills. But if that is his answer, I must ask him to tell the House how many large blocks of looms—shall we say 40 or over, as they have in Tayport—are still to be left running in big businesses in Dundee? I think he will find their number is still considerable. Why are these particular looms being left in Dundee? For the obvious reason that there is work for them. They will be performing exactly the same work which the Tayport Mill is performing to-day.
  The truth is that this argument will not stand examination. Nor, I think, will the related argument with regard to labour. When I asked what was to become of the work-people who would be thrown into idleness as the result of the Tayport weaving mill being closed I was told that the bulk of them would be transferred to the neighbouring spinning mill, the only other substantial work-place in the town. The Board of Trade recognised, though the Concentration Committee did not, that without some alternative employment extreme hardship would be suffered by work-people in Tayport. And this was the alternative they offered me. I am neither comforted nor impressed by that answer. In the first place it takes time to make a weaver into a spinner. Weaving is an entirely different job from spinning. Middle-aged women—and it is those for whom I am principally speaking to-day—do not readily, pick up a new technique, to make it pay a fair wage. When I was in Dundee during the week-end I asked a member of the official committee of the industry which is dealing with the training of labour how long it would take to make a weaver into an efficient spinner. This man, with his profound experience, told me that it would take a year or longer.
  What is the value to the national effort of a transfer of labour when it takes such a long time to become efficient? In the meantime that labour, being inefficient, will have to suffer considerable wage
  1124
  reductions from its present scale. Is that fair? I do not think it is.
  There is another reason. The assumption underlying the closure of the weaving mill at Tayport and the transfer of its workers is that there is a surplus of weavers at the present time. That was the explanation given to me in all official circles, so far as I can recall. It is a false assumption and is wholly disproved by the facts. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary knows that an official committee of the jute industry is taking steps at this very moment to train additional weavers, scores of them? Is he unaware that every store and warehouse in Dundee is almost chock full of yarn, the product of the spinners and the raw material of the weavers? It is not less weaving we need but more weaving, much more, to use up the great surplus of yarn which the Jute Control have been purchasing in recent times. That yarn is useless in its present form for war purposes, but woven into materials it is of priceless value to the Air Ministry, the Supply Ministry, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and other Departments dealing with the prosecution of the war.
  Seeing these conditions, is it any wonder that my constituents lift a rather querulous eyebrow when they are told to give up weaving for the safe alternative of spinning? What assurance is there, what assurance can be given to me who represent them here, that, having transferred these workers to the spinning mill, that very mill will not be under the hammer of closure within a very short time? That is the question my constituents are asking, and I confess I see no sure answer to it. Is it surprising that, in these circumstances, they ask, "Can those Ministers in London be serious in the step they are now taking? Can they know what it is they are doing?" That is why I challenge not only the method but the very purpose of this new concentration scheme. I believe it to be thoroughly unsound. The Jute Control have already had to admit a mistake in the assessment of needs. I would advise the President of the Board of Trade to have them on the mat, because I think he will find they have blundered again.
  I am anxious that my hon. and gallant Friend should have an opportunity of replying and I will not detain the House

  1125
  many more minutes, but I invite my hon. and gallant Friend to consult his hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Labour before he carries this scheme through to a conclusion. I very much doubt whether the Ministry of Labour can possibly support the present scheme. I would offer my hon. and gallant Friend a hint on the present situation. It is a most striking example of the left hand of officialdom not knowing what the right hand is doing. I am informed that if the workers displaced in Tayport cannot find alternative employment there, they are to be transferred to the new war factories being built up in Dundee. When I heard that I gasped. What does it mean? When these new factories are in operation they will require, I gather, 5,000 more workers than Dundee itself can possibly supply. To meet that need the Ministry of Labour will have to scour the whole of the surrounding districts for new man-power and woman-power. But why ask them to take on that difficulty job? Why not ease the problem? If instead of jute labour in Tayport, additional jute labour in Dundee were released, would not some at least of the new labour required for these great factories be available on the spot, living in their own homes, going back to their own fire-places at night, and thus saving lengthy, expensive transport day by day? Would it not be infinitely more economical and sensible to leave the hundred, because that is all that is involved—the hundred skilled weavers in Tayport—at their present work instead of carrying them by train to and from Dundee every day to do work which they do not understand? I gather that 3,000 jute workers in Dundee are to be released under the present scheme, not many in proportion to the total number of jute workers in that great jute city. Would it upset the scheme very much if one hundred were added to the 3,000, the hundred from Dundee who could be taken so easily, instead of the hundred from Tayport, whose going will smash a vital industry in that town? That is the solution which I fancy every sensible man would suggest and which I rather think the Ministry of Labour would probably support.
