Sitting of 2 June 1942

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment, on Thursday, 21st May, 1942, for the Whitsuntide Recess—met, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].

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

    Princess Elizabeth of York Hospital for Children and Queen's Hospital for Children (Amalgamation, etc.) Bill [Lords].

    Pembrokeshire County Council Bill [Lords].

    Bills to be read a Second time.

    PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
    Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—
    Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords].
    Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

    BOMBAY BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): One of the Amendments submitted from another place alters the date of the vesting of certain funds. The other Amendments are purely of a drafting nature.
    Lords Amendments agreed to.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    RAILWAY COMPANIES (THOS. COOK & SON LIMITED GUARANTEE) BILL [Lords].
    Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    MEDICAL CLASSIFICATION (STAFF-SERGEANT).
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War why 7590880 Staff-Sergeant H. Davis was placed in medical category A 1, although he had lost one eye?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Mr. Davis applied to enlist in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in August, 1938. Owing to his visual defect, his application had to come to the War Office. It was there given special approval, and he was classed "fit for service in any part of the world." He had lost his left eye through an injury, not disease; the sight of his other eye was good, and he was otherwise fit. This classification was therefore correct. In November, 1940, a new system of medical categories was introduced, and Davis' original classification was translated as A 1, when it should have been B 3. I very much regret this error, the cause of which cannot now be traced. Even in category B 3, however, Staff-Sergeant Davis would have been fit for service as a tradesman with his corps in any part of the world.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does my right hon. Friend know whether or not this soldier was classified as a tradesman at the time when he was reported missing?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot say without notice, but I will look into that point and will let the hon. Member know.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Was Nelson A 1?

    ARMY COUNCIL INSTRUCTIONS.
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the

    497
    issue of Army Council Instructions in two parts, so that instructions affecting the welfare of the troops and not requiring security precautions may be freely available to hon. Members?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. The separation of Army Council Instructions into two series would present considerable administrative difficulties. The more important instructions of a permanent sort, affecting the Army as a whole, already appear in Army Orders, which are published. And matter issued through Army Council Instructions, which calls for publicity outside the Service, is published in special leaflets or pamphlets.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of that answer, would not administrative difficulties be saved if my suggestion were adopted; and can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any reason other than strict adherence to tradition which prevents this suggestion being adopted?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, the very admirable reason not to multiply the use of paper, which on all hands is regarded as the prime sin of the Army.

    VENEREAL DISEASE (PREVENTIVE FACILITIES).
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary of State for War why official sanction has been given for the use of contraceptives in the Army; and will he reconsider his attitude in this matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: In the British Army, as in other armies, facilities are provided whereby soldiers who wish to do so may obtain preventives against venereal disease. I do not propose to withdraw these facilities.

    GUNNER'S APPLICATION.
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now made arrangements for the transfer into paratroops of Gunner Pragnell, No. 1732067, the details of whose case he has already received?
    Sir J. Grigg: Gunner Pragnell has been interviewed with a view to posting to a Parachute Battalion, but, I regret to say, was not found suitable.
    Dr. Thomas: In view of the keenness of this young man, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could reply earlier to the inquiries of hon. Members, and thus
    498
    avoid Questions on these private matters having to be placed on the Order Paper?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will try to answer them as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman also see that he takes the requisite time to go into these matters before replies are made?
    Sir J. Grigg: I imagine that the delay in replying in this case was due to the fact that the man was sent for an interview, and that the result of that interview was awaited.

    MOBILE VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the concern felt at the proposal to enrol all mobile Voluntary Aid Detachments into the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the strong opposition to such a step, he will say what action the Government propose to take in the matter?
    Sir J. Grigg: No decision has been taken in this matter. The British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John are considering certain proposals, designed to make the best use of woman-power, and nothing more will be done until their views have been made known to the Army Council.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend give any reasons why a change of this kind should be contemplated at all, in view of the feeling among V.A.Ds. that it is most undesirable?
    Sir J. Grigg: I could not give all the reasons in answer to a question. It would take too long. As far as I can make out, all solutions of this problem are open to objection, and this one has been put forward as the least bad.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the matter before a decision is arrived at?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will consider that.

    CADET FORCE (COMMISSIONS).
    Colonel Arthur Evans (for Captain Crowder)asked the Secretary of State for War the details of the conditions whereby the King's commission will be granted in the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers to officers of the Army Cadet Force?
    Sir J. Grigg: As the answer is rather long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer;
    King's commissions in the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers will in future be granted to officers doing duty with the Army Cadet Force who at present hold Lord Lieutenant's Commissions, and are approved by the War Office. It is not intended that the holder of a King's commission in the Army Cadet Force shall thereby be exempt from military service under the National Service (Armed Forces) Acts. A candidate for such a commission must therefore undertake, if so required, to attend a medical examination, and, if found fit, to relinquish his commission so that he may be called up for military service by the Minister of Labour. Commissions may be granted to candidates who are in reserved occupations or whose call-up for military service has been deferred, or who are found unfit for military service. Commissions may also be granted to candidates under the age for military service, but they must likewise undertake to relinquish their commissions on reaching the age for military service, unless they secure exemption or deferment. Commissions will not be granted to those under 17 years of age.
    A cadet officer will hold the King's commission only so long as he is doing duty with a cadet unit. He will be subject to Territorial Army Regulations for discipline, and commissions may be terminated at any time under these Regulations on account of ill-health or misconduct or any other reason which, in the opinion of the Army Council, renders this desirable. In particular, commissions will be terminated if the conditions for efficiency, which may be laid down from time to time, have not been met. King's commissions will be granted in the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. There will be no war substantive promotions to higher rank other than to war substantive lieutenant. Previous service on a Lord Lieutenant's Commission or previous commissioned service with the King's commission will count towards the service required for war substantive promotion to lieutenant. Cadet officers may be given higher acting rank, if approved, after appointment to King's commissions. Cadet officers will not be eligible for temporary rank, and they will relinquish
    500
    acting rank on ceasing to perform the duties for which it is granted. King's commissions for service with the Army Cadet Force may be held concurrently with a Home Guard commission. The holder of a King's commission in the Army Cadet Force will receive free uniform, i.e., battle dress, if he does not already possess such uniform as a member of the Home Guard. He will not, however, be eligible for any financial benefits from Army funds, beyond such expenses as may be payable from the funds of the Army Cadet Force.

    INTELLIGENCE AND PROPAGANDA, MIDDLE EAST.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for War the qualifications of Major Talbot Rice for his post in charge of the Turkish section of intelligence at the War Office; what military experience he has; and whether he can speak Turkish?
    Sir J. Grigg: Major Talbot Rice is able to speak Turkish and was chosen for his present appointment because of his ability and knowledge of the various countries with which his section deals. He was a member of the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve and was called up in the summer of 1939.
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Secretary of State for War how many civilians have been granted commissions since the outbreak of war, for intelligence and propaganda work connected with the Near and Middle East?
    Sir J. Grigg: No records are kept of civilians granted commissions for any particular theatre of war, and I regret therefore that I cannot give this information.
    Sir I. Albery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the services of Regular officers who had already been trained and made suitable for this work have been adequately employed?
    Sir J. Grigg: That point arises, I think, on the hon. Member's next Question.
    Sir I. Alberyasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers, serving and retired, have, during the last 10 years, qualified for an extra grant for the study of Middle East languages, on the lines of the War Office pamphlet, Regulations

    501
    relating to the Study of Foreign Languages; and how many of such officers are in employment in which these qualifications can be made adequate use of?
    Sir J. Grigg: Between 1930 and 1939, 17 officers qualified as first class and 14 as second class interpreters in one or other of the Middle East languages. Of the former, 9 are now serving in the Middle East, and of the latter 5 are serving in the Middle East, 2 have become casualties and one has retired. My hon. Friend will, of course, realise that it may easily happen that officers who have language qualifications may have qualifications in other fields which are even more valuable.

    CLOTHING PURCHASES.
    Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is to be a reversion to the chit system in respect of the purchase of Army clothing?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. There is no intention of reverting to this system beyond the limited form in which it still obtains.

    TRAINING (COMMUNICATIONS).
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that communications concerning training shall, when publicity is considered necessary, be made to Parliament or to the Press in the usual way, and not, in the first instance, to persons or institutions not responsible for training?
    Sir J. Grigg: The original communication to which I think my hon. Friend refers was in fact addressed to Army Commanders. As a general rule I agree that if publicity is to be given to such communication's it should be given in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Sir J. Mellor: Whatever may have been the merits of that communication, did not the fact of the communication being made to the General Assembly create the impression that our training policy is subject to external influences?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should be very sorry if it created that impression, because in fact it is not true.

    CAMP SITE (SEWAGE EFFLUENT).
    Sir Francis Fremantleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in a camp now being prepared
    502
    for troops in the home counties, it is proposed to discharge the sewage effluent direct by three boreholes in the chalk from which the water supply for the area is derived; why this proposal, which is opposed to modern sanitary engineering practice, has been proposed by officers in the Service; and whether he will ensure that no such proposals are contemplated under his authority in future?
    Sir J. Grigg: In the case of which my hon. Friend has sent me details the chief engineer of the Command discussed the proposal with the local authorities. They at first agreed to it, but on reconsideration objected, and the proposal was therefore abandoned. Existing instructions on this subject enjoin special care where borings are made in chalk and lay down that, in cases of doubt, officers concerned should work in liaison with local health officers and municipal engineers.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not advisable that this agreement should be come to not only with the local authorities, but with the water company; and should this proposal have entered the mind of any engineer possessed of modern sanitary experience?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will consider the point.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary" of State for War (1) to what extent, and in what way, his Department was connected with the decision to buy food from the American Continent to provide the parcels for prisoners of war;
  (2) what part his Department played in the taking of the decision to use the reserve of parcels at Geneva, to bridge the gap to prisoners of war, when the change-over from supply from this country to the United States of America took place; and whether the War Office was a party to deciding the number of parcels to be packed here and the number from the American Continent?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am not quite clear exactly what information the hon. Member requires. I understand, however, that I am to have the pleasure of a visit from her on Friday, when I shall be glad to place before her all the information at the disposal of the War Office. If after that she cares to repeat her Questions in

  503
  more precise terms, I shall be glad to answer them.
  Miss Ward: While appreciating that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will disclose all the private information at that interview?
  Mr. Thorne: Are they going to have a cup of tea together?
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Why should there be any secret in this matter? Why cannot the whole House be told?
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent a reorganisation of the Prisoners' Medical Comforts Department of the Red Cross is in contemplation, and what form these changes will take?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am informed that there has been no reorganisation of the Department, but I understand that the nature and number of parcels to be despatched by it has recently been reviewed in the light of experience and certain improvements have been adopted.
  Sir A. Knox: Is there any truth in the report that this organisation is to be handed over to a private firm to carry out the work more efficiently?
  Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, but a certain amount of extra packing which is involved in the improvement will be given to a private firm.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that British prisoners of war in Stalag VIII B had received no parcels during the six weeks previous to 12th April and that they then only got one parcel to 11 men; also that parcels sent by next-of-kin in October had not reached the camp up till 12th April; and if he will make inquiries?
  Sir J. Grigg: I cannot confirm the details given in the first part of the Question; but my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to learn that in addition to a number of standard food parcels, the Red Cross Society despatched to this camp from Geneva, between the middle of February and the middle of April, four consignments of food in bulk approximately equivalent to four parcels a head, and that receipts for the first two consignments are known to have reached
  504
  Geneva. As to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to his Question on 13th May.
  Miss Wardasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the shortage of parcels now being delivered to prisoners of war from the three Services, he will inquire whether it would not be more appropriate to have an Inter-Departmental Committee appointed responsible to the Foreign Office?
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Art-lee): No, Sir. This matter has been very fully dealt with in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Membed for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on the 5th November, 1940, and in the statement circulated by the then Secretary of State for War on 14th October, 1941. The recent temporary shortage of parcels was explained in an answer given on 17th February last.
  Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the next of kin have lost faith in the War Office and that in particular no statement as to Mr. Stanley Adams's resignation has yet been made, which appears to be due to the Secretary of State for War, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly look into the matter himself?
  Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Lady will take that matter up with the Secretary of State for War if she has a particular complaint against him.
  Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question is directed to him? Have the Government ceased to have any interest in the prisoners of war?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.
  Sir A. Knox: Was not the Department more smoothly run in the last war, when it was under the Foreign Office?

  CORRAN MOTOR-CAR FERRY.
  Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the concern caused not only to the inhabitants of the Western Highlands, but to other essential traffic, by the unsatisfactory manner in which the Corran motor-car ferry across the narrows of Loch Linnhe is maintained; and whether, in view of the waste of time, petrol and tyres

  505
  involved in making a 40-mile detour when the ferry-boat is at the bottom of the loch, or otherwise out of action, he will endeavour to have this motor-car ferry taken over by the Argyll and/or Inverness local authorities, or by the Ministry of War Transport?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend has not previously received any representations on the subject of the ferry at Corran, which already belongs to the county councils of Argyll and Inverness and is run under the supervision of a joint committee of these councils. On inquiry, I am informed that the joint committee is considering future arrangements, in the light of recent difficulties.
  Major McCallum: Is not the Minister aware that the difficulties in connection with this ferry have been going on for at least three years? Although the ferry is owned by the county councils of Argyll and Inverness, it is leased to a private company. Will not my hon. Friend see whether some ararngement can be made to take action speedily to remedy the present state of affairs?
  Mr. Westwood: We shall have to await the result of the meeting which has been arranged for the 3rd of this month. No time will be wasted by the committee in dealing with this problem.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    ALTERNATIVE FUEL.
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Secretary for Mines when the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Henley is likely to make its report on substitute fuels; and whether this report will be made public?
    The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I would remind the hon. Member that, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 24th March, I stated that the report of Lord Henley's Committee had then just been completed. I regret that it has been decided not to make the report public.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can the Minister tell the House why this report will not be made public?
    Mr. Grenfell: It is deemed not to be entirely necessary and not in the public interest.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Having regard to the present coal situation, does not the Minister think there is a good deal of scope for the use of substitute fuels?
    Mr. Grenfell: That possibility has been very fully discussed. I do not think there is any lack of information on that wide subject.
    Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say whether substitute fuels can be used for house fires?
    Mr. Grenfell: The Question refers to producer gas for road transport.
    Sir Richard Acland: Are the oil interests likely to be opposing publication?
    Mr. Grenfell: There is no question of oil interests being involved in this matter so far as I know. I have never heard that suggested.

    BOYS (APPRENTICESHIP).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has now any further statement to make relative to the question of the employment of youths in coalmining, particularly with regard to a scheme of apprenticeship to that industry?
    Mr. Grenfell: The problem of ensuring a sufficient number of boys and youths for mining employment, including the question of apprenticeship, is now under consideration by an independent committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Forster. I am unable to make any further statement pending the report of the committee.
    Mr. Adams: Does not the Minister agree that, in view of the fuel situation, this matter is very urgent?
    Mr. Grenfell: It is receiving urgent consideration now. There are daily meetings on the subject.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: When is the committee likely to report?
    Mr. Grenfell: I cannot say, but it will be soon.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the Minister considering making a recruiting appeal to the public schools and universities of this country?
    Mr. Grenfell: I have not considered it.

    DOMESTIC STOCKS.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Secretary for Mines whether, seeing that council

    507
    houses provide space for the storage of coal, he will allow stocks to be accumulated, where possible, during the summer months, thus relieving pressure on transport during the winter?
    Mr. Grenfell: The Department has always encouraged householders to stock coal in summer, and will make provision for stocking to be resumed this summer as soon as the supply of coal permits.

    STRIKES.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary for Mines how many unofficial strikes have taken place in the coal industry during the last month; what was their duration; and how many men were involved?
    Mr. Grenfell: During the three weeks ended 23rd May there were 86 strikes, involving loss of time by approximately 58,000 wage earners. The duration of the dispute varied, but, in all, 141,688 man-shifts were lost in the period. Information for the week ended 30th May is not yet available.
    Sir W. Smithers: What steps have been taken, if any, to bring home to the miners the seriousness of the situation created by unofficial strikes?
    Mr. Grenfell: Everything possible has been done to bring home to the minds of the men who have abstained from work the great loss and injury inflicted upon the nation by their action. I am glad to say that almost all the men are back at work to-day.
    Sir A. Knox: Are not these strikes illegal?
    Mr. Grenfell: They are not strictly illegal.

    FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER, 1939 (WALTHAMSTOW).
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary for Mines what action has been taken as a result of an infringement of the Fuel and Lighting Order, 1939, which was reported to the Walthamstow Borough Council on 27th March, 1942, and in respect of which the town clerk of Walthamstow was instructed to communicate with his Department?
    Mr. Grenfell: I regret that the evidence available in this case was not sufficient to warrant proceedings.
    Sir H. Williams: Was the name of the person concerned communicated to the Minister?
    Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir. I have read all the papers in the case, and I do not think there is sufficient ground to warrant proceedings.

    PULMONARY DISEASE, SOUTH WALES COALFIELD.
    Mr. James Griffithsasked the Lord President of the Council what action the Government propose to take following upon the report of the Medical Research Council upon chronic pulmonary disease in the South Wales coalfield?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. The recommendations in the report, which affect the Mines Department, as well as the Home Office, are under active consideration, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines. It is not yet possible to make any statement as to the action to be taken, but the urgency of the matter is fully appreciated and it will be dealt with with the least possible delay.
    Mr. Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this investigation took well over four years and that it is really desirable that urgent action should be taken? Secondly, in framing any new Order, would the Department bear in mind the desirability of ante-dating its operation; otherwise large numbers of men who would be qualified under the report will be disqualified?
    Mr. Peake: With regard to the second point, we will certainly take that into consideration. As to the hon. Member's first point, although this inquiry has taken a long time, the report was only published on 16th May, and there have been other matters affecting the coal industry which have been the concern of the Mines Department since that date.

  FUEL AND LIGHT.

    WASTE.
    Mr. Craik Hendersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ensure by Order or otherwise, that it shall be an offence for anyone to waste coal, electricity, or gas?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I am afraid that it would be impossible to enforce an Order in such general terms as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Craik Henderson: Will the Minister introduce a similar Order in more specific terms? As throwing away a piece of paper is an offence, should it not be an offence also when there is a very grave waste of fuel?
    Mr. Dalton: Certain Orders have been made which I have mentioned to the House. There is the Order on advertisement lighting restriction. Perhaps, in the course of the Debate which we may have in the near future, further aspects of this matter will be considered.
    Earl Winterton: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say about a fortnight ago that he was considering the whole question of the unnecessary use of lighting in clubs, hotels, restaurants and railway stations? Is he yet in a position to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, not yet, but I shall be upon an early occasion, I daresay.
    Mr. Montague: Will the Minister consider encouraging a wider use of wood fires in this country, especially in some areas?
    Mr. Dalton: That is part of a rather larger question, and I do not think I will go into it at this moment.

    METERS (READINGS).
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, to save labour, he will arrange for gas and electricity meters in any building to be read by the same man whether supplies be rationed or not?
    Mr. Dalton: I agree with my hon. Friend that this would be a most sensible and practical economy, and I am in consultation with the representative organisations of the gas and electricity supply industries on this matter. I am glad to know that the Gas, Light & Coke Co, and the County of London Electric Supply Co. have already made such arrangements in certain areas.

    GAS (PRICE).
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware
    510
    that his prohibition for over a year of any increase in the price of gas caused heavy loss to municipal and commercial gas suppliers; and whether he proposes to grant a subsidy to meet this loss?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Since the Board of Trade Order was made on 26th May, 1941, prohibiting increases in the price of gas except under licence, less than 10 per cent. of gas undertakings have applied for licences to raise their prices to the public. Most of these applications have been granted in whole or in part. I do not think it can be maintained that gas undertakers are being treated unfairly in comparison with other industries which have suffered as a result of the war and I am not prepared to recommend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant a subsidy from public funds.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CLOTHES RATIONING.
    Mr. Banfieldasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the allocation of clothing coupons for overalls, etc., to flour confectioners so as to bring them in line with the allocation for bread bakers, in view of the fact that all bakehouse work involves heavy wear and tear on clothing?
    Mr. Dalton: Trade unions representing the workers referred to by my hon. Friend should submit their case for supplementary coupons for the present rationing period to the Board of Trade, through the Trades Union Congress, when I shall be very glad to consider it.
    Mr. Banfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been submitted to the Trades Union Congress and that no satisfaction has been obtained? Does he realise that these overalls are necessary in the work of preparing food?
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be very glad to look at any argument which my hon. Friend or the trade unions representing these men put up.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the claim of the Clyde Boilermakers Shop Stewards' Association for an increase of extra clothing coupons; and has he any statement to make?
    Mr. Dalton: I shall be glad to give full consideration to any claim that trade unions representing shipbuilding workers may put to me through the Trades Union Congress for the present rationing period.
    Mr. Davidson: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman recommends the representatives of the men to make applications through their various trade unions, and that such applications will receive his fullest consideration?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. We are always very glad to give full consideration to any application so submitted; we are now just starting a new rationing period, in which supplementary coupons may be adjusted.
    Mr. Davidson: Have any representations been made in the past by the unions representing these men?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, certainly.