  I have said enough to show that this whole scheme of concentration deserves reconsideration. As it stands at present, it is unsound from the point of view of jute production, it is uneconomical in the use
  1126
  of labour and transport, it is grossly unjust to small enterprises and their workers situated in outlying towns, whose dispersed position, one would have thought, would have been an asset in the middle of a war. It is criticised by every expert in the industry, other than officials, whom I have consulted, and in the small towns which it is designed to penalise in the cruellest manner possible by killing for ever their staple industry, it has raised more ill feeling and resentment than I have ever known. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, who is the advocate and planner of the new order, to start doing now what is right by the people over whom he is for the moment set to govern. I ask him to cancel the closing of this small but vigorous enterprise in Tayport.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterliouse): I have little complaint to make about the way the hon. Member has presented his case, but I do not at all agree with his concluding sentences, in which he roundly denounced the whole scheme. He referred earlier to the panzer divisions of the Board of Trade which were sweeping over and through the jute industry. If, indeed, the armour is the armour of the Board of Trade, the personnel is the personnel of the industry itself, because this is not a scheme made in London, either in the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Labour. It is a scheme made by a Committee of members of the industry elected from that industry by ballot, and I do not think that the hon. Member, with all his zeal for the jute industry, could devise a better means for attempting to arrive at a solution. What he said about the history of the industry is perfectly true. There was a first concentration scheme this spring which arose from arrangements that had been made in the preceding autumn. Changes in the Far East made it seem probable that the amount of jute that we should get would be materially less than before. It was, therefore, decided that the industry should be reconcentrated. The reconcentration scheme is to take effect by the second week in this month. It differs from the last scheme in this way. In the last there is a pro rata cutting down over all sections of the industry, but with this further concentration it became necessary to cut out the less essential sections altogether. We have found it necessary

  1127
  to shut down the carpet industry completely. Therefore no jute is needed for that. The linoleum industry is also being definitely curtailed. In both those directions, therefore, the main cuts have to take place and it was necessary to select certain sections of the industry for much more drastic cuts than others.
  As always in these concentration schemes, when an industry comes to be reviewed it can be readily seen that certain factories must remain in existence, and for perfectly good reasons, connected with the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Supply or the consumption of fuel or transport, others clearly have to be closed. The closing of any firm is hard, but, when there is a clear-cut case which can be made, the blow, though hard, can be better borne. Between those two there are always a certain number of firms about which there is doubt, and I freely admit that this is one. It is a marginal case. Should Messrs. Scott and Fyfe's works at Tayport be allowed to run or should they be forced to close? In arriving at that decision, the Committee had to take certain facts into consideration. The first, as my hon. Friend has truly said, was that of machinery. They have 161 looms; 88 of these are suitable to our present purposes and 73 are unsuitable. Therefore, at best only about 60 per cent. of the machinery of this works could be run economically, because I do not agree with my hon. Friend in saying that it is better to weave the jute into cloth than leave it in the yarn if when woven the fabric is not needed.
  Mr. Stewart: There are plenty of orders.
  Captain Waterhouse: If we were to carry out the regulation of industry upon the number of orders that people can get for civilian needs, industry would now be booming, but that is not the case. The next consideration we had to take in mind was the operatives. There are 117 operatives in this firm, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is a highly reputable firm. It is one of those firms which are the backbone of the smaller industries of the British Isles. There are 86 women and 31 men. Of this total
  1128
  there are 18 men and 31 women who, could be called to the Forces. There are eight who are mobile and could be sent away by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. There remain 47 women and 13 men who are immobile; that is to say, who are so fixed that their domicile could not be moved, although they could be moved across the county to any place within reasonable travelling distance of their homes.