    SMALL TRADERS.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of certain advertisements which have appeared in trade and other papers whereby an endeavour is being made to acquire small shops as going concerns at realisation prices; and, since the practice of profiting by distressed circumstances created by the war is undesirable, whether he will take steps to investigate these matters and find an alternative solution to the difficulties of those traders and small businesses which are adversely affected by reason of their personnel being called to the services?
    Mr. Dalton: I am aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I am considering an amendment of the provisions of the Location of Retail Businesses Order accordingly.
    Mr. De la Bère: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he will take immediate steps to see that small businesses are not absorbed by larger concerns? Any delay must inevitably lead to their being ruined and never being able to get into business again.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I hope very shortly that the amendment to which I refer may be able to be put into effect.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the Minister give consideration to the issue of licences to small businesses which are closed down in consequence of the war, so that they may
    512
    have priority in re-establishing themselves after the war?
    Mr. Dalton: That is a separate point, but perhaps the hon. Member will put it on the Paper.
    Mr. De la Bère: It is a very good suggestion.

    NUCLEUS AND CLOSED FIRMS.
    Mr. Colegateasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give a list of the nucleus firms in the toy trade in this country;
    (2) whether he will give the reason for refusing to supply lists of nucleus and closed firms to members of the trades concerned?
    Mr. Dalton: It would be contrary to the interests of public security to publish the names of nucleus and closed firms in any industry. The names are, however, given on request, and in confidence, to representative trade associations. I am sending to my hon. Friend, for his confidential information, a list of nucleus toy firms.
    Mr. Colegate: Is there any reason why individual traders, who will be very badly affected by these closing Orders, might not have the information, assuming, for example, that they are not members of any trading associations?
    Mr. Dalton: It is important, for the reason that I have suggested, to keep this information within as narrow a circle as possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the enemy would like to know the details about our concentration of industry.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it seriously suggested that the toy industry is of strategic importance?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, but the reason why we are carrying out concentration in this and other industries is in order to put to a strategical purpose premises, machinery and labour, previously used for non-strategical purposes, for war production and the storage of war material. It is not desirable to tell the enemy about those matters.
    Mr. Colegate: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave anxiety among people whose small businesses have been closed? Surely there

    513
    is no reason why a list should not be given in confidence to such individual firms of firms which have been closed, or even made nucleus firms, so that they can get into touch with each other?
    Mr. Dalton: There is no difficulty about getting into touch with other firms for the purpose of combining.

    DOMESTIC POTTERY.
    Mr. Bowlesasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that more adequate supplies of pottery will be made available to the public at reasonable prices?
    Mr. Dalton: An Order has been made under which the manufacture of domestic pottery is subject to licence and, by directions issued yesterday under the Order, production for the home market is restricted to certain simple types of plain white, light ivory and brown pottery. Exports have been reduced by 20 per cent. since 1st May, and a further cut of 20 per cent. will be imposed as from 1st August. By these means, supplies for the home market will be substantially increased. On the recommendation of the Central Price Regulation Committee, I made an Order yesterday regulating the distributors' margins for all domestic pottery and fixing maximum retail prices for certain essential articles which will be marked in three qualities according to their grade. Manufacturers' maximum prices have also been fixed.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken steps to ensure that labour will be left in the Potteries to comply with the Orders?
    Mr. Dalton: I hope so, but there is great competition for labour at present.
    Mr. Silverman: When will a supply of these utility articles be available to the public, and what steps have been taken to control prices until they are available?
    Mr. Dalton: Prices are controlled as from now on. A schedule of prices is attached to the Order which I signed yesterday. So far as production is concerned, we are pushing forward as fast as we can.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the Order fixing the prices be made public?
    Mr. Dalton: Certainly.
    Mr. Mack: Is it necessary to restrict the export of pottery in order to ensure sufficient for the home market?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I said that the home market must take precedence over the export market for this purpose.

    CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF EXPORT GROUPS.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the selection of the personnel of the Central Committee of Export Groups, he has had consultation with local chambers of commerce and other representative trade organisations; whether Birmingham and the Midland area, with its exporting activity in normal times and its capacity for the production of competitive goods after the war, is represented on this committee; and whether he proposes to publish the terms of reference of the Board of Trade to the Central Committee of Export Groups?
    Mr. Dalton: The members of the Central Committee of Export Groups have been selected for their personal ability and their wide experience of industry and export trade, and not as representatives of particular industries. There was, therefore, no question of consulting trade organisations. The terms of reference of the Committee were stated in the reply which I gave on 19th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean).
    Sir P. Hannon: Does not my right hon. Friend think that a large industrial area like the Midlands and Birmingham, where alone there are 1,200 separate industries, should have some representation?
    Mr. Dalton: If we considered one area, we should have to consider many others, and it was felt to be convenient in this case that the appropriate export groups should be the channel of communication. The Birmingham trades, like any others, will be able to make their views known through their industrial channels.
    Mr. McKinlay: Have we not suffered enough in the past from Birmingham's opinion on these things?
    Captain Molson: Are the merchants represented on this export group?
    Mr. Dalton: I gave the list the other clay; perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will look it up.

  GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare, what progress has been made in the carrying out of arrangements for the controlled supply of food for the Greek people; and whether the good offices of the Swedish authorities have yet secured the consent of the German and Italian Governments to a satisfactory plan of relief?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As indicated in my reply of 19th May, we addressed a communication to the Swedish Government on 9th May, requesting elucidation on certain important points in the German and Italian replies. No answer has yet been received to this communication.
  Mr. Harvey: Would it be possible to make use of the good offices of the Vatican in order to secure the necessary information?
  Mr. Foot: I am sure that the Swedish Government are doing everything possible to secure an early reply to the inquiry.

  GERMANY (FUEL RATIONING).
  Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any information as to the various developments in respect of fuel-rationing schemes in Germany; and what is the present scheme in that country?
  Mr. Foot: Solid fuel has been rationed in Germany since the beginning of the war, and the various changes which have been made from time to time have all been designed to reduce consumption. In the year 1940–1941 households heated by stoves were allotted coal and coke according to climatic zones, number of rooms and number of inhabitants. During the year 1941–1942, however, they have had a basic allowance of half a ton of brown coal briquettes, or a lesser amount of better quality fuel. Householders who have no facilities for using gas or electricity received an additional ration. Centrally heated buildings received the same quota as the previous year, provided that it did not exceed 6 tons, but persons living in such buildings who also needed coal for cooking and washing purposes were only permitted 50 per cent. of the previous year's ration. Similar arrangements are being continued this year.
  Mr. Stewart: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the rationing of electricity and gas?
  Mr. Foot: Electricity and gas have never been rationed in Germany. Of course, they have never been used for domestic purposes to the same extent as in this country.
  Mr. Stewart: Would it be true to say that in fact a universal rationing scheme had ultimately to be considerably modified on account of the practical difficulties met with?
  Mr. Foot: There has never been a universal rationing scheme, but only one for coal and other solid fuels. There has never been a rationing scheme for gas and electricity.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESH MENT DEPARTMENT.
  Sir H. Williamsasked the hon. Member for Dulwich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what steps it is proposed to take to reduce the delays in servicing in the strangers' refreshment room?
  Mr. Bracewell Smith: The Kitchen Committee are trying to find additional accommodation, but owing to the limited space available in the Strangers' Refreshment Room, delays in service are bound to arise during the peak periods.
  Sir H. Williams: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of obtaining the services of some more part-time women to work in that room?
  Mr. Smith: It is not a question of increasing the staff, but of increasing the space available. We cannot put a quart into a pint pot.
  Sir H. Williams: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the slowness of the service is due to the total inadequacy of the staff?
  Mr. Smith: I do not agree that the staff is insufficient. There is only a certain serving space, and you cannot put more than a certain number of people in it.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    PERSONNEL (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. Craik Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, and to what extent, Civil Defence personnel are being used in useful

    517
    work of national importance, when their services can be spared from their ordinary Civil Defence work?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): The policy to be followed in the matter was set out in a circular issued to local authorities on 14th April. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this circular. Transfers from the Civil Defence services to industry are being made in increasing numbers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. Further, other Civil Defence personnel are being employed without change of status on work of national importance not hitherto regarded as Civil Defence duties, but my right hon. Friend has not, as yet, asked the authorities to inform him of the arrangements made or the numbers involved.
    Mr. Craik Henderson: While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and for what has been done, will he realise that there is still an enormous amount of labour being lost, and will he take every step he can to see that it is utilised and not wasted?
    Mr. Mabane: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the hon. Member realise that the circular talks about snow and coal, of which there is not much about? Will he suggest some other work of local importance?
    Mr. Mabane: It does not talk about snow and coal as providing the only possible employment for Civil Defence personnel.

    LOOTING (PENALTIES).
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the great difficulty of preventing looting during and immediately after air raids and of the reluctance of the judiciary to utilise the death penalty for the offence, he will, to protect the public, now authorise such offenders being dealt with by military courts with plenary powers?
    Mr. Peake: From time to time representations have been made to my right hon. Friend both that particular sentences are too heavy and that sentences in general are too light, but the information available as to the penalties imposed by the courts up and down the country does not support the suggestion that there has
    518
    been any general reluctance to pass adequate sentences. The suggestion that the time and attention of military officers should be diverted to the business of trying civilian offenders would, I am sure, be unwelcome both to the military authorities and to Parliament.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which was felt in a town recently bombed when it was rumoured that the military had been given orders to shoot first and to inquire afterwards?
    Mr. Peake: I am not aware of those circumstances, but my hon. and gallant Friend may be pleased to hear that 60 sentences of penal servitude have been imposed for looting.
    Dr. Haden Guest: Would the hon. Member make it quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government to establish military courts with plenary powers to deal with special offences, apart from any local circumstances which might make that course necessary?
    Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir; that is quite so.
    Mr. Mack: Are the Government prepared to establish the death penalty for commercial and economic looting, which, quite apart from the offences which have been referred to, takes place in normal times?

  WAR EFFORT (FINANCIAL HELP, UNITED STATES AND DOMINIONS).
  Mr. Craik Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for a discussion on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Leeds relating to our appreciation of the financial assistance to the war effort received from the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada and other Dominions?
  [That this House desires to place on record its high appreciation of the generous financial assistance which this country has received from the United States of America and from Canada, and its indebtedness to those of our Dominions which have rendered help and assistance in so many ways.]
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The nation's high appreciation of the generous financial assistance received from the United States of America

  519
  and Canada and our gratitude for the help so freely given us in countless ways by the Dominions as a whole are not, I think, in any doubt, and my right hon." Friend the Prime Minister has endeavoured to voice it on various occasions on behalf of the country and of this House. In the circumstances, no formal reaffirmation of our gratitude is, in my judgment, required at this stage.
  Sir Stanley Reed: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not consider that during the Budget Debate totally inadequate appreciation was expressed of the magnificence of those contributions, when the easing in our financial position is almost entirely due to the assistance from America and Canada?
  Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that our appreciation will not lead us into any unwise treaties at the end of this war?
  Sir J. Lamb: Is it not a fact that reciprocation has been the best answer that could possibly be given, and that it has been freely given?

  WAR STRATEGY (SERVICE MINISTERS).
  Mr. Caryasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of giving the three Service Ministers a closer and more precise relationship with the strategical conduct of the war?
  Mr. Attlee: The three Service Ministers are always present at meetings of the War Cabinet when any matters relating to the conduct of the war are discussed. They have constant access to the Cabinet or to the Minister of Defence at any time they wish. They are also members of the Defence Committee. In practice they work in the closest contact with their respective Chiefs of Staff. It is not proposed to make any alteration in this arrangement at the present time.
  Sir A. Knox: Do they know anything about strategy at all?

  MALAYA AND SINGAPORE.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether any reports have yet been received from General Wavell on the loss
  520
  of Malaya and Singapore as the result of the request made to him for such a report prior to 14th April, 1942; and whether he has any statement to make?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.
  Mr. Stokes: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the report, as the Prime Minister told us on 13th April that one had been called for? Six weeks have now passed. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when it will arrive?
  Mr. Attlee: I cannot say, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that General Wavell is engaged in military operations and has to carry on the war as well as think about past events.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in order to avoid General Wavell having to do it himself he was asked to appoint an officer to do it for him? Has that been done?
  Mr. Attlee: I will make inquiries.
  Mr. Shinwell: Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a report; and can that be made available to us?
  Mr. Attlee: That is another matter.
  Mr. Stokesasked the Prime Minister whether the steps recommended with regard to the air-raid precautions defences of Singapore were taken; and whether arrangements were planned for the efficient blowing up of the causeway and the destruction of the graving dock?
  Mr. Attlee: There was in operation at Singapore a well developed Civil Defence organisation. A local war committee, upon which civil and Service representatives co-operated, was appointed in 1940 and kept the A.R.P. plans under constant review. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. Arrangements were planned for the efficient blowing up of the causeway, and were carried out with complete success; as regards the graving dock, it is known that the caisson and pumping machinery were destroyed and that, in addition, an oil hulk was sunk across the entrance to the dock.
  Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the recommendations contained in the report from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were put

  521
  into practice? Is he aware that reports reaching home state that the causeway was so ineffectively blown up that it was repaired by the Japanese in 12 hours?
  Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has given to the House conflicts with many authoritative reports which have reached this country? Is it not about time that we had some official statement about this matter?
  Mr. Attlee: I do not know what reports the hon. Member has had. I am giving the official reports which we have had.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the Army and—
  Mr. Speaker rose.

  CHINA (BRITISH ASSISTANCE).
  Mr. Wootton-Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, despite the result of the campaign in Burma, every practicable step will be taken to maintain contact with our Chinese Allies and to send them as many aircraft and other supplies as can be spared so that they can continue to resist any Japanese attack which may be concentrated upon them?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's-Government are determined to continue to do everything within their power to assist the Chinese Government in the prosecution of the war in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend as well as in any other way which may prove possible.

  ARMED FORCES (EMOLUMENTS).
  Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disparity in the emoluments enjoyed by those in civilian employ and those serving in the Forces and the hardships thereby entailed, particularly as regards the discharge of such obligations as mortgages, he will consider increasing the pay of those serving in His Majesty's Forces, either by additional weekly payments to the individual or else by instituting a system of deferred payment which would be received in a lump sum by a man on demobilisation?
  Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that the emoluments of the Forces were reviewed by His Majesty's Government a few months ago and that a number of improvements, including the institution of the post-war credit, were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th February last. I cannot in these circumstances undertake now to review the matter afresh. As regards the discharge of financial obligations by members of the Forces, the improved arrangements for war service grants are designed to prevent hardship from this cause.
  Sir A. Southby: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the discrepancy in the payment made to one man in the Army as compared with another man who is doing the same job leads to a considerable amount of soreness, and is he aware that the disparity in payment between men who are risking their lives in the service of the country and those in industry is a source of considerable uneasiness throughout the country?
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Party Conference last week asked for an increase in the pay of these men, and will he take note of that?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still considerable feeling in the country about the treatment of Service men and their dependants, particularly in regard to investigations into their family means? Will he take steps to look into the matter and re-examine it, with a view to an early decision?
  Mr. Attlee: I will certainly take note of any points which my hon. Friend brings before me.
  Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman not look into the general question himself? Is he not aware that great movements of different types in this country are feeling keenly about this matter?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    COAL ROYALTIES (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the ownership of coal royalties passes to the Government

    523
    what will be the estimated annual income; what will be the amount of compensation to be paid to the coalowners; and in what way will compensation be paid?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The estimates of royalties on which compensation was based were just over £5,000,000 gross, and just under £4,250,000 net, both figures being before deduction of Income Tax. It is impossible at present to make any reliable estimate of the future income of the Coal Commission. At the vesting date it is likely to be rather below those figures. The compensation, excluding subsidiary coal hereditaments, is fixed at £66,450,000, and will be paid in cash.
    Mr. Thorne: Are they going to invest it in War Loan?

    BRITISH RESIDENTS ABROAD (PROPERTY AND INCOME RETURNS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken under the Regulation of 27th March to obtain from British subjects resident outside the sterling area returns of their property and income; how many cases have been dealt with; and the total and average sums involved?
    Sir K. Wood: The necessary documents and forms are being sent to His Majesty's Representatives abroad, and there will be no avoidable delay in taking action in appropriate cases. Owing, however, to the slowness of communication in present circumstances, some little time will probably elapse before returns can actually be demanded and received.
    Mr. Mander: When the returns come in will my right hon. Friend consider giving the information suggested in the Question, or some information of that kind?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will give that matter consideration.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. Hannahasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the attitude of the Government towards payment of Excess Profits Tax in cases where it is imposible to find the money at the time it is due without seriously restricting such stocking up of lubricating oils or other commodities needed in the war effort as is recommended by the Petroleum Department;
    524
    and can arrangements be made for delayed payments to the Revenue where this can be proved to be necessary?
    Sir K. Wood: It is important, in the national interest, that Excess Profits Tax should be paid when it becomes due, and that concerns should take all possible steps to ensure that they are in a position to meet their liabilities. I am afraid, therefore, I could not agree that the holding of stocks to which my hon. Friend refers should be regarded in itself as warranting a deferment of collection of any Excess Profits Tax that may be due.
    Mr. Hannah: If I send particulars of any special cases of hardship, will they be considered?
    Sir K. Wood: Certainly.
    Mr. Davidson: Will they be submitted to the Unemployment Assistance Board?

    CIVIL SERVICE (WAR DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).
    Sir A. Southbyasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what payments are made to the widow of a civil servant who dies as the result of his service in the Armed Forces, over and above the standard pension payable by the Ministry of Pensions?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): There is no pension payable to the widow of a civil servant as such, but a gratuity ranging from 12 to 18 months' pay is payable to the legal personal representatives of an established civil servant of five years, or more, service. In the case of an unestablished civil servant with at least 15 years' service, a gratuity at the rate of one week's pay for each year served is payable to his dependants. These payments are made irrespective of whether the death occurred while the officer was serving with the Forces, or while he was in civil employment.
    Sir A. Southby: How is it that in the case of civil servants their previous service entitles their widows to additional payments if they are killed whereas that rule does not apply in the case of flag officers from the Retired List who are now on active service for the duration of the war?
    Captain Crookshank: The question of flag officers is another matter. I was dealing with civil servants.
    Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the principle involved?

    RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make a statement as to obtaining powers to restrict the issue of Excise licences to genuine traders, thus helping to eliminate black-market racketeers?
    Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a new Regulation which has now been added to the Defence (General) Regulations.

  ELECTORAL REGISTRATION AND REDISTRIBUTION (COMMITTEE).
  Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary what committee is sitting at the present time charged with the duty of formulating a redistribution of Parliamentary seats scheme; how it is constituted; what progress has been made; who has been consulted; and whether questions of electoral reform are also to be considered?
  Mr. Peake: The terms of reference and constitution of the Committee on Electoral Machinery were given in a reply by my right hon. Friend to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Bower) on 8th January last. The question of electoral reform is not included in the terms of the reference. I have no knowledge of the procedure adopted by the Committee, which is, of course, free to decide upon the evidence it requires and the sources from which it can be obtained.
  Mr. Mander: Does not my hon. Friend think that the time is approaching when a committee should consider the question of electoral reform, as well as that of redistribution?
  Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware of the statement made by the Home Secretary on this matter in the Debate on 23rd October, 1940, to which I am afraid I cannot add at the present time.

  BLACKBIRDS AND THRUSHES (TRAPPING).
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the number of blackbirds and thrushes which have
  526
  been caught and trapped for edible purposes; and whether he can take steps to prevent the wholesale slaughter of these singing birds?
  Mr. Peake: I have no information to support the suggestion that large numbers of these birds are being taken for the purpose mentioned, but if my hon. Friend can give me any particulars I will have further inquiry made.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that the food value of these birds is negligible, and that their extermination would be a national calamity? Is he aware of the thrill which men who come back from overseas get on seeing and hearing these wild birds? Will he look into the matter if I give him information?
  Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. We have so far had only one complaint on this matter, and that was without details which would enable us to investigate. I am sure that the bird population as a whole is anxious to play its full part in the war effort.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Member aware that these birds are going, as food, not to those people who need food, but to many what eat too much already? Is it not a scandal that these birds should be killed for such a purpose?

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND B.B.C. (GERMAN EMPLOYEES).
  Major Lloydasked the Minister of Information whether he will give an assurance that it is neither his policy nor that of the British Broadcasting Corporation to employ Germans in the Ministry of Information and in the British Broadcasting Corporation if British subjects with equal knowledge and experience are available?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): Yes, Sir, provided British subjects are suitable in other respects.

  BACON-CURING INDUSTRY (CONCENTRATION).
  Mr. Manderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the present position with regard to the concentration of the bacon industry; and

  527
  whether he has considered the objections put forward by the Midland Bacon Curers' Association?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, meetings to discuss concentration have been held in London and in Glasgow, to which all members of the bacon-curing industry were invited. My Department is now working out the details of a concentration plan with the representatives of the trade associations. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative?
  Mr. Mander: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that this industry is working up to something like 80 per cent. of its pre-war capacity and that the supply of bacon is increasing?
  Major Lloyd George: Without accepting either of those two statements, I will certainly look into the matter.

  ETHIOPIA (DOCTORS).
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether travelling facilities will now be accorded to urgently needed refugee doctors from this country and /or from Palestine to Ethiopia?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Richard Law): I have received no request from the Ethiopian Government to facilitate the journey to Ethiopia of the persons indicated by my hon. Friend, nor have I been informed that the need for them is urgent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I wish to ask the Leader of the House two questions: First, whether he can make any statement about the Government's proposals with regard to the coal industry, and, second, whether he can indicate the suggested course of Business for to-day?
Sir S. Cripps: The Government's proposal in regard to coal will be contained in a White Paper which will be available to Members in the Vote Office on the next Sitting Day, shortly before the rising of the House. The Government will invite
528
the House to approve the proposals, and arrangements will be made for a Debate to take place during the next series of Sitting Days. It is proposed to provide two days for a discussion which will take place on a Government Motion.?
With regard to Business for to-day, as already announced, we propose to take Business up to and including the sixth Order on the Order Paper, and, if there is time, we hope to obtain the Second Reading of the Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill and the Motion to approve the Bricks (Charges) Order.
On the 2nd and 3rd Sitting Days, as already announced, we hope to obtain the Committee stage of the War Damage (Amendment) Bill.
If there is time on the 3rd Sitting Day, we shall ask the House to approve the Milk Marketing (Special Areas) (Scotland) (Charges) Order.
Sir P. Harris: With reference to the coal industry, are we to understand that the Government's recommendations are definite recommendations which the Government are anxious to put through without delay?
Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman will see what the White Paper says. It is the Government's policy as regards coal.

LIBYAN BATTLE AND BOMBING OF GERMANY.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I thought the House would wish to have some news of the important and very severe battle which has now been proceeding for a week in the Libyan desert. Accordingly, I asked General Auchinleck for a statement. I do not think I can do better than read it out in his actual words:
"On the evening of 26th May, General Rommel launched the German Afrika Korps to the attack. He was at pains to explain, in an order of the day issued to all Italian and German troops in his pay, that in the course of great operations they were to carry through a decisive attack against our Forces in Libya, and that for this purpose he had made ready and equipped a force superior in numbers, with perfected armament and a powerful air

529
force to give it support. In conclusion, he hailed His Majesty the King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia, the Duce of the Roman Empire, and the Fuehrer of great Germany. We had foreseen this attack, and were ready for it.
From captured documents it is clear that Rommel's object was to defeat our armoured forces and capture Tobruk. The main ingredients of his plan were, first, to capture our defended locality at Bir Hacheim held by our gallant Allies the Free French; secondly, to pass round by the South of Bir Hacheim the German Afrika Korps, comprising the 15th and 21st German Armoured Divisions to be followed closely by the German 90th (Light) Division, and the 20th Italian Mobile Corps, comprising the 132nd Ariete Armoured Division and the 101st Trieste Motorised Division; thirdly, to attack in strength our positions running South from- the coast at Gazala to the Capuzzo Road. These were held by the South African and 50th British Divisions, the latter including battalions of the East Yorkshire Regiment, Green Howards and Durham Light Infantry.
Air reconnaissance had clearly indicated enemy preparations for attack, and in consequence our Air Forces opened a counter-offensive on the 21st with heavy attacks against enemy forward aerodromes. These attacks were continued each night and supplemented by low flying dawn and dusk attacks by light bombers and fighters. The enemy paid us the compliment of trying to emulate our example on the three nights prior to his final advance on the 27th. He failed to achieve any success and lost a number of aircraft to our fighters and anti-aircraft artillery. On the night 26th–27th May the German Afrika Korps carried out its part of the plan and passed to the south of Bir Hacheim, moving north with great rapidity towards Acroma, and also towards the old battlefields of El Duda and Sidi Rezegh, which were actually reached by some of its most forward troops. These were soon driven off by our armoured forces. Some Axis tanks actually reached the escarpment or cliff overlooking the coast road north of Acroma, but failed to interrupt communication between Tobruk and the
530
South African troops holding our forward positions.
It is now known that on the same night the enemy attempted a landing from the sea at this spot, presumably with the object of joining up with these tanks, but the hostile craft were driven off by our naval forces, acting in close co-operation with the Army.
Long before they approached El Adem or Acroma the Axis armoured and motorised troops were brought to action by the 1st and 7th British Armoured Divisions, ably seconded by the Britsih Heavy Tank Brigades which were in the area.
The full brunt of the enemy initial advance to the east of Bir Hacheim was taken by the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade Group, which was overborne by sheer weight of metal, but not until after it had inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and seriously impeded his advance. In addition, his columns were subjected to repeated attacks by our fighters and bombers. Meanwhile the attack on Bir Hacheim by the Italian Mobile Corps had been beaten off by the Free or Fighting French troops, with heavy loss, and the northward advance of this force seems to have been seriously delayed in consequence.
The third part of the enemy's plan, namely, the attacks against the northern front of our main positions south of Gazala, materialised on the 27th. They achieved little or nothing. Nevertheless, they seem to have cost the enemy a number of casualties. An attempt to break through our defences along the coast road by the Gazala inlet was easily stopped by the 1st South African Division.
Throughout the 28th, 29th and 30th May there was very heavy and continuous fighting between our armoured divisions and brigades, and the German Afrika Korps backed up by the Italian Mobile Corps. The battle swayed backwards and forwards over a wide area, from Acroma in the North to Bir Hacheim, 40 miles to the South, and from El Adem, which is near Tobruk, to our minefields 30 miles to the westward. Our troops gave the enemy no rest, and, finding himself running short of supplies and water, he had to make gaps in our minefields, one along the

531
general line of the Capuzzo Road and another 10 miles to the South. These two gaps lay on either side of the defended area held by a brigade of infantry from the North of England. This brigade strenuously resisted the enemy's attempts to pass his transport through their ranks, and on the 28th Air Vice-Marshal Cunningham decided to direct his whole Air Force on to low attack against the enemy armour and motor transport in this region. These attacks were maintained with maximum intensity throughout the following three days, reaching their peak as the enemy endeavoured to pass through the gaps. It is still difficult to give a firm estimate of the number of vehicles and tanks knocked out or disabled by these attacks, but there has been ample confirmation that the effect was very great.
Meantime each night our night bombers were attacking enemy forward airfields and his communications.
By nightfall on 31st May the enemy had succeeded in withdrawing many of his tanks and much transport into one or other of the gaps, which he then proceeded to protect from our attack from the East by bringing many of his antitank guns into action, with which he is well equipped. A large number of his tanks and many transport vehicles, however, remained on the wrong side of this barrier, and these are still being ceaselessly harried and destroyed by our troops, vigorously aided by the bombers and fighters of our Air Force. The latest reports show that the enemy may have withdrawn some of his tanks from the gap areas and a good deal of transport as far back as 20 miles West of our forward positions, but this is unconfirmed. The country to the East of Bir Hacheim which is in our area is being mopped up by our troops, which have destroyed many tanks and vehicles in this area and captured two large workshops.
Fierce fighting is still proceeding, and the battle is by no means over. Further heavy fighting is to be expected, but whatever may be the result, there is no shadow of doubt that Rommel's plans for his initial offensive have gone completely awry and that this failure has cost him dear in men and material.
532
The Axis air forces have been very active throughout the operations and have made continuous attacks on our troops and communications, but they too have lost heavily at the hands of our Air Forces and our anti-aircraft guns. The speed and effectiveness with which Air support has been given has shown once again the intimate cooperation which has been achieved between the two Services in this theatre.
There has not been time to assess the damage inflicted on the enemy, but a conservative estimate gives the number of his tanks destroyed or captured as about 260, and there is no doubt at all that the number of his transport vehicles destroyed or captured is very large. We have also had our losses, and it is inevitable that in a battle of this kind between armoured forces the casualties of both sides in tanks should be high. Our recovery organisation is, however, working very well, and whereas we have retained control of the battlefield and so can salve our tanks, the enemy cannot recover many of his, which should be permanently lost to him.
Owing to the three days' concentration on low attack and the consequent desperate attempts by the enemy fighters to protect their ground forces, our Air losses have not been light, though in a number of instances our pilots have returned safe and our aircraft are being recovered."
General Auchinleck ends by repeating that the battle is not yet over, and the issue still remains to be decided, but he says that the spirit and morale of our men in Libya, both Army and Air Force, whether they come from India, South Africa, the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, and that of our most gallant Allies, the Free French, is magnificent.
In a further telegram the Commander-in-Chief adds:
"The skill, determination and pertinacity shown by General Ritchie and his Corps Commanders, Lieutenant-Generals Norrie and Gott, throughout this difficult and strenuous week of hard and continuous fighting, have been of the highest order."
He further dwells upon the excellent performance of the American Grant tanks, with which all users are well pleased, and

533
says that our new heavy anti-tank gun has done great execution.
That finishes the message from General Auchinleck. From all the above it is clear that we have every reason to be satisfied, and more than satisfied, with the course which the battle has so far taken and that we should watch its further development with earnest attention.
I ought not to sit down without referring to the mammoth air raid delivered by the Royal Air Force on the Cologne region during the night of 3oth–31st May. In this triumph of skill, daring and diligence against the enemy, all previous records of night bombing have been doubled and excelled. On that occasion no fewer than 1,130 British-manned aircraft operated across the sea. The results have been of a devastating character, but accurate photography has so far been hampered by the pall of smoke which hung over the smitten area. Last night, also, 1,036 machines of the Royal Air Force visited the Continent. Nearly all of these operated on the Essen region, and the first reports received indicate numerous and widespread conflagrations. From this second large-scale raid 35 of our bombers are missing.
I do not wish it to be supposed that all our raids in the immediate future will be above the four-figure scale. Methods of attack will be continually varied according to circumstances. On the other hand, these two great night-bombing raids mark the introduction of a new phase in the British air offensive against Germany, and this will increase markedly in scale when we are joined, as we soon shall be, by the Air Force of the United States. In fact, I may say that as the year advances German cities, harbours and centres of war production will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by any country in continuity, severity or magnitude.
I am sure the House will wish me to express its compliments to Air Marshal Harris and the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Bomber Command, including the efficient and devoted maintenance staffs, upon the work which they are doing and the results achieved. Congratulations upon these encouraging events are also due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, to the Chief of the Air Staff and to the Air Ministry upon the activities of those committed to their charge.
Mr. Greenwood: I feel sure the House will have welcomed the cheering news as regards the Libyan Battle and will express the hope that my right hon. Friend will come soon with the news of the victorious completion of this desperate and important encounter. I am sure Members will also wish me to say that we would welcome communication of the congratulations of this House to all branches of the Air Force concerned on their magnificent achievement.
Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw): With reference to the illuminating statement made by the Prime Minister, can he say whether that was a special report called for from General Auchinleck by the right hon. Gentleman in addition to the ordinary communiques, and when that information was received?
The Prime Minister: The, text of what I said is being issued simultaneously in a Cairo communique at this moment.

BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

COAL (CONCURRENT LEASES) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the appointment of a Minister of Works and Planning, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) such salaries or remuneration of that Minister and any secretaries, officers or servants appointed by him as the Treasury may determine; and

  (b) the expenses of that Minister, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury."

  Resolution agreed to.

  MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

  MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Functions of Minister of Works and Planning.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir Robert Tasker: I wish to invite the attention of the Committee to the real meaning of this Clause. It means setting up a staff. What does this alteration really mean to the practical people of this country? It is merely an alteration in name, the transference of one Department of State to a new Minister and a portion to another Department of State, but it does add to the number of officials employed. It takes something away from the Minister of Health. What is to be gained by agreeing to this Clause? This Bill, we read, has been
    "presented by Mr. Henry Strauss, supported by Sir John Anderson, Mr. Ernest Brown, Sir William Jowitt and Mr. Attorney-General"
    —a formidable team. At the same time this Bill carries with it the support of some 160 Ministers, Under-Ministers, and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, none of whom seem to be particularly well informed on this subject. The Bill also carries with it the support of certain Members of the House to whom anything which emanates from the Front Bench is agreeable. Nobody who has had long experience of town planning regards this proposal with favour. There was only one exception as far as I can gather. Everybody else who has worked on town planning, not only since 1932 but for a much longer period, desires a bigger and more comprehensive Measure than this. Neither Clause 1 nor any other part of the Bill for that matter, will improve town planning.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that he cannot discuss what is not in the Bill and that he cannot on this occasion make a Second Reading speech.
    Sir R. Tasker: Paragraph (c) of Subsection (1) deals with the functions of the Minister of Health which it is proposed to transfer. Are we not, then, entitled on Clause 1 to discuss those functions? If not, surely it reduces these proceedings
    552
    to a farce. I submit that the functions exercised by the Minister of Health under the Act of 1932 and the functions proposed to be exercised by the new Minister are open to discussion. That changing name will not lead to greater efficiency.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, I think not. That would involve an Amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act. The hon. Member cannot, on this occasion, propose to amend another Measure.
    Sir R. Tasker: I am not seeking to amend it. My point is that we should be permitted to discuss what is actually in Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not want to go over all the proposals of the Bill or to make a Second Reading speech, but surely this Committee is free to consider whether it would be wise and prudent to agree to Clause 1, as it is here presented to us. That is the point that I wish to make. Is it not in Order to do so?
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member proceeds, I will stop him when I think he is out of Order.
    Sir R. Tasker: All I wish to point out is that the Ministry is really confined in its operation to town planning as now exercised by one department of the Minister of Health. I submit that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have had experience on' this matter are satisfied with the manner in which the Ministry of Health has carried out its duties and that no satisfactory reason has been advanced for a departure such as is proposed here. Clause 1 really means creating groups of officials whose actions are governed by rules and regulations which become so obscure that reference is made from one Department to another, each declining to accept responsibility.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: I wish to make one or two inquiries from the representative of the Govt. Clause I definitely proposes to transfer certain powers to the Minister of Works and Planning. I wish to know, first, whether, in order to exercise those new powers and to cope with the new work involved, there is to be any change within the Department itself. In the past there has been considerable criticism of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. We know that representatives of private firms—big, powerful, privately-owned building

    553
    organisations—are in key administrative posts in this Ministry. We have had examples, for instance, of important officials from private firms such as Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Company, Wimpey's and other organisations, men in fact who have been convicted in the courts of serious petrol offences, taking part in the administrative tasks of the Ministry of Works and Buildings. I suggest that unless a considerable change is to be made with regard to the personnel and the organisation within the Ministry itself, if would be very unwise to transfer these important powers to the Minister.
    I would point out, for instance, that one organisation which has sent representatives to this Ministry—to whom these powers are being conferred—is Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co. This organisation owns in London a big hotel, cafe and dining establishment known as Oddenino's. I would like to ask the Minister whether, when these powers have been transferred, meetings or functions arranged between various representatives with regard to planning all over the country, are still to take place at Oddenino's which is under the control of this organisation. Those are questions to which I would be interested to have an answer. I feel very seriously that in the transfer of these powers and in connection with this great work of planning for the future of the country, there should not be the slightest breath of suspicion on the personnel of the bodies to be entrusted with this important task.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Henry Strauss): With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker), I think it touches the general principle of this Bill, which was fully discussed on the Second Reading. Clause 1 states the general effect of the Bill, and the remaining Clauses are consequential or consist of machinery. The hon. Member will, therefore, forgive me if I do not on this occasion repeat what was said in the Debate on the Second Reading.
    Sir R. Tasker: Does the hon. Gentleman allege that a change in name will lead to greater efficiency?
    Mr. Strauss: I never made any such allegation during the previous Debate,
    554
    nor do I make it to-day, but I think that the Committee would be unwilling to embark on a consideration of matters which were fully dealt with on that occasion. I would remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Holborn then had a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, which was logically in accord with his speech to-day, but at the conclusion of the Debate he withdrew that Motion. The matter of internal organisation raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) concerns mainly, I think, that branch of the Ministry for which my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary answers, and he made a speech on the Second Reading. I cannot see that the mere transfer of powers by this Bill in itself involves any change in the organisation of the Ministry. There are many who are already working and have worked in the planning section, and there will be certain transfers of staff from the Ministry of Health, but I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give any detailed answer on the other section of the Ministry with which I am not directly concerned, and which is not, indeed, directly affected by this Clause.
    Mr. Davidson: The people to whom I refer are in administrative posts within the Ministry dealing with building materials and many other such matters that must arise under these new powers. All I am asking is that, whoever takes over this particular department, the personnel will be very carefully inspected and that the past mistakes of the Ministry of Works and Buildings with regard to the employment of people of such dubious character will not be repeated. That is all I ask.
    Mr. Strauss: I am certain that the closest examination will be made of those who are employed by the Ministry. I think that if the hon. Member wishes for any further reply on the matter about which he has raised a question, it will be more appropriately given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, who has just entered the Committee.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Officers, remuneration and expenses.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir R. Tasker: I want to raise an objection to this Clause and to call the attention of the Committee to the very extraordinary position in which the House will be placed by this Clause. A careful perusal of the Clause indicates that the House will no longer exercise control over money. I suggest to the Minister, for his consideration, that it would be in accordance with the usual practice if, in line 12, the words "the Treasury" were deleted and replaced by "the House of Commons." The Committee ought not lightly to pass a Clause of this sort, which would surrender to a set of Treasury officials the whole of control over finances. What will be involved? Nobody knows. The Minister cannot tell us what money will we involved; the Treasury cannot tell us; but if one takes a comparable case of the Ministry of Works and Buildings, there has been elicited the fact that 13,150 people are employed by that Ministry. No one will deny that this Measure will eventually cover more than ten times as much work as is covered by the Ministry of Works and Buildings, and if ten times the staff is to be employed, there will be huge amounts of money under the control of the Treasury and over which the House will be able to exercise no control. The proposal is an amazing one to put forward, and I attribute it to the loose wording of the Parliamentary draftsmen. Before pressing the Committee to agree to the Clause, I ask the Minister to take these matters into consideration and to give the Committee some more enlightenment as to what is really meant by the provision.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I think the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has unnecessary apprehensions. This Clause is in accordance with the usual form, and in fact a precisely similar Section is already in force and is the statutory provision under which the Minister is acting at the present time, namely, the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939, Section 3 of which is in similar terms to the Clause now under consideration.
    Mr. Davidson: Does that deal with Parliamentary Secretaries?
    Mr. Strauss: As I explained on the Second Reading, the position is that the matter is already within the control of the House through the annual Appropriation Act and, of course, the Vote for the Department, but it is customary, when setting up a new Ministry, to insert a Clause of this kind, although not strictly necessary, to remind the House that it does involve moneys provided by Parliament. I think the real effect of the provision is almost precisely the opposite to what the hon. Member for Holborn fears. It makes clear that the House will exercise control through the proper machinery for the purpose, and that is really all there is to it. I do not think hon. Members would wish me to trouble them with numerous precedents, but the provision is in common form and is the appropriate provision when a new Ministry is set up.
    Mr. David Adams: Are we to understand that the House will have the right to reject, if necessary, excessive expenditure under this head?
    Mr. Strauss: It will have the same powers as it has always had on Votes and on the Appropriation Act. The hon. Member is aware of what can be done under the annual Appropriation Act.
    Mr. Davidson: I take it that any Member of the House will be at liberty to ask a question with regard to the salary of any particular official appointed?
    Mr. Strauss: I think that is so, but it is not for me to give any ruling about what may be asked in a Parliamentary Question. The House has its methods with all the Departments, and no change has been made in this respect.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Capacity to sit in House of Commons.)
    Mr. Dcnman: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 26 and 27, and to insert:
    "Provided that during any period during which the Minister is a member of that House not more than one such parliamentary secretary shall sit as a member thereof, and, during any other period, not more than two such parliamentary secretaries shall sit as members thereof."