  Weighing these various factors, the Trade Committee came to the decision that the works should close. On the other hand, it has been found—I will not say since been found, but these factors do come to light, and I am not sure whether they were in the mind of the Committee or not—that there are material difficulties in transport between Tayport and Dundee and in transferring these operatives into Cupar, because the work available there is a rather different grade. With these various considerations in our mind, and after discussing the matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, we have taken the view that, whatever happens, the people liable for the Forces and the mobile labour must be withdrawn from this firm. In view, however, of what I have said about the difficulty of the employment of the immobile labour, we are prepared to examine this point. I hope that my hon. Friend will think that that is going a long way to meet the very understandable wishes of this firm.
  Mr. Stewart: Does that mean that the firm can be kept open with that labour?
  Captain Waterhouse: No firm likes to be closed down—we appreciate that—and for the time being the firm will not be asked to close down in the middle of this month. At that time the Ministry of Labour will be able to withdraw any labour it can use elsewhere, and the firm will be allowed to carry on with its immobile labour pending further consideration by the Trade Committee which we have set up for this purpose.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

FUEL AND POWER
  Coal Mines (Mechanisation)
  Coal Mines (Mechanisation)
  Pit Ponies
  Pit Ponies
  Consumption Statistics
  Consumption Statistics
  Coal (Retail Deliveries)
  Coal (Retail Deliveries)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Torch Batteries
  Torch Batteries
  British Films Quota (Prosecutions)
  British Films Quota (Prosecutions)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Ministry (Scientific Advisers)
  Ministry (Scientific Advisers)
  Cured and Smoked Fish
  Cured and Smoked Fish
  Flour Mill (Licence)
  Flour Mill (Licence)
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (DIRECTORSHIPS)
  GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS (DIRECTORSHIPS)
  NEW WAR BONDS ISSUE
  NEW WAR BONDS ISSUE
  ROYAL DOCKYARD PENSIONERS
  ROYAL DOCKYARD PENSIONERS
  BRITISH EMPIRE WAR CASUALTIES
  BRITISH EMPIRE WAR CASUALTIES
BRITISH ARMY
  Lost Property, Lincoln
  Lost Property, Lincoln
  Officers Relegated to Civil Life (Appeals)
  Officers Relegated to Civil Life (Appeals)
  Church Bells (Use as Signal)
  Church Bells (Use as Signal)
  Replaced Anti-Tank Devices (Scrap Metal)
  Replaced Anti-Tank Devices (Scrap Metal)
  R.A.S.C. Drivers (Pay)
  R.A.S.C. Drivers (Pay)
  Staff Officers (Motor Cars)
  Staff Officers (Motor Cars)
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  CANADIAN ARMY OVERSEAS (LEAVE, NORTHERN IRELAND)
  CANADIAN ARMY OVERSEAS (LEAVE, NORTHERN IRELAND)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Municipal Midwives
  Municipal Midwives
  SIERRA LEONE (PETITION)
  SIERRA LEONE (PETITION)
  INVENTION (TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION)
  INVENTION (TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION)
SCOTLAND
  Vaccinations, Glasgow
  Vaccinations, Glasgow
  Land Sales
  Land Sales
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Government Building Scheme (Workers' Conditions)
  Government Building Scheme (Workers' Conditions)
  Technical Personnel Committee
  Technical Personnel Committee
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)
  NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD (POST-WAR PROBLEMS)
  NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD (POST-WAR PROBLEMS)
  TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNALS
  TRAFFIC LIGHT SIGNALS
  SUNDAY BUS SERVICES, BRIGHTON AND HOVE
  SUNDAY BUS SERVICES, BRIGHTON AND HOVE
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister of Works and Planning whether he has any statement to make in regard to the machinery to be set up for the Central Planning Authority.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, the Government have been giving consideration to the recommendations in the recent Reports of the Committees presided over by Lord Justice Scott and Mr. Justice Uthwatt in regard to the constitution of the Central Planning Authority. Both Reports rightly attach great importance to the correlation of Government policy in regard to town and country planning with the policies that are being pursued in agriculture, transport, industry and labour, public utilities, etc., policies compendiously described by the Scott Committee as "national organization" and by the Uthwatt Committee as "national development", and both recommend the appointment of a Cabinet Committee for the purpose under a specially nominated senior Minister as Chairman.