    557
    The effect of this Amendment is exceedingly simple, As the Bill stands, there can be three Parliamentary representatives of the Department sitting in the House at the same time. The Amendment seeks to reduce that number to two, so that at no time shall there be more than two representatives of the Department in the House. They may be either the Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary, or two Parliamentary Secretaries, as is the case at the present time. The Amendment arises directly out of the remarkable speech made by the Chairman of Ways and Means on the occasion of his presenting to the House the Report of the Select Committee on Offices of Profit under the Crown. It will be remembered that that Committee was a good deal concerned at the increasing number of Members of the House who were absorbed in the task of the Executive Government. By that means the number of independent critics of the Government was steadily being reduced, and the powers of the Executive being steadily increased. The Chairman of Ways and Means then told us that there were three chief principles that should guide our thoughts on this matter, the second of which was the need to limit the control or influence over the House by the Executive Government by means of an undue proportion of officers being Members of the House. The Committee, in fact, made a recommendation that the representatives of the Departments should be limited to a specific number, and that recommendation, as part of the whole Report, was accepted by the House. It seems to me to follow that if you limit the number of representatives of the Departments that may sit on the Front Bench, it is reasonable to limit the proportion out of that number which is attached to any one Department.
    We know quite well that there are some offices that have more than three representatives. The Treasury, the Army, and the Navy are examples. At the present time, more than one Department at any rate has three representatives in the House, but that is purely a question of war conditions, and is not intended to be a permanent arrangement. I suggest that on this occasion, when we are setting up a Department as a permanent part of our organisation of Government, we should lay down the sound constitutional maxim that in ordinary conditions two
    558
    Parliamentary representatives are as many as any normal Department should possess. Accordingly I move the Amendment standing in my name.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The Government consider that, when the new Ministry is set up, it is a reasonable provision that not more than two Ministers should sit in this House and that the third Minister should sit in another place. In these circumstances I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Sir R. Tasker: If that principle is to be accepted in this case, is it to apply to all Bills, because, if so, we shall have a House packed with supporters of the Government?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)
    Mr. Bossom: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "subject always to any such Order in Council being laid before Parliament not later than 21 days before the date on which it is brought into operation, and provided that no such Order shall be made at any date beyond six months after the date of the Armistice."
    As I understand it, this Bill is dealing primarily with post-war planning, but this Clause at it stands confers abnormally wide powers on the Minister, giving him the power to legislate, without reference to Parliament, by Orders in Council. The House has agreed on many occasions that for war needs Orders in Council are imperative, but this Bill is not a war Measure, and therefore there is no such urgency. The Bill is more concerned with after the war, and I cannot see why the Minister desires to have these rights instead of giving the House the right to discuss such matters or know of the Orders in Council in the ordinary way.
    The Committee on Ministers' Powers proposed a series of safeguards, but this Bill includes none of those safeguards, although they have been introduced in the case of nearly every Bill since the recommendation was made in 1932. It is unfortunate that this new Ministry should ask for these special powers. To my mind these special powers are not needed, and I

    559
    hope that the Minister will look favourably upon this Amendment and will not create a precedent by insisting upon this privilege which will, I believe, be undesirable in the eyes of this House.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: I rise to support the general principle of this Amendment. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) whether it should not also apply to the other provisions. I am not clear why he has limited it to Subsection (3a).
    Mr. Bossom: I have another Amendment of a somewhat similar nature which I desire to move on the next Sub-section of this Clause.
    Sir F. Fremantle: I wish to support this Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has said, this Bill proposes, and rightly proposes, to give tremendous powers to the Minister of Works and Planning. I hope that the Minister will use these powers to the full, but these rights will mean infringing the personal and corporate rights of concerns, persons and administrations throughout the country. Local and small administrations, as well as rich and poor, will be affected. It is obviously of great importance, when exercising such totalitarian powers as this Bill gives, that not only shall you do right, but you shall seem to do right, and I am afraid that, if this Amendment is not passed, many of the proposals which we planners are keen to have will be misrepresented by those who take a short-sighted view, and will be discussed in the Press, in correspondence and in articles as proposals violently infringing personal rights. Therefore it is right that we should be able to raise these matters in the House of Commons, and I hope that some such provision will be made, so that Orders in Council can be discussed before they become law.
    Sir R. Tasker: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is wrong in attributing tremendous powers to the Minister, because it seems to me that the powers conferred upon him under this Measure are already enjoyed by the Commissioner of Works and the Minister of Health. I desire, however, to support the Amendment, because unlimited powers can be imported under Orders in Council or under
    560
    Defence Regulations, which, I submit, ought not to be done.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) and other Members who have supported his Amendment have overlooked the qualifying words which govern this provision. I explained at length on the Second Reading why it was proposed to carry out these transfers by means of Orders in Council, and I referred to the great number of minor Acts and instruments which will have to be revised in order to substitute the Minister for the former Commissioners of Works and to make consequential changes. The powers sought under this provision are limited to what is necessary or expedient having regard to transfers effected under the Act. The Subsection says:
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act."
    It repeats in sub-paragraph (a) the words:
    "to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid."
    Its purpose is to incorporate in various documents the change of name and to make various consequential changes rendered necessary' by the transfer. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) attributes powers to the Minister which are certainly not conferred by the Bill. In fact, that was one of the criticisms directed against it on the Second Reading. It does not confer, either by this or any other Clause, such powers on the Minister as my hon. Friend suspects. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone suggested that something unprecedented was being done. That is not so. There are numerous precedents for conferring power to amend Statutes by Order in Council. It is perfectly reasonable that, when a Bill transfers main powers, subsidiary machinery should be worked out at leisure and effected by Order in Council.
    Mr. Davidson: I take it that such an Order in Council will automatically come to the House and lie on the Table?
    Mr. Strauss: It will appear in the Statutory Rules and Orders. It is a common practice, once a general principle is enacted by Parliament, to give power to

    561
    effect consequential changes by a subsidiary instrument. This was done in the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, and the Ministers of the Crown (Emergency Appointments) Act, 1939. In all of them power was given to effect these subsequent adaptations of Statutes and to make consequential changes by Order in Council. There is, however, one respect in which the powers that, we seek go somewhat beyond the precedents that I have mentioned. That is in including the word "repeal." The reason for that is that "enactment" does not necessarily mean the whole of an Act. There are actual Sections the whole of which we may want to get rid of because they will become obsolete by virtue of the transfer. For instance, there is a provision in the Crown Lands Act, 1851, which provides that any two Commissioners or the First Commissioner may exercise the functions of the Commissioners of Works, a provision which will be meaningless when the Commissioners of Works cease to exist. The right way of dealing with such a provision is to do away with it, and therefore, although it would have been arguable that such treatment would have been covered by the word "adapt," for which there is ample precedent, it was thought proper to put in the word "repeal" to make clear that the whole of a Section might go in that manner.
    I can give the most explicit assurance that no sinister use is going to be made, or in my opinion could be made, of the powers contained in this Section of the Bill. It is absolutely governed by the limiting words. The consequential changes in various instruments that we seek to make under the sub-section which my hon. Friend quoted are in all cases changes made necessary by the transfer of powers which is effected under the Bill. They are minor consequential changes. The object is to translate the language of old Statutes and instruments into language made appropriate by the transfers. To effect any major reform in any of those Acts, or any reform other than translating them into appropriate language, we should certainly have to come back to the House. There is no sinister intention whatever behind the provision.
    562
    Another matter that my hon. Friend raised was a proposed limitation of time during which these changes could be effected by Orders in Council. I think that that, again, would be inappropriate. Such time limitations may be appropriate in a war-time Act, which itself is coming to an end after a certain period, but it would be without precedent in a piece of permanent legislation. If my hon. Friend says, nevertheless, that these adaptations ought to be effected within a reasonable period, the time limit should obviously be from the passing of the Act rather than from the Armistice. Everyone is anxious, however, that civil servants and Parliamentary draftsmen should give priority to urgent work. There are a certain number of Statutes which will undoubtedly be dealt with by Orders in Council at a very early date in order to effect the necessary changes, and that will be done very quickly, but there is a vast body of legislation which really has to be gone through at leisure and to which no one would desire that any civil servant or Parliamentary draftsman should have to give urgent attention now under the necessity of a time limit. There is really no urgency in the matter at all, and, having regard to the amount of revision of minor Statute law involved, I think there is an overwhelming case against any limitation in time.
    Mr. Bossom: May I have a definite assurance that these powers will not be used to do anything other than bring into the Bill exactly what has already been approved by this House and that nothing new will be introduced under the guise of an Order in Council?
    Mr. Strauss: I want to give the most explicit assurance, but I am not sure that the words my hon. Friend asks me to repeat would be entirely appropriate for the purpose. The whole Clause is purely subsidiary machinery. It is for rewriting various documents in appropriate language made necessary by the transfer.
    Mr. Davidson: Or repealing.
    Mr. Strauss: A Section here or there might be repealed, certainly.
    Mr. Davidson: It says:
    "repeal any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument relating to the transferors or their functions or property to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient."

    563
    It gives them the power to repeal any agreed enactments.
    Mr. Strauss: I do not think there is anything between us on this. I thought that I had made clear that the word "enactment" does not necessarily mean the whole of a Statute or document. There may, of course, be some Order the whole of which is rendered obsolete. The whole of the powers given by this sub-clause are limited by the words to which I have drawn attention, namely, "necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act." There are four classes of transfer: from the Commissioners of Works, from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, from the Minister of Works and Buildings—although that does not apply in this case because he has his powers under Defence Regulations—and the town and country planning powers of the Minister of Health under the Act of 1932 and various minor Acts. In some of these minor Acts where the Minister of Health has planning powers and where in future the Minister of Works and Planning will exercise planning powers, a certain amount of rewriting or revision may be necessary. I gave some examples on Second Reading. There are the London Squares Preservation Act, 1931, the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act, 1938, the Allotments Act, 1925, the Middlesex County Council Act, 1934, and other Acts. In all those a certain amount of rewriting will be necessary in order to substitute the Minister of Works and Planning for the Minister of Health. That is a comparatively simple matter, but in the case of ancient documents, deeds and Acts where the Commissioners of Works are concerned there are rather more complicated changes. It may not be a mere substitution of one name for another, but there are certain provisions, one example of which I gave the Committee, which have become wholly inappropriate and are no longer necessary. My undertaking is that nothing will be done under this provision except the rewriting of these documents in appropriate language in order to carry out the transfers I have mentioned. For any Amendment of the law me must, of course, come back to the House.
    Mr. Maxton: Why "of course" when you have such a sweeping Clause? I am here as a
    564
    detached person and I have listened with interest to the Minister's defence against the Amendment. This Clause gives the most sweeping powers to some official somewhere in a backroom to repeal or rewrite the law in any way, not for a week or two, but for a long-term period. All that we have to limit the great power which we are handing away is an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary. We accept it as coming from him for the period while he remains in office and has some influence on the matter. It is, however, a pretty weak limitation.
    Mr. Strauss: I am sorry I have not made myself clear. I gave that undertaking, but perhaps it was not necessary for the matter does not depend upon my undertaking. There are the words of limitation in the Bill itself to which I have drawn attention. It would be entirely contrary to those words of limitation if this power were used to alter the effect of any Act or instrument beyond what was necessary by reason of the transfer of powers which is mentioned in the limitation. I ask the hon. Member to read the Bill. I do not know whether his fear is that the limitation will be wholly ignored by a Government Department.
    Mr. Maxton: I am not making the case that it would be wholly ignored, but the Parliamentary Secretary might not be in office when these documents are rewritten and brought up to date. Whatever this fellow in a backroom writes will be the law and he will decide to what extent he recognises the limitation.
    Mr. Strauss: I have mentioned a considerable number of Acts where a power of this kind has been given, and I do not think any Member can quote an example of any such abuse as has been hinted at.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Is not this Sub-section in complete conflict with the Minister's Powers Report of 1932? From time to time Governments have tried to over-rule it. There was an exhaustive investigation into the principle involved, and why not accept the Amendment and do away with the trouble?
    Mr. Strauss: I am afraid I have not examined the Clause with reference to the matter alluded to by my hon. Friend.
    Sir H. Williams: This is the first exception.
    Mr. Strauss: No. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Committee when I quoted the previous examples, but there was one as recent as the Ministry of Supply Act, 1939, which covers the point as far as "adaptation" is concerned. The word "repeal" is novel, and that is why I thought it right to bring it to the attention of the Committee, but there is nothing in this Clause which takes the use of this power outside the limiting words to which I have drawn attention.
    Sir H. Williams: Who is to judge the matter?
    Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member wishes to know who is to be the judge and to discuss the more legal aspects of the matter, there is another hon. Member sitting on this Bench who is more qualified to speak. I do not think I can usefully add to what I have said except to repeat that, except with regard to the matter to which I have drawn attention where the words go beyond previous provisions of the kind—and I have given the reason for them—there is nothing novel in this power, which has been frequently used and never abused, and I do not think there is any substance in the fears which have been expressed.
    Sir Ernest Shepperson (Leominster): The Minister has been subjected to criticism from all sides of the Committee on the ground that the powers which are given under this Bill are excessive. I wish to put the point of view that the powers given to him are not sufficient. He takes the powers which were given to the Ministry of Health under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and later we had the Bill to prevent ribbon development. The purpose of that Bill was to prevent the destruction of the British countryside by indiscriminate building. What has happened? The law was passed, but this building along our country roads continues, and from year to year we have seen the progressive destruction—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Town and Country Planning Act.
    Sir E. Shepperson: On that point I will say no more, but this Clause gives the Minister powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, and I say that so
    566
    far those powers have not proved sufficient. I wish to ask whether in future he will have the power to prevent the destruction of the British countryside?
    Sir H. Williams: I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not prove to be awkward upon this point, because the attitude he is taking up is in complete conflict with his instincts as we saw them expressed when he occupied a position of less responsibility. He has given us a hint that an hon. and learned Member may explain the position from the legal point of view, but I would point out what happens when His Majesty does something in Council. We read in the papers that a Council has been held, and we see a small list of those who were called to this Council and on whose advice His Majesty signed the documents. It is a very ceremonial way of making an Order, but when it has been made then, so far as I know, it cannot be challenged in any court. I think I am right with regard to that. If a mistake has been made, there is no power on earth to correct that mistake. If this were done by Order in Council, then not only would it be published in the "London Gazette," but it would be laid before Parliament. If it were a good Order no one would object and no more would be heard of it. If, on the other hand, a mistake had been made, this court of appeal would be available to correct the mistake. That is all that is asked. It involves very little trouble. Why Departments are so anxious to seize these autocratic powers and take away from us our democratic rights I cannot understand.
    Mr. Denman: With great regret, I find myself in complete agreement with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his contention. I regret it, because I think the Minister should have taken more powers than this Bill gives. If I saw in this Clause a reasonable chance of the fulfilment of the fears which have been expressed by some hon. Members, I should be only too delighted, but I am afraid there is no such chance, although I would add that if there were a chance of adding to the powers I should agree that the additions ought to be in a document that would lie upon the Table of the House and be subject to our criticism. I suggest, however, that it is quite unnecessary that we should go through that formality in this case, because the powers are very

    567
    directly limited by the terms of the Bill. They can only do what is necessary or expedient "having regard to any transfer under the Act." That gives no power to modify to such an extent as to create fresh powers.
    Mr. Maxton: Did not the hon. Member hear the list, which was read out to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, of previous Acts in which the House had allowed this sort of thing, with its inference that there was no harm in adding just another little bit of legislation on the same lines? The essence of the objection is that Parliament is handing away its own powers. Every time it is asked to do so the statement is made, "It is only a very little thing; it does not matter." That is the point of view which the hon. Member is putting now. But this is going on and going on.
    Mr. Denman: I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friend on this point. I should agree with him if there were any question of giving the Department new powers of legislation, new powers of adding to the planning powers already possessed by Departments, but this is merely consequential to what is involved in the transfer. No new power is created.
    Mr. Davidson: But if we are not giving them power to make legislation, we are giving them power to repeal legislation which has already been enacted by this House, and surely that is just as important as the power to make legislation.
    Mr. Denman: Only in so far as it is consequent upon the transfer—
    Mr. Davidson: But who decides that?
    Mr. Denman:—and that is why it has seemed to me to be a little pedantic that we should trouble ourselves with so small a point. Let me add that I do not think the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) was correct in saying that an Order in Council cannot be challenged. Such an Order in Council would rest on this Bill—or Act—and if anything is done by the Order in Council which goes beyond the authority given by the Bill then surely a court would declare the Order to be ultra vires.
    Sir H. Williams: Does the hon. Member suggest that His Majesty could be haled before one of his own Judges and told that he has done something wrong?
    Mr. Denman: I certainly think that His Majesty's advisers could be haled there for putting before him an Order which went beyond the powers authorised under the law. However, we have a responsible legal authority with us and he can say whether my hon. Friend or I am right. As to the undesirability of a limited time, surely it is very undesirable that this process of transfer of property should have to be completed within a defined period. We know that the Commissioners of Works own property all over the world, and the process of transfer may be not only very difficult but also expensive, and I am not sure that it might not be advisable to maintain the Commissioners of Works in permanent existence merely for the purpose of maintaining the various Embassy buildings and other property which they own at present in different parts of the world.
    Sir Percy Harris: I must confess that I am a little surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in one of his early appearances in his new capacity, should come with a proposal which is against the whole spirit of his former attitude to these matters. We have looked upon him as rather the champion of Parliamentary control as against the pretentions of the bureaucracy, and I am a little concerned to find that the draftsman has vested in him such very considerable powers, powers which enable him to modify or adapt any Acts or Orders which the late deceased and much-lamented Commissioners of Works have had.
    Perhaps it is taking him a bit by surprise to ask, but can he not find some other words which will protect the rights of the House of Commons? The hon. Gentleman who came as his champion reminded us that this late lamented Department had powers all over the world. Its properties were spread about in every foreign country and State, and, I might add, in every Dominion and Crown Colony as well. I suggest that the very fact that the hon. Gentleman has been able to quote precedents to justify his action in putting these words into the Bill makes the case stronger for some modification. We have got into the bad way during the war of rushing things through on the ground of emergency. We have granted powers which in normal times we should not have thought of granting. This

    569
    is not a war Measure. It is an important Measure involving important repercussions in our post-war policy. It is one thing to give such powers in a Bill setting up a Ministry of Supply, but quite a different thing in a Bill relating to the reconstruction and planning of the country after the war. We ought to hesitate before putting these words into an Act of Parliament.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I entirely sympathise—if I may express a personal view—with the feelings expressed with regard to the secondary powers of legislation to which hon. Members have drawn attention, but I am rather surprised that they have chosen this provision as an example. If they examined it more closely, I think they would find that the reservation which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is so anxious to have is already contained in the words, and that the words have been drawn most carefully in order to secure that the Bill does not go further than the spirit of which the House approves, in addition to the letter. If I understood rightly, the hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking. I think the undertaking which he wanted—and no doubt he will correct me if I have not got it aright—was that the Minister would not go further than the existing law in any matter which affected the rights of the subject or increased his own powers. Is that right?
    Mr. Bossom indicated assent.
    The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought I had got the substance of what he wanted. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has drawn attention several times to the words in paragraph (a) which I expect have been troubling his mind. I would ask my hon. Friends to read it. Note the words:—
    "repeal, modify or adapt any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument."
    If the matter stopped there, there might be substance in the various points that have been made, although I am not attempting to adjudicate about it; but there are the further limiting words:
    "relating to the transferors or their functions or property, to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid."
    570
    Those words relate back to the old machinery which is being transferred, the powers or functions of the Commissioners. Therefore, we start by limiting the repeal or modification to any enactment, etc., relating to the transferors or their functions or property. As I understand it—and again I am prepared to consider any other legal interpretation that can be put forward—there cannot be any such extension of the powers, as has been suggested, because it is first of all limited to the transferors or their functions or property. Having that in mind, you come back to the second limitation contained in the Clause:
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to His Majesty to be necessary or expedient having regard to any transfer effected under this Act."
    We are therefore limited, in the first place, to the transferors or their functions or property as they exist, and we are limited, secondly, to making any change which is necessary for the transfer.
    Sir H. Williams: I agree with all that, but suppose the officials decided, in common parlance, to chance their arm—they sometimes do so—with their existing powers. Suppose they administer them in a way which is, in fact, illegal. If somebody goes to court and they are challenged, all is well, but suppose somebody puts in something which is an addition to the powers of the transferors, saying, "This is our chance to get this little power," and they put it in. Can it then be challenged in the courts?
    The Solicitor-General: I want to be quite frank with regard to challenge in the courts. Since the case of R. v. the Comptroller of Patents, as reported last year, it seems very doubtful whether it can be challenged. The Committee will bear in mind that I am not giving an absolute opinion, because it is very difficult to know whether exactly the same principles apply in regard to different subject matters. I would say, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), that this is quite a recent view and that the view which he put to the Committee, although it has great authority, is not the view in favour in the court's latest decision. He need, however, feel no regret about having misled the Committee.

    571
    I should like to come back to the main point. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has not met the point which I am seeking to put to the Committee, which is that if you searched for words by which to circumscribe and limit this power, you could not find words more apt or better to make the circumscription and limitation which you wanted. That is the real answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Let us, by all means, face the fact that a great deal of consequential work has sometimes to be done, such as going through old documents and rolls and so on, in order to bring them up to date. Do we as a House desire that in every case this bringing up to date should be a matter entirely under the discussion and control of a Chamber like this? Do we want to do that, or do we want to say that there are certain fields of activity where we genuinely think there are matters for revision, while we try our hardest to find words which will limit that field of activity so as not to interfere with the liberty of the subject or enlarge the powers of Ministers or officials? I am sorry to have got on to a very general question, but that I think is the best view. As I understand it, the words in the Bill accept the point which I was most careful to note and most anxious should be answered.
    Sir H. Williams: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a mountain out of this. He is assuming that these Orders in Council will necessarily be debated, but they will not. All that will happen is that when the Orders have been printed in the "London Gazette"—they are bound to be printed—a copy will come into the possession of the Clerk at the Table, and the fact will be noted in the White Paper which is issued once a week. Then anybody who is interested will have his attention drawn to it and will read it; if he thinks there is anything wrong, then there will be a Debate. If, however, the Government are innocent, there will be no Debate; it is only if they are prospectively guilty that there will be a Debate, and I cannot understand what the objection is.
    Mr. Davidson: I tried very hard to follow the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, and while I agree that
    572
    there must be considerable sympathy in the Committee for the suggestion that we do not always want to discuss trivial or inconsequential arrangements, the argument cuts both ways. It would not be right for Members of this House to hand over the very important act of repealing or in any large sense modifying or adapting any legislation or enactment that we have passed. But that is exactly what is asked in this Clause. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Measures to which he referred as "minor legislation," such as the London green belt and other local legislation, are not minor legislative enactments at all. They are very important to Members of this House and to the community as a whole. The Government are to-day asking powers that have not been asked for in any previous Bill. For instance, in his own statement the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the Amendment and said he had given an assurance that under no circumstances would anything be done which would in any way seem to be infringing upon the powers of the House, or words to that effect. But that is exactly what Hitler said to the German people when he was asking for powers in Germany. That is exactly what any Minister promises to the House, but all that the ordinary Member has to deal with is the cold print, the Bill as it is placed before us, and the legal interpretation that can be placed upon it. Here it is:
    "His Majesty may, by Order in Council "—
    and I re-emphasise this—
    "repeal, modify or adapt any enactment, order, regulation, scheme, deed, agreement or other instrument, …"
    Mark the wideness of the Clause; it covers anything at all that relates to this particular question. I warn my hon. Friends in all parts of the Committee that this would place strong organisations such as the Church Commissioners, who are strong property owners, in a position to bring to bear upon the Government the great influences they have always brought to bear upon them in the past. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who is well known in legal circles in this and other countries, has himself in many speeches from this side of the House pointed out the great influence of many of these vast property-owning companies and other associations. It is therefore

    573
    certainly within the understanding of most hon. Members that the hon. Member opposite should have supported this Clause.
    Mr. Denman: I should be exceedingly grateful if the hon. Member would show me any possible connection between this Clause and the work of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I did not suspect that there was any connection at all.
    Mr. Davidson: As a result of very considerable experience and study, I have ascertained the fact that the ecclesiastical authorities are—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may not discuss the work of the ecclesiastical authorities.
    Mr. Davidson: I understood that they were very extensive owners of property, and I am therefore suggesting to the Government that they are placing themselves in a very weak position in asking the Members of this House to accept any such proposal. Why cannot they simply accept the Amendment? What does the Amendment ask? It asks that within a reasonable period, whenever the Government make any serious decision—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) has not asked the Government to bring forward any trivial or inconsequential points, but only serious points involving serious factors, such, for instance, as the complete repeal of a large part of an enactment—that decision should be brought forward to the Members of this House. Surely the Government have confidence in themselves. When they bring forward such a proposal, a short explanatory speech by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would suffice for the common sense of the Members, and would also keep the legislation in this particular matter within the orbit of the democracy which we all desire.
    The Solicitor-General: The Government are very anxious that there should not be a difference between us" which is really of little substance when we have the same desire animating practically all our minds. Therefore, I have tried, after listening carefully to all the speeches that have been made, to find a formula, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested, would meet the wishes of the
    574
    Committee and especially the point which, as I have said, I do not think is seriously challenged, because the words have been carefully chosen, namely, the question of altering enactments which are already in force. Therefore the course I suggest, if I may mention it now, would be to add another Sub-section (8):
    "Any Order in Council under this Act repealing, modifying or adapting any enactment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made:
    Provided that no such Order in Council shall be deemed for the purposes of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, to be a statutory rule to which that section applies."
    The proviso means, as the hon. Member for South Croydon knows, that the additional six weeks' delay and the publication of many hundreds of copies so that public bodies and persons may get a copy if they want it, are avoided. I am sure that none of my hon. friends would desire that that cumbrous machinery should operate in times of stringency like the present. If that appeals to my hon. Friend as a reasonable way of meeting the situation, then I suggest that he might withdraw his present Amendment on the understanding that this Amendment will be moved in due course to take its place—
    Dr. Peters: Did I properly understand the Solicitor-General to be limiting his words to "enactment"?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes.
    Sir R. Tasker: The Solicitor-General, on Sub-section (3), pointed out that the action of His Majesty's Government would be governed by things affected under this Bill. May I point out a previous paragraph which says:
    "provided that any such powers duties property rights or liabilities conferred, imposed held, enjoyed, or incurred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940 …"
    That alters the whole situation, because if you look at Clause 6, Sub-section (3), page 4, line 25—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member is addressing himself to the Amendment. He is addressing himself to the Bill.
    Sir R. Tasker: It arose out of the Solicitor-General's explanation; that is all.
    Mr. Bossom: On the assurance that has clearly been given to the Committee, I

    575
    beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 6, at the end, add:
    "(8) Any Order in Council under this Act repealing, modifying or adapting any enactment shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made;
    Provided that no such Order in Council shall be deemed for the purposes of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, to be a statutory rule to which that Section applies."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. James Griffiths: I wish to put to the Minister in charge of the Bill a point which has been broached to me and which has occurred to me, too. It has reference to the transfer of powers from the Minister of Health to the new Minister of Works and Planning. The point is that some years ago the Ministry of Health delegated a large part of its powers of administration, so far as Wales is concerned, to the Welsh Board of Health. Included in the powers delegated—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the point with which the hon. Member is dealing comes under Clause 1 and not this Clause.
    Mr. Griffiths: This Clause deals with the transfer of powers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, Clause 1 does that. This Clause merely concerns the machinery by which it is done.
    Sir R. Tasker: I wish to call attention to Sub-section (3). The Solicitor-General explained that the Order in Council would be limited by anything which arose out of the transfer of present powers to the new Minister. If you look at page 3, lines 31 to 35, which precede that Sub-section, it says:
    "Provided that any such powers duties property rights or liabilities conferred, imposed, held, enjoyed or incurred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, shall be transferred to the Minister by Orders in Council made under those Acts."
    What is there to prevent an Order in Council giving power under the Emergency Powers Acts to empower the Minister to do certain things? These Defence
    576
    Regulations make up a huge volume of 400 pages, and in that you find one little paragraph, I think it is 46 (a), which gives unlimited power to the corresponding Minister, namely, the Minister of Works and Buildings. What is there to prevent an Order in Council to give like power to the Minister of Works and Planning? Would the Solicitor-General enlighten the Committee as to that, because if, as I read this, an Order in Council may give power under the Emergency Powers Acts, then the powers of the new Minister will be unlimited.
    The Solicitor-General: I think the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) has really confused two matters with which the Committee was dealing. On the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), we were dealing with Sub-section (3) (a), and with regard to that, I was pointing out, in view of the matters which were exercising the minds of a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), the dual limitation that was inherent in subparagraph (a) and the parent Clause. When we come back to the point which my hon. Friend has now raised, you will see that he has in mind the proviso to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) sets out that:
    "the functions, property, rights and liabilities transferred to the Minister under this Act shall be so transferred by such Orders in Council as may from time to time be made by His Majesty for transferring to the Minister, as from such dates as may be specified in the Order,—"
    —and then sets out the functions, etc. To that general provision there is the special proviso that the powers, duties, property rights, or liabilities conferred under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, shall be transferred to the Minister by Orders in Council made under those Acts. That is, if the Minister gets his powers under the Emergency Powers Act, then the transfer shall take place under those Acts. That is not in any way derogating from the scheme put forward in this Bill, to which the Committee has just added by general concurrence in order to make assurance doubly sure.
    Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister give a slight explanation of paragraph (b)? The paragraph is to
    "provide for the transfer to the Minister of any powers conferred or duties imposed on the Minister of Health by or under any enactment

    577
    other than the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to such extent as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid."
    Does that mean that the Minister of Works and Planning has the right to get an Order in Council to take away, or transfer, from the Minister of Health any of these duties or functions, which the Minister of Health does not want to give up? Is the Minister of Health in agreement with these transfers?
    Mr. H. Strauss: I am glad that this particular sub-paragraph has been mentioned. It gives me an opportunity of making a slight correction of some previous remarks of mine, to which allusion was made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson). I think that such Statutes as the London Squares Preservation Act and the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act fall more naturally under sub-paragraph (b), and not under sub-paragraph (a), with which I was then dealing. Most of the matters dealt with under (a) are the old powers of the Commissioners of Works, although it is possible that there are Statutes—and I do not say that the ones I mentioned may not be among them—which may need to be dealt with both under (a) and (b).
    To turn to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), it is scarcely necessary for me to assure the Committee that the Government always act with one mind. My hon. Friend will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is one of those who back the Bill. It would be most improper constitutionally, as I think everybody agrees, if, when the Executive is acting, questions should be asked whether a particular Minister agrees. I need hardly say that my Department acts in these matters in close association with my right hon. Friend's Department. It would be constitutionally improper for the Committee to try to insert any provision saying that particular Ministers should agree to actions of the Government as a whole.
    Mr. Davidson: The Minister must be careful of his statements, particularly having regard to the fact that he is at the beginning of his career. He said that the Government always act with one mind. We were very much criticised for making that statement a couple of weeks ago.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Could I again raise a point which I raised at an earlier stage? I want to ask, what is to happen to the powers which, under the Town and Country Planning Act, were delegated by the Minister of Health to the Welsh Board of Health? Is it proposed by the new Ministry to set up some regional organisation, and will these powers be vested in that organisation? Speaking for all my colleagues from the Principality, and for all who are interested in the subject, I want to say that we valued very much the delegation of powers to the Welsh Board of Health. It was a recognition of the entity of Wales, and it certainly led to better administration. I would welcome an assurance that steps will be taken to preserve that small measure of devolution.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I am not in a position to give any assurance at this moment, except to say that I am well aware of the importance attached in the Principality to this question. The exact form of our organisation is one on which I would rather not speak until I have had the opportunity of talking to hon. Members like my hon. Friend, from whom I hope to get valuable advice on the position in Wales. We certainly desire to work in the closest association with those who are interested in this matter. I can say—indeed, it is obvious—that our officer in those parts will certainly be a Welsh-speaking gentleman. At the present moment I think it will best meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, as well as the proprieties, if I do not go beyond that, but merely assure him that his suggestion will be considered and that I hope to have a word with him and his colleagues.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Of course, I live full support to the Government in their good intentions in this matter; but it seems curious that, at a time when the rest of the community are

    579
    doing everything they can to economise labour and to cut down superfluities, the Government set up a new Ministry. When the Government are making such great appeals to the country, they might well refrain from setting up new Ministries of this kind.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to. Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939, as respects mariners and other seafaring persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under schemes made by virtue of the said Act of 1939 which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending the scope of such schemes."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1—(Additional injuries and damage in respect of which compensation may be paid.)
    Petty Officer Alan Herbert: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (1).
    I do not intend at present to press this Amendment to a division. It depends largely on the answer we receive from the Solicitor-General, whom I am glad to see in his place. I wish to criticise the drafting of this Sub-section; and, therefore, by implication, the drafting of the entire Bill, because this is one of the principal cogs in the complex mechanism of the Bill. I also wish to ask a specific question, arising out of the drafting. Since the Second Reading, when I ventured to make one or two observations on the drafting of the Bill, there has been an interesting correspondence in "The Times" on the subject, and I have had a courteous invitation to visit the Parliamentary Counsel's Department, where I saw two distinguished Parliamentary counsel, including the gentleman who drafted this Bill.
    580
    We are all always glad to hear other people's points of view, but, although I must not betray any confidences, I must say that when I left that office my impression was that we had better agree to differ. I find a very great cleavage of opinion between people who think as I do, rightly or wrongly, about the drafting of Bills, and those whose business it is to do the drafting: and it is time that the House of Commons took notice of it.
    I want to ask this question: Does this Sub-section apply to a tug operating in waters about Southend which does dangerous and difficult work in dangerous and sometimes stormy waters in connection with convoys? Indeed, the tugs have suffered a good many casualties. The answer to that question ought to be made clear to the Committee.
    The present system of drafting legislation by reference is defended by some on the ground that, though it may not be clear to anybody else, it is clear to His Majesty's Judges. My first comment is that His Majesty's Judges are always saying precisely the opposite, that they cannot understand what it is that we have done. And my second comment is that this particular Bill is one which will very rarely, if at all, trouble His Majesty's Judges. Then there are still some old-fashioned and barbarous people who think that legislation should be understood by the people who have to obey it and have to be governed by it. I believe the late Lord Birkenhead once said that the citizen is required to know the law at his peril, while the lawyer, and even the Judge, is forgiven for getting it wrong; indeed, Judges are expected to get it wrong, and that is why we have two Courts of Appeal and sometimes more. I agree that so complex is legislative life that we cannot always make everything understandable to the people—it is absurd to expect it—but that should still be held up as an ideal. In the case of Bills like this, it is said "The Bill may not be understood by the ordinary citizen, but we shall publish a statement showing exactly, in plain language, what the Bill does or does not do." But that is a dangerous thing. Much as we rely upon the honesty and integrity Ministers and Departments, there is a great danger of things being put into such and such a paper or being left out about which we should be none

    581
    the wiser in this House because we do not understand the terms of the Bill. In spite of all the difficulties—and I do recognise the difficulties and the patient toils of the draftsmen—we must keep before us the ideal of making legislation intelligible to ordinary people. It is not always a practicable ideal, but we must keep it before us. The idea of having one document in this House and then issuing a completely different document to explain it is a great surrender to unintelligibility.
    Then there is a third party which I think is even more important than the Judges who interpret the law and the subject who has to obey it, and that is, the men in both Houses of Parliament who make the law. It is of fundamental importance that we should understand what we are doing while we are doing it. How often do we hear the complaint in the Press, in the courts and on platforms, How in the world did Parliament permit this or that piece of nonsense to go through? "The answer, in nine cases out of ten, is that we did not know what we were doing. We must know what we are doing.
    I come back to my specific question. Does this sub-section apply or not to tugs and the crews of tugs operating and assisting convoys off Southend Pier, where the river is five or six miles wide? This question has been put to me seriously by tugmen whom I see every day of my life, but it may equally be put to any other Member. Well I see in Sub-section (1) that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act are to apply to mariners, pilots and "other persons," and that the Clause refers to mariner and ships. It does not seem to be likely that "ships" includes "tugs," or that tugs' crews are mariners, but I hope perhaps may come under "other persons." I look at Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act. Section 3 has nothing to do with tugmen. Section 4 deals with pilots and apprentice-pilots, pilot boats, lightships, lighthouse-tenders and lightship-tenders, and there is nothing about tugmen there, nor does Section 5 seem to apply to tugmen specifically.
    But with my quick eye I have noticed, in Sub-section (1), that Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the principal Act have been amended by the subsequent provision of this Bill, and I have another ray of hope that perhaps tugmen are coming into this after
    582
    all. I go back to the Statute Book and find that I have to cut out the first 28 lines of Section 3 and paste in 53 new lines which are to be found in sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of this Bill. Having done that operation, I still find nothing about tugs; but still there are a lot of other Amendments to these three Sections. There is a page of consequential Amendments in the Schedule on page 7 of the Bill, which in my opinion is the most untidy piece of drafting that has ever been put before the Committee. I go to the principal Act;—and I protest against things being put to us in this state—and I scribble in physically, as a conscientious Member must do, all sorts of consequential Amendments until my Act looks like a crossword puzzle, which indeed it is. Still, with these alterations I can find nothing which can possibly refer to tugmen off Southend or anywhere else. I go back to the tugman and say, "I am afraid, old boy, you are out of this."
    However, I see one last chance. Perhaps a tug is, after all, a ship. I scan through the Bill, and strange enough, although the whole Bill is about ships, there is no definition of a ship in the Bill. I find, in the Schedule to the Bill, that
    "'Ship' has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894."
    I go to the Library, look up the principal Act, and find that a ship "includes any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars." At last I get to a tug. It is wonderful. Southend Water is" tidal waters," and these waters are also a harbour, so that I am very nearly there. Then I think there must be a catch in it, and I wonder if the Solicitor-General could, offhand, give an answer to that. Perhaps, I think, although a tug is a ship and Southend is tidal water, a tugman is not a mariner, and so we start again. With my head going round and round, I look at the principal Act, which says that a mariner means the master or member of the crew of a ship being employed in "sea-going" service. So the poor tugman is caught again, or at least I think so, because Southend, although "on Sea," is within the "seaweed limit" of the Port of London Authority.
    I want to get him in, but I am now using him as an illustration of the difficulties in which we are put by this form of legislation. I cannot see why we should undergo this confusion. We should know

    583
    what we are doing and not have to go round libraries to find out. I admire the draftsmen, the more so because of their difficulties in war-time, but unlike us, they sit in a room in which there are piles of Statutes and books on case law. When a problem arises they take down one of them and scribble down any point on which they are doubtful, but we humble Members of Parliament have not these facilities, and we ought to be thought about a bit more when these documents are being composed.
    What are we to do about it? I am aware that not every case is the same. But in this case we should have started again. We should have said that this is to be the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill, that it applies to the following mariners, to the following vessels, to the following kind of injuries, including the war injuries mentioned in the principal Act, in addition to others which we are adding. I am told that this would have meant a longer Bill, although I am not persuaded about that, but also—and this comes straight from the house's mouth—that it would have taken much less time to prepare by the draftsmen, and that is an important point.
    The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has made a confession which makes me think I am bound to rule this Amendment out of Order. It seems to be an Amendment which would, if carried, negative the whole Bill. I would have been put in some difficulty by the hon. and gallant Member moving an Amendment of which I have had no notice—the hon. and gallant Member is moving to omit Sub-section (1) and not Sub-section (2), as on the Paper—and I doubted very much whether I could find it consistent with my duty to put this Amendment to the Committee at all. I have decided that I cannot. The hon. and gallant Member asked a question which he might have asked on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I think to that extent I should be entitled to allow a Government representative to make a reply. But I do not think the hon. and gallant Member can continue on the line he is taking now, that is, attacking the Bill generally.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I appreciate that, Sir Dennis. My main purpose is to give the Solicitor-General an opportunity
    584
    of replying. As the drafting authorities have been so much attacked, I thought he would like an opportunity of giving their side of the case as early as possible. However, I intend to withdraw the Amendment even if you find it in Order.
    The Chairman: I am not prepared to put the Amendment to the Committee. I think the hon. and gallant Member had better put his question when we come to the Motion "That the Clause should stand part of the Bill."
    Petty Officer Herbert: Shall I withdraw the Amendment now?
    The Chairman: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member need do so. I have declined to put it to the Committee.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out from "sub-section," to the end of line 25, and to insert "unless the contrary is shown."
    I think this Amendment is a point of substance. I mentioned it on the Second Reading, when the Minister said he would give it his attention. I want to leave out the words:
    "If, but only if, they substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage"—
    and I want to insert the words: "unless the contrary is shown." There is probably some explanation, but it seems to me to be a strangely stingy limitation. We start this Bill with the great principle that we are paying pensions for disablement and death directly attributable to war injuries sustained by reason of the service of mariners in British ships. In Clause 1, while on the one hand we expand the definition under the principal Act, we put down certain limiting conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c): and here we seem to limit still more. I cannot understand why the Sub-section is there at all, but if we must have a Sub-section of that kind, we ought to know what it means.
    Take, for example, the point mentioned on the Second Reading. A ship is overloaded, or loaded as it would not have been in peace-time, with an unusual cargo, and it founders. That is a peril which causes injury. I am not throwing stones at the Minister; indeed, I hear on every hand of the humane manner in which the Ministry of Pensions Department is administered, but supposing you have somebody who says, "Yes, the ship