The Government fully accept the need for such correlation. It would not be appropriate for me to say anything at this stage which might bind this or future Governments to final acceptance of the Committees' views that this correlation could best be carried out by a Committee of Ministers presided over by a senior Cabinet Minister. It is also relevant that, as the House is aware, the consideration of future policy in reconstruction matters is already proceeding under the supervision of a Committee of Ministers presided over by the Paymaster-General, though all decisions of major importance arrived at by that Committee are submitted to the War Cabinet for their approval. In the initial stages it will naturally fail to that Committee to deal with preparatory work which will be carried out during the war for bringing
328
a national policy in regard to the control of the use of land (including town and country planning) into close accord with the general economic and social programme.
With regard to the machinery for the control of the use of land and the administration of town and country planning, the Government have come to the conclusion, after giving full weight to the views expressed by the Scott and Uthwatt Committees, that in a matter so vitally concerning the lives and interests of everyone in the country the fullest measure of direct responsibility to Parliament must be maintained, and that executive responsibility must rest in England and Wales with a Minister of Town and Country Planning and in Scotland with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In view of the increased responsibilities which will attach to the post of Minister of Town and Country Planning in future, and of the importance of the Minister being able to devote the necessary time and attention to his task, the Government have decided to ask Parliament to constitute a separate Ministry of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales under a separate Minister. This Minister will be a member of the Ministerial Committee already referred to. His main function in association with the Departments concerned will be to ensure that the translation of the agreed national policy into terms of land use and physical development is conceived as a single and consistent whole.
While they have not felt able to accept the recommendations of the Scott and Uthwatt Committees for placing the main responsibility for the control of town and country planning in the hands of a permanent Commission the Government fully recognize the value of a permanent body of this kind as part of the machinery of the new Ministry. In their view there will be important functions for which a permanent Commission, acting under the Minister of Town and Country Planning, would be the most appropriate body, in connexion, for instance, with the acquisition of development rights, if some such scheme were to be adopted. There are no doubt a number of other matters such as the management of property which could be usefully delegated to a Commission. In the legislation to be submitted to Parliament, therefore, the Government contemplate

329
making provision for the appointment of such a Commission to assist the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I would like to ask one small supplementary question on the very important statement which has just been made by my noble friend. That is whether we can look for the introduction of the Bill giving effect to this announcement in the near future.
LORD PORTAL: My Lords, I think I can answer "Yes" to that question.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the nationality of children born abroad of British fathers; to make special provision for the naturalization of persons rendering service in connexion with the present war; to restrict the making of declarations of alienage in time of war; and to extend the power to make regulations under Section nineteen of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, I beg to move that the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, be in Secret Session.
Moved, That the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the Lord Boyle (E. Cork and Orrery) be in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne).
The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the fact that they have accepted that the first and principal object of a maritime Power is to obtain and maintain the command of the sea, the House can now be assured that the Navy has been supplied with all the aircraft in
330
numbers, type, armament and with all the technical equipment that the various naval commands consider essential in order to. attain that object; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to protest against the proposal on the part of the Government to take the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name in Secret Session. It was not my intention to ask for any confidential information, nor was it my intention to impart any that I might have come by. I had not intended to refer to anything that has not either appeared in the public Press or been said by public men on public platforms. Having the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House I deem it my duty to bring before your Lordships any matter of which I may have knowledge and which appears to have relation to the public interest. In this Motion I have asked for an assurance which might allay a certain amount of public anxiety. It is no good an assurance of this sort being given at all if it is only to be given within these four walls and cannot be mentioned outside. It had been my intention to send a copy of my remarks to the noble Lord who represents the Admiralty in this House so that he could look over thorn, and if the Admiralty had any objection to any of them they could be erased. But as I happened to buy an evening paper and to see in it that this debate was to be taken in Secret Session, the wind was taken out of my sails and I have not adopted the course of action which I formerly had in mind.
It is my right to speak here on these Service matters, although theoretically, because of the rank I hold, I am still on the Active List. I feel it deeply that the Admiralty could not trust me to mention naval matters in this House without gagging me, and having this Motion debated in Secret Session. If I am fit to speak on these matters surely more trust might be placed in my discretion. My desire is, of course, to use to the best of my ability the experience which I have gained, in the better part of a life-time spent in the Navy, and to express views which I have formed as the result of that experience. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, when Prime Minister, laid down, I am to give the benefit of my experience, for what it may be worth, to your Lord-

331
ships. In the circumstances, I think I ought to be trusted to introduce a Motion of this sort without it having to be taken in Secret Session.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am rather sorry that the noble Earl should take exception to this Motion, and I must say that I am a little surprised because I have always regarded him as a sort of apostle of secrecy in this House. It is only a few weeks ago that he moved a Motion in regard to matters concerning the safety of convoys. He, very rightly, and naturally, raised certain points, and I think that at that time he expressed the view, which we all held, that it is absolutely essential that nothing should be said publicly in this House which would be of any value to the enemy. Now he proposes to introduce a Motion which deals in terms with numbers, types, armament and technical equipment of aircraft available to the Navy.
Let me assure the noble Earl that he is under a complete misapprehension if he thinks that the reason the Government wish the Motion to be taken in Secret Session is that they do not trust him or have any fears regarding the propriety to the occasion of what he is going to say. I need hardly assure him that such a thing never entered the minds of the Government. We have absolute confidence at all times in the noble Earl's discretion. But even though the noble Earl has no intention of saying anything of a secret or confidential nature, I think it is inevitable—and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, who represents the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, will agree with me in this—that the Government reply, if it is to be of real value, should contain material of a confidential nature. The chief weapon which the enemy is using against us at the present time is the U-boat, and there is nothing which they are so anxious to find out as the details of our defensive weapons. Equally there is nothing which it is so important that we should keep from them. The Government have considered this question with the very greatest care, and they are convinced that it is essential to discuss this matter in secret. I feel sure that the House Will agree with that view. In view of the explanation which I have given, and of the assurance I have given the
332
noble Earl, that nothing was further from the minds of the Government than to suggest that he would be likely to say anything unsuitable or indiscreet, I hope he will see his way to accept this Motion.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Earl withdraws and agrees to his Motion being taken in Secret Session I should like to support his protest. It is quite true, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has told us, that in Secret Session the Government spokesman is freer to make statements of interest in reply to the Motion, and can say things which are not meant for the public ear. But unfortunately our experience—or certainly my experience—of Secret Sessions in your Lordships' House is that that particular advantage very seldom manifests itself. I myself have had to move a Motion asking questions in Secret Session, and I did not find that I got an answer which could not have been made perfectly well in public or published in the public Press, nor did it, for the great part, answer any of the questions which I endeavoured to put. I feel that there is a great disadvantage in this tendency to go into Secret Session whenever there is any criticism of the conduct of the war. It is a great disadvantage that those who are anxious about these things, and who look to Parliament for investigation and for satisfactory assurances to allay their anxiety, are unable to have their case expressed publicly. It can be done perfectly well without injury to our war effort, if the words which should be used—and only those—are used. But if the reply is not given with the freedom, under conditions of secrecy, that it should be, we gain no advantage from the Secret Session whatever. I am afraid that that is the tendency, and if we are have a Secret Session to-day I hope that the Government spokesman will make a great effort really to give us some information which could not be given in public.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I think that this is the third time that the House has been confronted will a Motion of this kind on a topic of this character. I know that on two previous occasions I myself raised objection, and I have the fullest sympathy with the two noble Lords who have just spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, put the position exactly when he said that the reply which he obtained on the last occasion contained substantially

333
nothing more than he would have obtained if it had been given in public. I dare say that that will be true to-day; very likely it will be, and, if I were the Government spokesman, I think that I should take that line myself. It does not follow that technical details will be made public, and clearly they should not be; but all of us who are outside these controversies, as I am, know that for a long time past, in the Press and elsewhere, there has been considerable controversy as to the relations between the different Services in regard to the matters indicated in the Motion, and it seems to me that it would be only wholesome and reasonable that they should be discussed publicly and frankly. I am sure that the noble Lords responsible for this Motion are to be trusted absolutely to say nothing which will help our enemies. Of course, if the Government insist that they cannot give a reply except in Secret Session, then, so far as I am concerned, I should advise my friends to accept their decision. But I think that it is a mistaken decision, and we regret it very much.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, if I am in order I should like to support every word that has fallen from the three critics who have spoken. I want to say only a word about a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, raised, and that is to the effect that we gain absolutely nothing from Secret Sessions. I think that one of the objects which we wish to gain is to induce the Government to take certain remedies for a certain situation; and we realize that our pressure, our prodding, is likely to be much more successful if public opinion is influenced. At the present time, however, although we have great ability, great courtesy and great kindness and cordiality from the Front Bench, we have no member of the War Cabinet there, and I imagine that this is the first Government in the history of the country which has no member of the operative Cabinet—I know that there are Ministers of Cabinet rank—on the Front Bench of the House of Lords. That is an additional reason why the debate should be held in public.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, as a Back-Bench member I should like to say that I strongly support the protest against a Secret Session. The noble Viscount who leads the House pointed out that the enemy may get certain advantages from
334
any confidential matter which is given away, but I would remind your lordships that we in this country get our advantages from the democratic basis of our government, and that we depend upon the support and knowledge of the people of this country to carry through this war to success. Now, if there are complaints, if there are matters which are liable to criticism and which can and should be corrected, if there is a Secret Session there is no public opinion behind the Government to help them to correct these things that no doubt they would wish to correct. Therefore, if we have a public debate, and members are trusted not to give any advantage to the enemy but, by voicing what is wrong, to give an immense advantage to the democratic foundations of our government, it would seem to be advisable not to have Secret Sessions.