    585
    foundered, but in such a gale as that it would have foundered anyhow." If there is any dispute, it is left to the widow or her representatives to make a case and prove that it was overloading which substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring instead of the onus of proof being on those who are denying.
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am afraid this Amendment is one which it would be very difficult for me to accept, because it would make such a considerable difference in the procedure and practice as regards all pensions, for it applies not merely to seamen's pensions, but to all others The position is that someone has to decide whether the injury is a war injury or not. At the present time, it is the Minister who decides on the evidence that is brought to him. It may be that it would be a wise thing if we could give the information to the claimants to show that it is not a war injury, but many difficulties would arise. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that we might not be able to give the information openly because of war conditions. The Admiralty might have something to say if we stated exactly where and how the thing happened, and where certain ships were at certain times. But I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend need have any worries about this matter. He has said that I have the reputation of being an administrator with a humane outlook. That is the outlook of my Department. Time and again we have to deal with cases in the other Services where we have to state that on the evidence produced the injury is not attributable to war service, and the applicants have to accept it. As and when we do set up tribunals, the seamen's widows will have the same right of appealing to the tribunals as the widows of men who were in the other Services. It will then be possible for the information to be given to the tribunals, because then there will be no danger or difficulty resulting from war-time conditions.
    I ask the Committee to leave the Clause as it is as regards this matter, because I am certain that the most fair consideration will be given to every case, and in proof of that, I may say that even under the old Act—which we are now amending, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has himself stated, improving considerably—the percentage of acceptances in the case of widows' claims has been over 95 per cent.
    586
    Therefore, I think that the method of leaving it to the discretion of the Minister and the Department-has not worked too badly so far. I submit that it would be in the best interests of those who are claiming that it should be left with the Minister, who will be, I hope, as sympathetic in these matters as I am, and who is open to be criticised in the House if he does not administer the provisions in the proper way.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was a little worried when I heard the Minister comparing the risks to which merchant seamen are subjected, and the difficulty of assessing whether any risk or loss in which they are involved is due to the war or not, with other classes of war risks.
    Sir W. Womersley: I was not doing that. I was saying that the procedure in both cases must be the same.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I understood the Minister to say that if the Amendment were accepted, it would apply not only to cases of merchant seamen, but to all pensions cases.
    Sir W. Womersley: I apologise if I did not make myself clear. There is the question of principle involved. This could not apply to one section of applicants for pensions and not to another.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I quite see the point, but I want to plead specially for the particular type of cases covered by the Bill. It seems to me that merchant seamen are subjected to a type of risk which opens out fields of argument, which do not exist in other cases, as to whether a ship has or has not been lost as a result of war activity, or whether it has been lost because of some defect in the ship, or some stress, of weather. I feel there can be no possible doubt about the Minister's sympathetic outlook, and as long as the Department is under his administrative control and as long as the same spirit exists in the Departments, all cases will be dealt with fairly, but I do not think that is quite a fair answer to give on a question of special risks. I am not at all happy about the past history of risks at sea and the difficulties which have been occasioned by questions of how those risks have arisen and how the results of the risks have been dealt with. I should like to see something much more definite

    587
    in the Bill in the way of guidance to the courts or the tribunals as regards the special risks which are attached to sea service. I do not think there is sufficient appreciation in any line of the Bill of the special nature of the risks which exist. This is not the only Bill which ignores that fact. I would ask the Minister, to reconsider this matter, and although I quite see that at this moment he might not be able to accept an Amendment of this sort, I should have thought that he might have been able to accept some form of words in some part of the Bill which would outline rather more definitely the nature of the special risks involved.
    Mr. Silverman: I am not quite clear how far the statement which the Minister has made clears up a question about which there was some apparent confusion in the Second Reading Debate. In that Debate, there arose a discussion about the way in which the Bill was drafted, and in replying from the Front Bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport said that it was done in that way for the convenience of the courts. It occurred, then, to some of us that that could hardly be a valid reason, because it seemed to us that the courts had little or nothing to do with it, and that any questions under the Bill as to entitlement to a pension would be determined not by the courts but by the Minister. That view was expressed in the Debate, and appeared to be doubted by the Treasury Bench. To-day, I understood the Minister to say that the courts in fact will not have to determine entitlement to a pension, but that that will be the business of the Ministry of Pensions, subject only to the right of anyone whose claim is disallowed to have his claim ultimately re-heard if and when tribunals are set up either now or soon after the war.
    I should like to know whether that may now be taken to be the considered advice which those in charge of the Measure are tendering to the Committee, and whether we must now assume that all questions of whether claimants to pensions under this Bill are entitled to those pensions, or not entitled to them, will be determined not by the courts but by the Department. Assuming that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, I ask the Minister whether he ought not to reconsider his attitude towards the Amendment now
    588
    before the Committee. In most of the cases that we have had to deal with, disputes about pensions have been as to whether there was in fact incapacity or whether in fact the incapacity, alleged or proved, was caused, aggravated, or accentuated by war service. The question that arises here, however, is not that sort of question. The Sub-section which the Amendment proposes to delete does not refer to the claimant or to his interest; it refers to the penalty which has resulted, and lays upon the claimant the onus of establishing that the peril which caused his injury was an added peril—a peril added by war circumstances. That is quite a different thing from the kind of question which so far has been determined by the Ministry of Pensions. Even those questions which have so far been determined by the Ministry have led to very great dissatisfaction, discontent and, indeed, indignation. I am not going to pay anyone any compliments or make any accusations, because I do not think it matters in the least whether the Department is well or badly administered from this point of view. While people whose claims are turned down do not feel that they are getting a proper hearing and impartial determination of their claims, they will not be satisfied, whether or not the Department's administration is fair. The kind of question contemplated by this Amendment is not this question at all.
    The Chairman: I am not sure that the hon. Member is in Order in discussing this matter of whether the decision rests with the courts or with the Department.
    Mr. Silverman: I fully understand that. I am not attempting to discuss it. I was only attempting to draw a distinction between the kind of question raised in the words now proposed to be left out, and the kind of questions which so far the Ministry of Pensions have been left to determine. I am only saying that this kind of question covered by the words which the Amendment proposes to leave out is not a proper question to be determined by the Ministry. It would be very much better not to raise such a question at all. It is a question which will be extremely difficult to answer. If it has to be decided, I should have thought it was pre-eminently the kind of question with which a court and not a Government Department ought to deal. Even so, it would raise very difficult and complicated

    589
    questions of law in an atmosphere which the Minister has already explained might not be conducive to the public interest. I suggest to him that it would be very much better to accept the Amendment which has been moved, and not subject these claimants to any kind of limitation. If the injury has, in fact, resulted in any of the circumstances in the Section referred to, there ought not to be any necessity to limit or qualify it by saying:
    if, but only if, they substantially increase the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage,"
    which takes you into the rarified atmosphere. If a ship is a total loss, the evidence may have been completely destroyed, and, as the Clause stands, in circumstances of that kind the question will be determined by the Department itself without hearing evidence and without making any communication to the claimants or dependants of the claimant. It is bound, if it is persisted in, to give rise to the same kind of feeling, with even greater justification, as has been occasioned by Departmental decisions of this kind on questions in the past. It seems that if the Amendment were accepted, the advantages of accepting it are obvious, and that the disadvantages which would result to the Government or anyone else would be very difficult to discover, and I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude.
    Mr. Beechraan: It may well be, if the subject matter of this Bill continues to be dealt with by a Minister with a humane outlook and by a Department which treats these matters with sympathy, that no great damage will result from adhering to the words contained in the Bill. I am, however, bound to say, having listened to the arguments, that I feel that the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) should be supported. The Minister, in asking the Committee to keep to the words proposed, advanced two arguments. First of all, he said that we had to bear in mind the analogy of other Bills, and, secondly, he tells us that the question of secrecy may arise. I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has dealt very faithfully indeed with the question of analogy. I am not at all convinced that we are here dealing with the same kind of material as is dealt with
    590
    in other cases where this type of matter is considered. I cannot follow how the argument in regard to secrecy affects the matter. The Minister said that it might be very inconvenient from the national point of view to have to disclose to an applicant certain facts which, I suppose, help to determine whether, "Yes" or "No," the injury was substantially increased in regard to the risk which brought it about. How can it be said that secrecy is of the least relevance when, as the Minister told us, the applicant can go before a tribunal and make out his case, in which case the facts will have to be open to the tribunal and the tribunal will have to consider whether the risk has, in fact, been substantially increased for the reasons stated? It is quite impossible for any tribunal, be it a Department or a court, to reach a decision if the facts are not fully open to them.
    I ask the Committee seriously to consider this matter and to accept what has been put before them by myself and other hon. Members to the effect that the arguments advanced against my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal really cannot hold the field. I think that it would be far more easy and far more businesslike to have the matters dealt with on the footing of the Amendment now proposed, A tribunal will be able to say whether arguments have been put forward to show that the injury cannot be attributed to the causes mentioned, but it is very difficult for a fribunal to say whether a risk has been substantially increased by certain pre-disposing causes. Various tribunals will be bound to differ as to whether there has been this substantial increase, and I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.
    The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I think it is essential that in making up our minds on this matter we should commence by remembering that Clause 1, Sub-section (2), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) enlarge the scope of the injuries for which pensions can be given, and that that meets with the general approval of us all. There is no dispute on that point, and we all welcome it. Then we come to consider Sub-section (3), and where I suggest that there is a difference between us is that my hon. and gallant Friend and those who have supported him consider that it is a limiting Sub-section. Actually, it is a further extending Sub-section.

    591
    "Attributable" is a word which is roughly equivalent to "caused by." I do not know how far my hon. and gallant Friend, in bringing out the law reports which bear his name, has gone into the question of causation. But I think he Will understand, and I know the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) understands, the great refinements which the problem of causation engendered about 10 years ago. There were disputes on very narrow lines between what was a proximate cause and what was a real cause, and matters of that kind. Therefore we desired to substitute a criterion which seemed to us reasonably construable and the subject of an easy decision. We said injuries should be treated as being attributable if, and only if, the matter in question substantially increased the risk of the peril occurring which caused the injury, loss or damage. "Substantially" is not a word which causes any difficulty. It is a matter which the courts have often had to construe in various Statutes, so that, as far as any legal implications of the word are concerned, there are no difficulties.
    As far as a question of fact is concerned, that again must be a matter of opinion. I should like to take the three examples my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned. The first was overloading plus a gale. The question for the decision of the Minister is, Did the overloading substantially increase the risk? There is, to my mind, a question of fact—and all questions of fact require consideration and attention, and cause some difficulty—but not a matter which one would ever describe in any technical way as a difficult question of fact. The second question was absence of light. Did the light substantially increase the risk? That is not a question which anybody would feel difficulty about deciding, providing he applied his mind to the facts. The third was a convoy plus a wrong order. Again the question is, Did sailing in convoy substantially increase the risk? I agree that that is a difficulty, but a difficulty which is inherent in every Admiralty case of deciding whether it is reasonable to give a particular order or not. We have genuinely tried to find a formula which gets' rid of the difficulties and refinements of causation, and substitute for it a matter which can be dealt with as a question of fact by the Minister
    592
    without difficulty. My hon. and gallant Friend desires to wipe that out and put in its place "unless the contrary is shown." It is rather difficult for the moment to imagine who is showing the contrary. If one follows it up logically, it comes to this position, that, if you have no evidence at all, you should grant a pension.
    Petty Officer Herbert: All you may know about it is that the ship foundered. The case goes to a tribunal, and a substantial increase of risk through overloading has to be proved. I raised the point on Second Reading, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said he would go into it. I thought he meant that he would provide some other form of words if mine were not right. I wanted the onus of proof put upon the Ministry. I think that where a ship is overloaded the benefit of the doubt ought to go to the widow.
    The Solicitor-General: I was not endeavouring to evade the point. My right hon. Friend and I have considered this most carefully since the Second Reading. It has not been forgotten. In the case that my hon. and gallant Friend gave, you had the evidence of overloading. My right hon. Friend can decide on that evidence, and on the general information that he has, whether that substantially increased the risk. The case that I want my hon. and gallant Friend to consider is this: A ship sails and is never heard of again, and there is no evidence of enemy submarines or aircraft operating in the neighbourhood. If the Amendment were accepted, there would be literally no evidence whatever of any war risk. What the Committee has to decide is whether it is right, in granting a pension, to ask that there should be some evidence, as we say, a lighter onus than in the case of an ordinary claimant, who has to prove definite causation, and eliminate any other cases which may operate in the matter. We suggest, instead of that, that there should be placed on the claimant the lighter onus of saying that war matters have substantially increased the risk, and that is a fairer and better method of dealing with the problem than saying, If there is no evidence at all we shall make the assumption that it is a war injury. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne knows as well as I do the many hundreds of decisions in the courts in cases of workmen's compensation. I am suggesting

    593
    that what we should require is some evidence of war experiences being present and that if there is some evidence, then we have propounded a good test.
    Mr. Silverman: I think that in the closing sentence of my hon. and learned Friend's speech we get to the crux of the matter. He referred me to the multitude of decisions under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and very tragic decisions many of them are. If this House is to take the responsibility of saying, as it has done in previous analogous Acts and as it does in this Bill, that even such rights as a man might have under the Workmen's Compensation Act are to be taken away and his case is to be decided by the Department, then, even if we agree to that, there is no reason why all the anomalies of the workmen's compensation law should be repeated. Let me take the sort of case that the Mover of the Amendment has suggested. A ship is lost with all hands and is never heard of again. My hon. and learned Friend says that in that case a lighter onus will be put on the claimant. To the claimant, however, it makes no difference whether the onus put upon her is light or heavy if she has no means of discharging it. In these circumstances she has no means of discharging even the lightest of onuses.
    All we are asking is that in circumstances where the Government control every ship that sails, what the cargo shall be, where it shall be loaded and whither it shall sail, the Government ought not to quibble about proofs and onuses if such a ship is lost. They ought to say, "This ship was sailing for us to satisfy war purposes and its loss is a war loss. We will, therefore, pay the pension and not go into refinements as to whether this or the other unprovable circumstance has substantially increased the risk." My hon. and learned Friend said that this is not a limiting modification but an extending one. He might have made a case for that if the words "but only" had been left out. I may be wrong about that and I do not press it. I prefer to stand on the general principle that in circumstances where proof is necessarily unobtainable by the widow or the dependants of a mariner, where such evidence as there is is in the possession of the Government, and where the Government insists on treating it as a Departmental decision without recourse to the courts,
    594
    the fact of the loss on a war voyage ought to be sufficient entitlement to pension.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the Committee if I have not sufficiently understood this discussion to take part in it. I hope I have, but I am not sure that I have. I wish to put a point in the form of the story of a case which arose in the last war. Five ships on Government account were proceeding from Liverpool to Boston, Massachusetts, all less well officered, less well manned and less well repaired than they would have been in normal circumstances. They ran into weather of exceptional severity about 400 miles East of the American coast. Four of them foundered. The fifth was a turret ship, a ship which was designed to cheat the Suez Canal dues, and was unsuitable for western ocean traffic. It was, however, the only ship which reached Boston. About 20 minutes after she tied up the master died. The question I wish to put is, which widow of which of these masters would have had what chances after discharge of the onus of getting any pension under this Bill? Would none of them or would it only be the fifth, because it is obvious there could be no evidence in the other cases of what happened towards the end? In the fifth case there might be a theoretical possibility of getting evidence, but the practical possibility was so infinitesimal that, however light the burden of proof might be, it would not be dischargeable.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Gripps): I think that there is a little confusion about what this enactment is really about. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I think it is undoubtedly the answer that under this Bill none of the widows of these officers would get any pension. They would all have had to look, as they look now for pensions under the compensation schemes. That has ruled in the Service for a long time, but the people who are asking for this Amendment are asking that the whole of workmen's compensation should be wiped out, and that the whole of compensation should be taken over by the Government. What this Clause does is to draw the line between cases which fall within workmen's compensation and cases which fall outside because of war risks. This is not a question, as the hon. Member for

    595
    Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) suggested, of introducing into this pensions system all the difficulties of workmen's compensation cases. It will be observed that it is not a question here as to whether the injury or loss has been caused by a war risk, but whether it is attributable to something—that is, the matters specified—and whether those matters have substantially increased the risk of the peril, not of the accident. In the case which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment put forward of the overloading as a matter of war necessity, that is clearly a thing which increased the risk. It may not have been the cause of the accident, but it increased the risk of the accident. If there were an absence of lights or the presence of enemy submarines or a convoy where otherwise there would not have been a convoy, these are matters which would substantially increase the risk of the peril. It is not a question of whether they caused the accident.
    Mr. Pickthorn: What is the risk of the peril?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should have thought that it was fairly clear. In the case which the hon. Gentleman gave the fact that the ships were not well founded increased the risk of the peril of the storm because it made them more likely to be sunk in the storm than if they were well founded. That is a case in which something increased the risk of the peril. Peril is something which exists by nature. It may be a rock or a storm or something of that kind. The risk of the peril may depend upon the state of the boat, upon the way in which it is navigated, or upon a hundred other matters, and if in accordance with the provisions in Sub-section (2) there is something which substantially increases the risk of the peril and then, as a result of the peril, there is an accident or loss of life, the pension becomes due; but if there is no substantial increase of the peril, and it is an ordinary peril which is covered under the provisions with regard to workmen's compensation or compensation to officers, then the case falls to be dealt with under those ordinary provisions. It is essential that a line must be drawn, and in my submission this Sub-section draws the line as fairly as possible and has put as small an onus as possible upon the person who has to claim the pension. It is not a question of proving that the loss
    596
    or the accident was due to this extra incident; he has only to show that there was an incident present which increased the risk from the peril, and that cannot be as difficult a matter to prove as some hon. Members have suggested.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not like to interrupt again, but I still feel that my right hon. and learned Friend has attempted to put too narrow a limit upon the nature of the risks of ships at sea in time of war. Practically every ship that goes to sea has, under the stress of turning at high speed, an extra risk added to the perils of which he spoke. It may well be that a type of ship which would not be sent on a particular voyage in peace-time is sent in war-time. How can one say whether there has been additional risk of peril because that particular type of ship has been sent on that voyage? Again, the ship may have been pressed to go to sea at the earliest possible moment and that may have caused the gear aloft to be improperly stowed, and the actual behaviour of the ship, being an unsuitable type of ship, may have caused a chafing of tackle aloft and may have brought down that gear at sea and so caused an accident. All those are questions which admit of unlimited argument, and it is only because I see the risk of unlimited argument holding up claims which could' be substantiated if all the evidence were available to those who were making the claims that I once again ask whether this matter can be reconsidered.
    Petty Officer Herbert: While I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has said, may I ask him to make this point clear? If the whole of this Sub-section were omitted—and that was the purpose of the Amendment which I had originally put down—what would be the effect? Would it substantially increase the risk of the Bill not going through?
    Sir S. Cripps: The effect would be to make it extremely hard upon applicants.
    Amendment negatived.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    (4) Any injury, loss, or damage sustained by a mariner by reason of his service in a British ship in time of war shall be treated as falling within this section, although not falling within subsection (2), or section ten of the principal Act, where no compensation or damages is or are payable at common law or under any enactment.