Let me give one instance in support of my argument. We had a complaint by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, of the publication of the destination of cargoes. The Government at first appeared to treat the matter without any seriousness—the debate is open for any member of the House to read—and the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, only in a supplementary answer, as I understand it, agreed that something more should be done. But what has been done? On Saturday last I was in a certain port, visiting a factory, and I saw crates labelled to a place abroad. The managing director of the firm told me that he had telephoned to the Ministry of War Transport protesting against being ordered to put the name of this place on these crates of vital war material, and he had been told to mind his own business, and to put on the crates not only the name of the place to which they were consigned but also the name of the ship, the port of sailing and the date. If the results of a public debate are so feeble, how much more feeble will be the results of a debate in Secret Session! I hope very much that this demand will be resisted.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I feel a very great personal interest in this matter, because, like the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, I also have frequently been compelled to speak in Secret Session upon matters which I wished to bring to your Lordships' notice. I should like to say, in support of what the noble Earl has said, that so little have I ever felt any wish to bring forward secret and difficult matters

335
that, like the noble Earl, on one occasion I sent a copy of my speech to the noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, so that he might have the opportunity of seeing everything that I proposed to say. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that, in deference to his view, I agreed to omit certain matters from my speech. Certainly in any matters which I have ever wished to bring before your Lordships' House I have never had the slightest desire to introduce anything which might affect public security, or to give any information of value to the enemy.
I have taken the trouble, however, to examine the reasons which have been put forward by the Government from time to time for holding debates in secret, and they are very interesting. One of these Government statements is that "any debate in which the Government are unable to state the true facts is misleading and damaging" Those of us who have had experience of debates in another place may be excused for asking in what debate have the Government ever stated the true facts about any matters which might have been in any way damaging to themselves? If this reason is to be admitted—that a debate in which the Government may not state the true facts is misleading and damaging—then all debates will cease. Another reason given was that "if statements were made which could not be answered by the Government, a false impression would be created." Do the Government always answer statements? That is not my experience, and I think that it has not been the experience of other noble Lords who have spoken in another place. Another reason given was that "the Government must ask for debates on these matters in secret, because it is impossible to allot, a partial picture to be given." Do the Government never deliberately allow a partial picture to be given, or give it themselves? Anyone who imagines that a Government, when their actions are severely in question, are actuated solely by the wish to give the true facts, to answer all statements, and to be impartial—anyone who believes that is the sort of man who would play cards with a total stranger in a race train on the way to Epsom.
It is really useless to debate certain matters in secret, such as shipping, shipbuilding, aircraft production or the
336
Fleet Air Arm. It is useless to debate these matters in secret, because the Government will not move without the pressure of public opinion, and a very strong and forcible public opinion, behind them; and if public opinion cannot express itself on views put forward in debate then debate is sterile. As regards the general principle involved in secret debates and in secrecy, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the secret debate is being used by the Government deliberately as a political device to stifle debate on matters which are awkward for the Government. The secret debate is being diverted from its legitimate purpose in order to serve political ends. The country now realizes this and thoroughly distrusts the procedure of which we are having an example to-day. The country diagnoses very accurately that something is wrong when this procedure of the secret debate is constantly resorted to on matters which are of first importance, not to the Government but to the people, because it is only the reputation of the Government which is at stake, whereas these are very issues of life and death to the public.
I am quite sure I shall have the support also of all who have attended secret debates when I say that little has ever been said in the course of them which could not perfectly well have been shouted from the housetops. If I may say so, I personally hold very strong views about secrecy and secrets. Unless one is called upon to deal with secrets officially I think it is very foolish to wish to know them. It is very much better not to know them. I know that secrecy and secrets have a great attraction for a certain type of mind. Certain people think it enhances their importance to be able to give a great appearance of knowing secret matters. I remember there was once a superintendent at one of our dockyards who always used to be followed about by his coxswain carrying a red dispatch box. We were very much impressed by this, and we imagined that the dispatch case contained dark secrets, such as the designs of the latest cruiser. But one day it happened that the coxswain dropped the box; it flew open, and all that came out of it was the latest copy of the Sporting Times. And similarly one has often noticed on the occasion of secret debates, when the high priests of the Government have opened their Joanna

337
Southcott boxes, that what comes out is extremely disappointing.
But the serious aspect is that this procedure of secret debates is the very negation of democracy. It is widening the fast growing rift between the Government and the people of this country. If your Lordships decide to debate in secret on vital matters involving nothing secret, but in which possibly criticism of the Government is involved, it will be a matter of very great regret, and one of which the country will take notice. When have our people ever failed to respond to the truth in a dangerous hour? Who can point to one instance in our history of such a failure? But we can point to many instances of defeat and other evil results following from concealment of the truth and from a dose of soothing syrup. A democratic country cannot function in an atmosphere where people know that grave matters are concealed from them in order to serve political ends. Yet that is the only message which can go out to the country from such proceedings as are taking place here to-day. I can see the matter in no other way. I believe in democracy which exists upon Parliamentary debate being available to the public, and I regret very much the resort to a. procedure which I can only compare to Star Chamber methods.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I listened with great deference to the contentions of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, and I am sure we all feel that if possible this debate should not be held in secret, but there is of course a good deal to be said on the other side. We do not want to do anything which would help the enemy. Might I make a suggestion? I think there is a precedent for this, because when there was a Motion brought forward in the House in the earlier part of the war by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, part of the debate was held in Open Session, but when we came to a point where certain matters had to be discussed which it was not felt should be made public, the House went into Secret Session. As a serving officer of the Fleet Air Arm I am sure that serving officers in that Service, while they would like this debate to be held in the open, would feel that if the Government thought that that was not possible—not even part of it—they should bow to their decision.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, we have had the opinions of many noble Lords on this question of Secret Sessions this afternoon, to which of course the Government and everybody else will give due weight, but I must confess that I did not find the arguments completely convincing. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, said that we had listened to a good many secret debates in the past and in his view there was nothing in the Government replies or any of the speeches which could not have been said in public. That of course is a matter of opinion—some of us will hold one view and some another. I remember a debate in secret not long ago on a question of shipping, and I think there were things said, both by my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield, who replied for the Government, and other noble Lords who spoke, which were much better said in private than in public. Then Lord Chatfield went on to say, with intelligent anticipation, that there would be nothing in Lord Bruntisfield's speech to-day which could not be said in public. I do not know how the noble Lord knows that. I understand from Lord Bruntisfield that there are things he has to say which could not be said in public.
LORD CHATFIELD: If I might interrupt, I should like to say that at the end of my speech I said I very much hoped that the noble Lord who was replying would take this opportunity to give us information which could not be given to the public ear. I may also say that the information given in Secret Session when I asked a question myself, which we were told could not be answered in public, was always information in reply to questions which I had riot asked, but which was thrown into the speech of the noble Lord who replied in order to make some contribution to the subject.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Yes, but the noble Lord was really pressing all the same for a Public Session. He said that if there had to be a Secret Session he hoped that some information would be given which could not be given in public, but what he wanted was a Public Session. I can only tell the House that I understand from my noble friend Lord Bruntisfield that he has things to say to-day which the House ought to know, and which it would not be possible for

339
him to give in public. The Government, as the House knows, are anxious to give your Lordships as much information as they can; but clearly that information must be limited by the conditions under which the debate is held. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, referred to democracy. He said that democracy—I am paraphrasing his words—rested on the free expression of views. That is perfectly true, but it is equally true that the success or failure of democracy must depend on the decent restraint of Parliament in time of danger and difficulty.