    597
    The purpose of this Amendment is to fill in a gap in the Bill, or possibly two gaps. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out some of the cases of misfortune which, so far as I could see, were not covered by the Bill. I mentioned the case of a man going overboard in the ordinary way, so to speak, while in convoy to the North of Norway or somewhere else. I was told then in a series of interjections by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that in such a case the man would get workmen's compensation, and that is perfectly true; though, by the way, the benefits under this Bill are much better than those under workmen's compensation legislation. They are pensions, for example, and not lump sums.
    There are two points with which I wish to deal, and the first concerns officers. Officers receiving over, is it £420 a year, are not entitled to workmen's compensation benefits. But I have just learned from Captain Coombs, of the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation, something which ought to be made more widely known, that shipowners' associations are paying workmen's compensation ex gratia to officers who are not legally within the limits of those entitled to compensation. Their action in that respect deserves to be properly applauded, but still it is an ex gratia action, and it is questionable whether Parliament ought to rely upon shipowners being generous to that extent. Therefore, I suggest that where there is no statutory pension payable under this Bill this saving clause should be operative in case there are any real gaps.
    The other point which I wish to make concerns both officers and men. It deals with tuberculosis brought about by exposure in ships' boats after a vessel has been sunk or has had to be abandoned. I imagine that my right hon. Friend has an answer to this point, but I should like to read a letter from Captain Coombs, of the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation:
    "As you will be aware, under the principal Act disability allowances were limited to injuries received as a direct result of enemy action in accordance with the definition given in the Act, and consequently cases of tuberculosis which, in our view, could be directly attributed to warlike actions could not be admitted by the Department. Undoubedly there have been a number of cases, possibly more than we are aware of where tuberculosis
    598
    has developed as a result of privations suffered by crews who have had extended periods in ships' lifeboats following upon the sinking of their ships by enemy action. Whether it would be possible to have it specifically covered in the Amending Act, for tuberculosis to be regarded as a war injury we have some doubt, as the Act defines war injuries and tuberculosis is an illness. We do feel nevertheless that it will be the intention of the Ministry of Pensions, having regard to the wide interpretation which they have placed on war injuries"—
    Another compliment to the Ministry—
    "to pay pensions to those people in the Merchant Navy who are incapacitated by one reason or another as a result of warlike actions whilst following their employment. … If tuberculosis is not covered by the amending legislation it will not be possible, in my view, to have claims of this character admitted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, as-there is not at present any scheduled seamen's diseases under that Act."
    Those are the two points. First: whether we can rely upon the present practice in the case of officers who suffer an injury such as is provided for in the Bill; and second, to make provision for sufferers from tuberculosis or any similar disease which does not come under workmen's compensation or under the Bill as it stands.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: This Bill applies only to physical injuries. I know little or nothing about ships or the sea, but I know something about this problem of the Minister accepting responsibility for pensions in respect of physical injuries only. The Minister knows that there are many cases of neurosis already in existence consequent upon bombing from the air which do not fall into the category of physical injury but are nevertheless as distressing, if not more so. Tuberculosis as suggested may of course arise consequent upon enemy action but it is much more remote than the point which I am raising, since I have actually dealt with neurosis cases, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
    Let us see what would happen under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will consider a claim for pension from one of these men in respect of injury caused to him physically, but it is quite possible that one of these mariners may be injured for life with disturbance of his brain or nerves. Let me give an actual case of neurosis under the Civilian Injuries Scheme, which will bring the point out better than I can put it. There was a young man in the Navy doing shore duty. Although I have raised

    599
    this question before, it is appropriate on this Amendment. He was picking up incendiary bombs, as was part of his duty, during a blitz upon a seaport town, when, lo and behold, a high explosive bomb exploded near to him. He was carried to hospital and was there for several weeks. During that period he suffered an epileptic fit. He had never suffered from any ailment since he joined his approved society at 16 years of age. When he was discharged from the Navy he was certified as an epileptic, and because he was discharged as an epileptic and had not suffered any physical injury as such, the right hon. Gentleman will not grant him a pension.
    Let us be clear about the matter. I am not going out of my way to condemn the Ministry of Pensions; I know something of the difficulties. They draw a line, however, and they draw it here. Notice the wording:
    "The injuries falling within this Section are physical injuries."
    Let me ask the Committee to consider the matter more in detail. A sailor may suffer exposure on the high seas, probably on a raft for several days, and he may become mentally deranged, probably for life. So far as I know, there is no pension payable under this Bill for that case. Where a man is discharged from the Forces with mental disturbance, the right hon. Gentleman has declined to pay a pension, though he provides treatment.
    Sir W. Womersley: That is where it can be positively proved that the disturbance has nothing to do with his service. The hon. Gentleman is quoting cases where men, from exposure or bomb blast, become affected. We should deal with such cases on their merits. The hon. Gentleman keeps bringing forward a particular case on every Debate we have, although he knows that we have discussed together downstairs the particular case he has in mind. We have seen all the papers and he must admit that it has nothing to do with the general question but has to be dealt with according to the merits of the case.
    Mr. Davies: Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman a question pointedly. Suppose a sailor suffers from neurosis consequent upon enemy action. It is not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "I will deal with the case." I
    600
    know he will deal with it, but he does not accept responsibility for a pension under the personal injuries scheme for neurosis cases, but only as stated in the First Clause of this Bill, for physical injuries. I am not so sure that the minister would be entitled to accept responsibility for a pension in respect of anything but physical injury. Where physical injury causes neurosis he will, of course, pay a pension. I ask him flatly to say, in the case of a man such as I have described, suffering from neurosis without physical injury, consequent upon enemy action, whether he would not only deal with the case but whether the man would be entitled to a pension. That is the real problem here.
    Sir W. Womersley: The answer is quite definite. We should deal with the case in exactly the same way as we deal with all cases of neurosis. First of all, we should give treatment, which is the method recommended by all the specialists in the country—treatment first. If we could not bring the person back to health, then we pension him. There is no question about it.
    Mr. Silverman: I want to come back to the general question raised by the Amendment. In view of the discussion, I would like to ask the Government to explain to the Committee whether they recommend the Bill to the House on the ground that it provides better benefits than would be obtainable under workmen's compensation, or on the ground that it offers something less. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here; it was a speech of his which prompted the thought in my mind. In one part of his argument he was saying that we should not pass the Amendment because it would deprive everybody of workmen's compensation and in another part that this gave something more than workmen's compensation, and therefore the onus was made light. He seemed to be trying to make the best of both worlds. When it suited his argument to say that workmen's compensation was better, he said that; and when it suited to say that this was better than workmen's compensation, he advanced that argument. The matter ought to be cleared up, and one way of doing so would be to pass the present Amendment which deals with a class of case to which that particular kind of argument does not apply.

    601
    Not everybody who suffers injury to be compensated by a pension under the Bill would have a right to workmen's compensation. His wages might be too high, or there might be no contract of service of any kind. He might be present in the ship in some quite other capacity than that of master and servant. If he were injured and if his wages were too high for workmen's compensation, it would be no answer to him or his dependants to say: "If you fail under this Act you may get what you would have got under workmen's compensation," because, ex hypothesi, what he would have got under workmen's compensation would be nothing. Therefore, it seems necessary, especially in view of the argument advanced to us on the previous Amendment, to make it clear that if there be someone who suffers injury by this kind of peril, without the Bill he may get neither pension nor compensation while under the Bill he will get compensation. I take that to be the object of the Amendment, and it is so very reasonable and obvious that I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
    The Solicitor-General: Let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) with regard to injury. I think it was suggested by him and developed by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken The position is that if the tuberculosis or the neurosis is an injury within Clause 1 of the Bill, as it extends the original Act, and the tuberculosis or the neurosis is therefore the result of one of the matters described, it is the subject of compensation, or, if death were to result, pension under the Bill.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman? I know that if a person is physically injured, and suffers from neurosis consequent upon physical injuries, he is entitled to and generally gets a pension, but the vast majority of cases are of neurosis without physical injury, and those are the cases I am troubled about.
    The Solicitor-General: I would like to assure my hon. Friend that this is a matter with which those of us who have had to deal largely with workmen's compensation are extremely familiar. It has been decided, in cases of neuresthenia or neurosis which supervene from an accident without any physical injury, that if the chain of causation is right and it is
    602
    established that the neurosis is the result of the accident, the workman gets the compensation, although he may have suffered no physical injury at all. Similarly here, if a mariner is suffering from neurosis as a result of the war experiences now included, he will be entitled to his compensation. Also in regard to tuberculosis; if it is the result of exposure sustained as a result of one of these sets of war circumstances, he will be entitled to a pension.
    Petty Officer Herbert: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that tuberculosis is included in the definition of physical injuries?
    The Solicitor-General: If caused as a result of enemy action, yes.
    Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps I can put that right. Everybody is anxious to get everything he thinks about into the Bill, and although unfortunately we cannot do that, my hon. and gallant Friend can have the assurance that tuberculosis is so regarded if it is due to war injury or anything of that kind.
    The Solicitor-General: That explains the first point which was troubling both my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Ammon: But can a neurosis be described as a physical injury?
    The Solicitor-General: If my hon. Friend will go with me afterwards, I will show him how that matter was dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think that all his colleagues who have had to deal with compensation cases from the trade union point of view, as I have had to deal with them a stage or two further on, will see that there is no difficulty. It is a physical injury. It has even been tested in the courts and established that it is a physical injury for somebody to suffer a shock from seeing someone else have an accident. It is perfectly clearly established, and there can be no getting away from that point.
    Now I come to what I think is the more difficult suggestion with regard to those who are over the Workmen's Compensation Act limit. The feeling that the Government have is this. This Bill is designed to give compensation for war injuries, that is, injuries sustained in circumstances

    603
    in which there is a war risk. We have endeavoured to evolve the best definition that we can, and the best possible test, for deciding whether war conditions are to be taken as being responsible—that is a matter with which I have already dealt a short time ago—for the risk or for a substantial increase of the risk. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider this. It seems to me that it is logically right to say that having fixed a criterion or a test as to whether it results from war matters or not, you cannot suddenly change your mind, and say that the test is whether the man will get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the common law. The answer to that would be, if the Workmen's Compensation Act or common law limitations do not suit you, you must change them. I ask my hon. Friend to accept it on that basis. We feel that it is necessary to find the best test for deciding whether it is a war injury or not, and having decided on what is the best test, we must abide by it. While we sympathise, and must sympathise, with those cases—which I hope will be comparatively few—in which it is impossible to show that any war matter has substantially increased the risk and where the persons concerned are outside any other compensation, we must stand by the principle of the Bill before the House, which is to extend the rights in relation to war injuries, but only in relation to war injuries.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I point out to him that this is a very important matter, especially in relation to neurosis, because we are having the greatest possible trouble in regard to the Army? Where soldiers have shell shock we are finding that the Ministry of Pensions is taking a different line altogether from that which was taken in the last war.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member must not discuss the administration of the Ministry of Pensions on this Bill. We are dealing with mariners.
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, I want to deal with mariners, but I want an assurance that neurosis will be for mariners a clearer title to compensation than it is for soldiers. In regard to workmen's compensation, there
    604
    has been some difficulty. There has been some tendency in late years to bring it in that men were suffering from neurosis instead of nystagmus and debar them from compensation. I therefore want us to have a clear statement that neurosis will be a title to compensation for mariners.
    Mr. Silverman: I would like to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that the argument he has just addressed to the mover of the Amendment does not prove conclusively how unfair it is that this matter should be left in its present unsatisfactory position. He asks us to agree that, if there are hard cases, we may be very sorry and view them with every sympathy, but that we are not to do anything about it because we have to draw a line between workmen's compensation and pensions, and, having drawn it, we must stick to it. That was the general argument. But does he not recall that the Leader of the House, on the previous Amendment, when we were saying that this puts too difficult an onus upon the applicant, told us that if we did what we wished, we should lose the workmen's compensation rights which the applicant would otherwise have? Having recommended us not to persist in the previous Amendment because if we did we should take away somebody's rights, is it not now unfair to go on to say that, having accepted that line of division in order to protect somebody else, we should now fail to take a step to protect somebody who suffered from that very decision? I do not know whether I am making myself very clear, but I think the argument, if people will take the trouble to look at it, is this. Here you have a class of people who are going to suffer from a war peril. The learned Solicitor-General says that he cannot do anything about that because we have chosen a line as to what is workmen's compensation and what is not, but we only accepted that line in order to preserve somebody's workmen's compensation rights, and we are dealing in this Amendment with people who have no workmen's compensation rights.
    What possible harm could be done if the Government were to say, "Here you have somebody who has no claim against the owner, who has no claim against us at present. If he suffers death as a result of war service, his widow and children will be deprived of their source of livelihood by reason of a war peril which it is

    605
    the general purpose of this Bill to provide pensions for. As there is such a case never mind the anomalies and the strict definitions. Here is an injury which will be suffered by reason of war circumstances, by reason of war service. If you can only deal with that injustice by accepting this Amendment, surely you ought to accept it, and if you cannot accept it either by reason of the way in which it is drafted, or for some other reason that seems good to you, surely you ought not to be content to say, "It is a hard case, but you must put up with it." The onus is upon the Government, to find some way of compensating or pensioning cases of this kind. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend does not mind which way it is done, either in the way suggested in the Amendment or by some other method. Obviously he has made out a case for people who suffer through war service and get neither compensation from the owners under the Workmen's Compensation Acts nor any pension under this Bill. They are to be left out in the cold. Unless there is some good reason why they ought to be left out, it is the business of the Government to find some method of bringing them in.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. Am I mistaken in thinking that the time for putting in Tellers on these occasions is after the second call?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Tellers have to be put in before the second call.
    Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 27 to 30.
    This is merely a drafting Amendment, as regards definition, under Clause 1. Later on I shall move, in relation to salvage workers, an Amendment on the Order Paper which gives a clear definition of "harbour" and "tidal water."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 33, leave out from the second "ships," to the end of line 35.—[Sir W. Womersley.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I wish to ask the Minister whether, if a small vessel is lost by bombing attack in harbour, and the owner cannot get compensation from the Board of Trade because she is a seagoing vessel, is there to be compensation under this Bill?
    Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid I shall not be able to answer every point about every position that may arise. I shall have to look into that and let my hon. and gallant Friend have an answer.
    Sir R. Keyes: I sent in a Question to the Minister of War Transport several days ago.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I must apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend, but it never reached me. If he will be good enough to write to me, I will go into the matter. The letter may have been sent to the Board of Trade.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I think it is rather unfortunate that the Minister is not able to put in this Clause something in addition to the question of physical injuries, because there is no question that this does affect a large number of men.
    The Deputy-Chairman: We have just discussed and decided that matter. We cannot re-discuss it.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: On the Question: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," is it not competent to make some observations on certain parts of the Clause? I notice that the Clause deals with physical injuries. There are other sorts, not physical but at the same time very crippling, which come within the scope of pensions.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is the point we discussed, and we cannot re-discuss it.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and' agreed to.
    Clauses 2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5—(Consequential extension of s. 3 of 2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 82.)
    Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "could be," and to insert "has been."
    It may be only my suspicious mind, but the picture here is that the man has surrendered his rights and the shipowners are released from their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it is understood that the man will get a war pension under this Bill. That is to say, he may get a pension. It may be only my suspiciousness, but I should like to know why the words "has been" should not be substituted, so as to provide that a man shall not surrender his rights until he has actually been awarded a pension under the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that we have to try to base this Bill on the principle which is contained in Clause 3 of the original Personal Injuries Act, which gives relief if the injury has been caused by war matters. Therefore, in this case we have to bear in mind that there is a limit to the class of persons—that is, it includes only mariners who are employed—and a limit, under one of the Sub-sections we have just passed, to the circumstances. As to whether the claimant is within the class of persons, and whether the circumstances come under the appropriate Sub-section, that is a matter which in all cases the Minister decides. Even if a claim for compensation comes before the court, and the matters are raised by the defence, these two matters are still matters for the certificate of the Minister. We had to decide whether the proper test was whether they had been given compensation or they could be given compensation. It seemed to us that the proper test was whether they could be given compensation. I do not think it was suggested on the Second Reading by anyone that a person should be given the option of saying, "I do not want any payment under the Bill; I wish to refuse that and take my common law rights." Let me give an example that often occurs. Take the case of a woman who has been left a widow at an early age. In the ordinary circumstances, she contemplates that she may at some time marry again. It would be much more convenient to her to have a lump sum which she would receive at common law than to have a succession of payments according
    608
    to the passage of time and to her needs. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that we have to consider the totality of cases as nearly as we can in order to reach a decision. It seemed to us that the proper test was not actual receipt of the money, but whether the claimant was in a position to have received it. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the position has been considered very fully.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Short title and interpretation.)
    Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "() In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say—
    "harbour" means any harbour, whether natural or artificial, and any port, dock, haven, estuary, tidal or other river, canal or inland navigation to which sea-going ships have access;
    "salvage" means the preservation or recovery of vessels wrecked, stranded or in distress, or their cargo or apparel, or the recovery of any other property from the water and includes the removal of wrecks, and "salvage operations" and "salvage purposes" shall be construed accordingly;
    "tidal water "means any part of the sea, and any part of a river within the ebb and flow of the tide at ordinary spring tides and not being a harbour."
    This Amendent contains a definition of harbour and tidal water. That is to meet the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), who suggested that, instead of referring to another Act, we should reprint the definition in the Bill. This Amendment repeats the definition in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, thereby saving my hon. and gallant Friend and a great many other people the trouble of looking up the Merchant Shipping Act. I have inserted the definition of salvage so that I can deal a little later with salvage workers. It will clear the air as to what their position really is.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for seeing the light as much as he has done. But this raises a question of the order of procedure. I now hope that my new Clause, which is for the same purpose of tidying up the definitions, will be accepted.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member had better wait until his new Clause is called.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Persons engaged in salvage operations.)
    (1) Section four of the principal Act shall apply to such salvage workers as are specified in subsection (2) of this section; and for the purposes of the said section four such a salvage worker shall be deemed to have sustained an injury, or to have been detained, by reason of his service if he sustained the injury, or if the capture in consequence of which the detention occurs was effected:

    (a) while he was engaged in salvage operations taking place either at sea or in any tidal water or harbour outside the British Islands;

    (b) while he was on leave at a place outside the British Islands during the carrying on of such salvage operations in which he was engaged;

    (c) while he was at any place, except on land in the British Islands, in the course of proceeding to or returning from engagement in such salvage operations;

    (d) while he was waiting at any place outside the British Islands to proceed or return as aforesaid, whether the delay was due to sickness or to any other cause outside his control.

    (2) The salvage workers hereinbefore referred to are any person, other than a member of His Majesty's naval forces, who, not being the master or a member of the crew of a ship, is regularly employed in salvage operations in or from the British Islands.
    (3) The cases in which a scheme made under subsection (1) of section six of the principal Act may provide for compensation to persons to whom section four of that Act applies as salvage workers for war damage to their effects are where the damage occurred in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a), paragraph (b), paragraph (c), or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, and paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1) of section six shall be construed accordingly.
    (4) In relation to such a salvage worker as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, or to the master or a member of the crew of a ship regularly employed, or chartered for the purpose of being employed, in salvage operations, the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section one of this Act to measures taken for salvage purposes shall not apply.—[Sit W. Womersley.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I think there will be no opposition to the inclusion of salvage workers under the Bill. Everyone will agree that the
    610
    case put up on behalf of the inclusion of these men, in the same way as merchant seamen, was unanswerable. This Clause gives them the right to compensation under exactly the same conditions. I am told that those who represent that class of worker are very pleased that we have been able to include them.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I want to get the thing clear. May I take it that pensions will be payable to salvage workers, in this river, for example, wherever the tide flows? I am wondering whether I can get the question of the tugs in the area of Southend dealt with, too.
    Sir W. Womersley: Tugs in the Southend area are included.
    Petty Officer Herbert: Where does my right hon. Friend find that stated? Southend is actually within the seaward limit.
    Sir W. Womersley: I can give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I am very glad to have that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Definitions.)
    In this Act and in the principal Act—
    "pilot boat" means any vessel-regularly employed in the pilotage service of any pilotage district, but includes any vessel which, for the time being, is being used in the pilotage service of any pilotage district in the British islands;
    "British ship" does not include a ship forming part of His Majesty's Navy, but includes any other ship which belongs to His Majesty, or is held by any person on behalf, of or for the benefit of the Crown;
    "ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars;
    "mariner" in relation to a ship, means the master or a member of the crew of the ship, being a person employed or engaged in seagoing service in that ship, and not being a member of His Majesty's naval forces, or a person to whom the provisions of Section four or Section five of the principal Act apply;
    "port" includes any dock, harbour, pier, quay, wharf, mooring, anchorage, or any other similar place;
    place "includes any point on land, in the air, or on or in the water.—[Petty Officer Herbert.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I am following the process, already so gloriously begun by the Government, of tidying up the definitions. I would ask the Committee to glance at the Schedule. The first half of it consists of consequential Amendments; and then, suddenly, with out a word of warning, we are launched into definitions. In line 22 there is a reference to the definition of "pilot boat." We have to go to the principal Act, and, having done that, to the Pilotage Act, 1913, and then we have to add the words set out in the Schedule. I have tidied that up by taking the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and putting them together. I have done the same thing in this new Clause, to all the definitions. I hope it will be accepted. If not, I shall really challenge a Division. The question will then arise of the tidy way of inserting the Clause in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will add this Clause to their own Clause 8.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I would like to support my hon. and gallant Friend in tidying up this Bill, and I hope that these excellent definitions will be accepted. It is amazing that it should be necessary always to search these past Statutes, turning over one volume after another in order, as "The Times" says this morning, to collect the rags and tatters of a definition in a series of Statutes. I wonder why this is so—perhaps indeed it is that Parliament is suspicious of the judiciary and that it meets its suspicion by the stupid, trying and exasperating practice of legislation by reference. Brevity is claimed, but brevity is really thrown to the winds. It is better to repeat at length in a Bill than to delve into one dusty tome after another which, besides wasting time, encourages irritability, which in turn tends to mar judgment—not to say anything of dirty fingers from the dusty books. It is in this complicated business that bureaucracy finds it roots. I support my hon. and gallant Friend who gives great service to this House and his country by stripping the humbug and dispersing the pomp by which mankind surrounds itself, "and by blowing away the dusty gossamer that is wound around the best intentions.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that the Government feel that they are unable
    612
    to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggested new Clause, especially in view of the pleasing manner in which it has been put before the Committee. I would like to say one or two things with regard to this point, because my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the matter more than once when this Bill has been before the House. He said that he views with no alarm the general question of bringing forward a Bill by repeal and re-enactment. I would like to consider two points. The first is that, if you have a Bill put forward in that way which was three or four pages longer than this Bill, two points would arise. It would be difficult for the House then to distinguish between the new and the old in spite of the present difficulty which my hon. and gallant. Friend has graphically described. They have then to compare and decide what are the new points to which they have to direct their minds. There is the other point, which my hon. and gallant Friend will also realise to the full, that we are bound to take longer because, with the best will in the world, of the tendency to discuss the old points which have been made before in addition to the new.
    The only other aspect is, as I have tried to indicate in dealing with other of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendments, that we must make an effort to deal with every conceivable set of circumstances. It is useless if we are going to give up that somewhat unequal struggle and allow the Bill to go forward and not attempt to deal with the difficult concatenation of circumstances which arise. We have to convey to the courts the matter which they will have to consider. My hon. and gallant Friend was rather disposed to waive that aspect, but we clearly have in mind, what this Bill envisages, that, if pension is refused by the Minister, there is the right of action in the courts. Therefore, if the claimant can bring himself or herself within the class of persons and the class of circumstances, the matter comes to the courts and the courts have to decide whether it is an injury caused by ordinary risks or by war risks. The matter may well come before them, and the Bill has to be prepared in order to convey the meaning to the courts.
    I take that as preliminary to asking my hon. and gallant Friend to consider one of the points with which he has made great play, and play which we have all enjoyed. I refer to the question of a ship.

    613
    He said, "Why should we turn back to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894? Why make the definition the meaning which is in the Merchant Shipping Act?" Those of us whose interest in merchant shipping cases is somewhat less spasmodic, although our interest in ships may be more so than that of my hon. and gallant Friend, know that if we give the reference to the Merchant Shipping Act, we bring in the result of years of authority where the question of the ship has been considered by the Court, and which is conveniently collected in some two pages of definitions. Therefore, our definition puts it beyond doubt that a ship has the meaning which is in the Merchant Shipping Act, and in the various cases that have been decided under that Act. If we were to put it out in full a doubt would be raised and it would be said that, if you wanted to have the same meaning as is in the Merchant Shipping Act, then why do we not put it in the same wording as is in that Act?
    Petty Officer Herbert: Does my hon. and learned Friend say that the Judge who if he reads that "ship" has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, knows just what case-law to apply will do something quite different if the definition is included in this Bill? Surely he will apply the same case-law. The only addition will be that we too shall understand it.
    The Solicitor-General: I will not say that I have any doubts about my hon. and gallant Friend's last proposition, because that might be misconstrued, but with regard to his first, there is no question at all. It is one of the great facts of construction, as he will soon learn, that words in one Statute are attempted to be construed by the meanings attached to the same words in another Statute. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself have many times tried to argue along that way, and I am sure that he has committed the same error as I have on many occasions. We have said that they were the words in the Statute and that the meaning under the Statute was clear. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend and I will get very far by arguing in that way, but where you put that a ship should have the same meaning as in the other Statutes, then the law attached
    614
    to the other Statutes automatically attaches to this.
    Dr. Thomas: Why does my hon. and learned Friend find it easy to define "harbour" but not "port," "tidal water" and not "a mariner," and "salvage" but not. "pilot boat"? Will he say why it is easy in the one case to put propositions to the Committee and in other case extremely difficult?
    The Solicitor-General: There used to be a quotation in my youth—and I suppose it still exists—which ran:
    "I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts."
    Apparently my hon. Friend would change it to this: "I do not like the Government even when they are prepared to meet me."
    Dr. Thomas: My hon. and learned Friend accuses me of not liking the Government when they attempt to meet me. I am hoping they will meet me all the way and merely suggested that what is logical in a previous Clause is logical in this one.
    The Solicitor-General: It only shows the danger that occurs when we try to meet hon. Members in certain of these minor matters. I am trying to explain what I believe is a useful and not unimportant matter, namely, the definition of a ship. I have read and heard everything which my hon. and gallant Friend has said on this matter, and I have tried to apply it. Considering the many years of difficulty which I have myself experienced in reference to construction, considering the problem with which we are dealing—and I would ask him to give it his honest consideration—is it not more important that the House of Commons, which universally desires to improve the position of mariners and to enlarge the circumstances under which they should receive compensation, should see without any doubt what is the new ground they are to cover and decide whether it is sufficient or not than that we should be spared the amount of trouble of merely turning up a couple of Acts? Which is the best? I suggest, after all consideration of my hon. and gallant Friend's view, that it is better to know what we have to do and how we are to do it.
    Mr. Shinwell: This all comes of the Government yielding to the

    615
    blandishments of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert). I hope the Government will derive a lesson from this sad and bitter experience. As I understand it, the hon. and gallant Member wants to tidy things up. No one will take exception to that, but he is, in fact, only muddling things, as I shall show without entering into all these legal subtleties. He says he is anxious to avoid legislation by reference. Why has he not done it by his Clause? May I direct his attention to the third paragraph, in which he refers to the provisions of the principal Act? I do not know anything about that. Would he tell us about it? If that is not legislation by reference, I would like to know what is.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member drew it up himself, so he ought to know what it means.
    Petty Officer Herbert: It is not my composition. These are the words intended to be used by the Government draftsman, but properly set out.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member has made matters very much worse. Now we know all along what we suspected—that this is not his own composition. He has been in the hands of someone else, but the others, apparently, were wiser than he, because they did understand that it. was impossible to define everything. Of course, you cannot define everything. You must be careful, when you seek to define, to do it accurately. What has the hon. and gallant Member done? In the last paragraph of his Clause there is an attempt to define the word "place" as including
    "any point on land, in the air or on pr in the water."
    Petty Officer Herbert: It is the Government's definition, not mine. If the hon. Member had been here earlier, he would have understood. These words are already in the draft.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not quarrelling with the hon. and gallant Gentleman because he accepts the Government's wording. I am asking that when he does accept the Government's wording he should know what it means, if he is so anxious to have
    616
    the meaning of this Clause accurately defined. When he talks about a place being in the air, can he define that? What actual relationship has it to the matter under review? What is the point of all this? Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not fully acquainted with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, he ought to recognise that the courts are. One would imagine from what he says that no case affecting a merchant seaman ever came before a court of law. They are before the courts almost every day, and there is a great body of reference dealing with such matters. It is not a very difficult thing for the courts to define the meaning of a ship, a seaman, or a place, because of the precedents and various references that are within their compass. I much prefer that method, although perhaps it is seemingly difficult, than to define narrowly these various terms. That is my objection to the Clause. If this were accepted, we might circumscribe the meaning of this Bill and to that extent tie the hands of the courts. That would make things very much more difficult. I do not perceive any injured seaman being unprotected as he might well be because of the attempt to seek an accurate definition.
    I know that the Merchant Shipping Acts are not altogether satisfactory, but if I had to choose, I should accept them. The hon. and gallant Member has been led into this by people—I think they are called sea lawyers—who have an inaccurate knowledge of the position. This must be said as against those who have advised the hon. and gallant Member. It was time this was said in the House. I recognise that trade unions are not always right, but when it comes to questions of compensation they are usually right. The whole of my hon. and gailant Friend's argument has been against the trade unions, who have accepted this Bill. As against the people who have advised my hon. and gallant Friend, I would' point out that the National Seamen's Union, which is the national organisation of seamen, have not found anything to complain of in this Bill. If they had, they would have said so. The Navigating Officers' Union have accepted it. I do not know from whom the hon. and gallant Member can have received evidence, unless it be the Mercantile Marine Services Association, which is not a trade union. Therefore, if my

    617
    hon. Friends and I have to choose between the advice which the hon. and gallant Member has received from the Mercantile Marine Services Association and the advice we have received from the National Seamen's Union and the recognised Officers' Union, we will accept the latter. In the circumstances, I think it would be better to reject the new Clause. At any rate, on the merits of the case, apart from any advice rendered by any organisation, I say that the definitions which my hon. and gallant Friend has sought to introduce into the Bill are so worded that they would make it more difficult for the courts to decide, and I am satisfied that they would render no service to the seamen. I hope the Government will resist the new Clause.
    Petty Officer Herbert: I am wholly unpersuaded by the arguments that have been made. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin-well), what have the the trade unions to do with this? I do not take my advice about language from the officers and men of any kind of union. I have had scarcely any discussion about this matter with any union. What does it matter? I have sufficient knowledge of the law and language to make up my own mind on this point. With regard to one particular point that has been mentioned, the definition of "ship," would my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General like to have it this way?—as I suggested the other day to the draftsman:
    "'ship' shall have the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, namely, any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars."
    That is the only one that seems to worry my hon. and learned Friend. Why not alter that one and accept the rest? [Interruption.] In general, I ask any hon. Member to look at the Schedule and at my Clause, and say which is the better. I am wholly unpersuaded, and I shall ask the Committee to divide on the matter. The hon. Member for Seaham was not present when I made my first remarks. I said that the first thing is for us in this House to be clear as to what we are doing and why we are doing it; secondly, that it must, if possible, be plain to the" subject, and, thirdly and lastly, plain to the Judges. The Schedule is not plain to anyone, and I shall vote against it.
    Mr. J. J. Davidson: As a humble Back-bencher, I sympathise very much with the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) in his desire to simplify our legislation, and I fail to see the strength of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University is not attempting to impose his own interpretation, but is asking the Committee to accept the principle of not bringing in legislation by reference. It is an attempt to put a stop to an evil. It is all very well for one hon. Member to speak of how Judges will react to this Schedule, but I would say that we do not want only the Judges in this country to understand our legislation; we want to make it as simple as possible, so that the great majority of people will be able to read it, understand what it means, and make up their own minds.
    What is the trend of modern events? With the number of new institutions that have been set up in the Services, I would very much like any legislation coming before the House to define up to the latest stage the exact activities and rank of many of the people in the Services. I would like there to be a modern definition of "mariner" and not have to refer back to an old Act which brought into being, in a special set of circumstances, certain categories, with the result that those who might to-day be considered as mariners are kept out because of the conditions that appertained when the old Act was passed. For instance, the trade union movement has made great strides forward since 1890 and 1893, and there has constantly been amending legislation defining the many activities of trade unions. I think it would be wrong for the secretary of the trade union branch at the present time, when asked by one of the members of his branch what powers trade unions have with regard to certain things, to say, "There is the Trade Union Act of 1942 and the Trade Union Act of 1941, but with regard to the point you have raised, you must refer back to the Trade Union Act of 1898 or 1890."
    Apart from dealing with the individual points raised now, it is time that hon. Members indicated to the Government in the best possible way that when legislation is being brought forward concerning pensions or any other aspect of the

    619
    national life, that legislation should be brought up to date. As a matter of fact, it is within the power of any hon. Member to say that the definition of a mariner or a pilot boat in the past does not meet with the requirements of modern times and the requirements of the men engaged in those services to-day. I cannot see any logical reason why, when legislation is brought forward, there have to be references back. I hope the Government will take note of this protest, not with regard to one or two small points, but on the general question of making legislation of a sort which the greatest number of people can understand clearly. The working class men whom we represent on this side of the Committee would never dream of going into the libraries to turn over what have been referred to as the dusty old tomes of the past. "When men at sea, or other people, want to define a pilot boat, I trust it will not be necessary in future for them to delve and dig deeply into the

    Division No. 9.]

    AYES.

    Bevan, A.

    Hurd, Sir P. A.

    Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Maxton, J.

    Wayland, Sir W. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

    Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)

    Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Silverman, S. S.

    Petty-Officer Alan Herbert and

    Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

    Tasker, Sir R. I.

    Dr. Russell Thomas.

    Hughes, R. M.

    Tate, Mavis C.

    NOES.

    Adams, D. (Consett)

    Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

    Peto, Major, B. A. J.

    Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

    Hambro, A. V.

    Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

    Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)

    Hannah, I. C.

    Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)

    Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

    Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

    Baxter, A. Beverley

    Haslam, Henry

    Rickards, G. W.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

    Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.

    Roberts, W,

    Beechman, N. A.

    Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)

    Sanderson, Sir F. B.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

    Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

    Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

    Hepworth, J.

    Shinwell, E.

    Browne, Capt. A. C. (Belfast, W.)

    Howlett, T. H.

    Smith, T. (Normanton)

    Bower, Norman (Harrow)

    Hicks, E. G.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cadogan, Major Sir E.

    James, Wing-Comdr. A. W. H.

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

    Campbell, Sir E. T.

    Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.

    Strickland, Capt. W. F.

    Christie, J. A.

    Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cobb, Capt. E. C.

    Jewson, P. W.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Collindridge, F.

    John, W.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Kimball, Major L.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

    Lawson, J. J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Cox, Captain H. B. Trevor

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Tinker, J. J.

    Gripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford

    Lipson, D. L.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.

    Daggar, G.

    Little, Dr. J. (Down)

    Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)

    Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

    Watkins, F. C.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Mack, J. D.

    White, H. (Derby, N. E.)

    Dobbie, W.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

    Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.

    McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

    Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

    Edmondson, Major Sir J.

    McNeil, H.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwelliy)

    Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

    Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mathers, G.

    Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph

    Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

    Woodburn, A.

    Foster, W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)

    Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

    Frankel, D.

    Morris-Jones, Sir Henry

    Wootton-Davies, J. H.

    Fremantle, Sir F. E.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.

    Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral).

    Noel-Baker, P. J.

    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas and

    Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Mr. A. Young.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Paling, W.

    past, but that they will be able to look at the last Act which was passed, in which there will have been stated exactly what those things mean. This would get rid of all the useless and tiresome drudgery of delving into the volumes of the past.
    Dr. Russell Thomas: I wish to say just a word to enhance the explanation given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) from the document to which he referred. The definitions he has adduced in his Amendment are the definitions in the original Act which he has accommodated to meet the new Act. We should like to assure the Committee that we have been advised by no sea lawyers—in fact the only one to whom we have listened has been the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell).
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 103.

    SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of the principal Act.)
    Mr. Beechman: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "At the end of paragraph (5) of sub-section (2) of section four there shall be added the words 'and keepers of lighthouses which are relieved by tender.'"
    On the Second Reading I pointed out that, although the provisions of the Bill apply to mariners of all sorts, and I am glad to say to the crew of a lightship, and to the crews of tenders going out to lightships, they do not apply to keepers of lighthouses, even of lighthouses which are right out at sea. It seems ridiculous that a member of a lightship crew or of the crew of a tender, if injured, should be protected, yet if the keeper of a lighthouse situated far out at sea is injured on the same tender he is not assisted by the Bill. The reason for this anomaly proceeds from the definition of the word "ship." A lighthouse is stationary out at sea and a ship is something that is propelled. The very fact that a lighthouse at sea is stationary increases the hazards which must be encountered by those who live in it. They are subject to attacks from aircraft or surface craft. They may encounter floating mines, and it is their duty to report mines so that these may be speedily and effectively dealt with.
    The Amendment seeks to assist keepers of lighthouses out at sea who are relieved by tender. It was thought that, as the Bill refers only to mariners, it would be difficult to include those who attend to shore establishments, though if the Government could see their way to include them too I should be only too happy. Indeed I should be very happy to see coastguards included, because I have for a long time felt that the provision for their pensions is not all that it should be. However to avoid risk of losing the whole, the Amendment has been limited as I have described. I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment or find some way of achieving the purpose that I have in mind, and I hope we shall hear something of the provision which is in fact made for lighthouse keepers. I know that Trinity House is interested in those whom it employs. These men perform an extremely important and perilous task for the good of the country and I think it is right that
    622
    the Committee should make sure that it has a clear statement from the Minister on the way in which provision is made for them.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): When the hon. Member raised the matter on the Second Reading I promised that the Government would consider his proposal with an open mind, and I did so with the concurrence of the Minister of Pensions. We have considered the question with an open mind but I am afraid the facts of the case make it impossible to accept his proposal. Lighthouses are not ships. They are on solid ground of some description. They cannot be torpedoed, and therefore their keepers are not in constant danger of being sunk, as are people in ships. That is the essential distinction between keepers of lighthouses and, for example, keepers of lightships and salvage workers, whom we now propose to include. Moreover, the attacks to which they are liable do not differ in practice, and have not differed in character, from the attacks which beset the general civilian population, and in particular industrial workers. How are they covered? Like other industrial workers they are eligible for compensation under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme for war injuries. For other injuries they are covered, like other employed persons, by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is there anything unjust to lighthouse keepers as such if they receive no special treatment beyond that accorded to other civilian workers? Is their employment connected with the sea in some such way that it creates a special risk different from the risk of other civilians? Does that special risk result from the nature of their employment as lighthouse keepers? To the last question the answer is "No," because the hon. Member, who said he would like to have done so, has not in fact included all lighthouse keepers in his proposal. He only proposes to include keepers of lighthouses who are relieved by tender, that is to say, those who have to make a sea journey to reach their place of work. The special risk which he thinks strong enough to justify his proposal is the sea journey that they have to make. How many such journeys must they make, and are there not other civilians who have likewise to make sea journeys to reach their work?
    Mr. Beechman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciates why I have defined these lighthouses as lighthouses relieved by tender. It is not just because I thought there was a special risk attaching to the journey, though there is that special risk. It was in order to make it clear that the lighthouses we are considering are right out at sea, just as a lightship would be.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I will deal first with the risk in the tender, to which the hon. Member referred, and I ask how many such journeys must these lighthouse keepers make, and are there not other civilians who have to make similar journeys in going to their work? There are two classes of lighthouses which would come within this proposal, what are called rock stations and island stations—rock stations where there are only the lighthouse keepers, who are relieved once every two months, and island stations, where the keepers and their families live together, where there is no regular system of relief and where they leave the island only by special arrangement, as is required. On the rock stations they are relieved every two months, that is, six journeys a year, and short journeys. On island stations they do not make even so many journeys as six. I venture to say that the special sea journey risk is, therefore, very small indeed.
    To the second question the answer is that there are other classes of workers who have to make sea journeys to their work. I cite only two, which are germane to the point—the mechanics who look after the electrical and other apparatus of the lighthouses and the superintendents who supervise the work. They make more journeys than the keepers, but they are based on shore and, therefore, no one would claim that they are mariners, and my hon. Friend does not suggest that they should be