Lord Winster made a similar point. He took exception to a view which had been expressed by a Government speaker in an earlier debate in which the latter said it would be impossible for the Government to put the full case in Public Session. That is perfectly true. If Lord Winster had been, as some of us have been, Ministers sitting on the Front Bench, he would know that one of the greatest difficulties is to put the full case to the House without lack of discretion in war-time. I remember complaints arising out of the situation in Libya being made by the noble Lord and others suggesting inaction on the part of the Government. As the event showed, a tremendous body-blow was then being prepared; only Ministers could not say in public what was being prepared. Therefore it is clear that in war-time there has to be a willingness on the part of Parliament to accept a certain limitation of free opinion if the enemy is not to be helped. I would say to Lord Winster that I thought it a little unworthy of him and of this House that he should suggest that the Government were only actuated by a desire to conduct a political manœuvre., I do not think that that is the sort of thing that ought to be said in this case. He suggested that the object was to conceal the truth from the people. Let me make it perfectly clear that the object of the Government is to conceal the truth from the enemy, not from the people. That is the reason the Government are asking the House to sit in Secret Session this afternoon, and why I am very much afraid I must adhere to the decision of His Majesty's Government and press my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SWINDON GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1942.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPREME COURT (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SECRET SESSION.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Strangers will withdraw.
Then, in pursuance of the Resolution that the sitting of the House to consider the Motion of the Earl of Cork and Orrery be in Secret Session, the Official Reporter withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—A.R.P. Palace of Westminster.
The Committee sanctioned the appointment and rate of pay of firemen for fire guard duty in the Palace of Westminster as recommended by the Fire Committee.
2.—Gratuity to Widow of Doorkeeper.
The Committee were informed of the death of Thomas Patten Scarborough, a doorkeeper in the Department of the Black Rod, on August 12, 1942, after 16 years' service, and sanctioned the payment of a gratuity to his widow under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1909.
3.—Gratuity to Widow of Custodian.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of a gratuity under Superannuation Acts, 1887 and 1914, to Mrs. Trudgell, widow of Harry Trudgell, Custodian, who died on October 17, 1942. Mr. Trudgell had completed 20 years' service at the date of death.
4.—Residence—Palace of Westminster.
The Lord Great Chamberlain informed the Committee of proposals for the occupation by the Lord Chancellor of the flat until recently occupied by the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
5.—Estimate 1943
The Estimate for 1943 was laid before the Committee and approved.
6.—Sub-Committees.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was reappointed as follows: The Earl of Lucan, the Lord Hare (Earl of Listowel), the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Library Sub-Committee was reappointed as follows: The Marquess of Crewe, the Earl of Ilchester, the Earl of Onslow, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, the Lord Stanmore, the Lord Atkin, the Lord Macmillan, the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that the first Report of the Select Committee be considered and approved. I have only one observation to make, and that is with reference to the Library Sub-Committee. I understand from my noble friend the Earl of Listowel, that as he has a great many preoccupations at the present time he finds it difficult to attend meetings of this Sub-Committee. Lord Southwood has intimated that he would be willing to take his place, and I therefore venture to move the Report, with the substitution of the name of Lord Southwood for that of the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be now considered and agreed to; and that the Lord Southwood be named of the Library Sub-Committee in place of the Lord Hare (Earl of Listowel).—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

QUESTION POSTPONED.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL, who had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, whether any agreement has been reached, or is under negotiation, with the United States of America, for the estab-
342
lishment, after the war, of a World Bank entrusted with the right to issue and recall the currency and credit of this country, said: My Lords, I suggest that it would be more convenient to your Lordships if the question which stands on the Paper in my name could be taken on a later day. May I, therefore, withdraw it now, in order that that may be done?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that of course is for the House to say. I am quite ready to give an answer to the noble Lord's question.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, as there are one or two other noble Lords who, I understand, have some observations to make on this matter, perhaps it might be more convenient if the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack could agree that this question should be taken one day during the next series of sittings.

  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES.
  CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES.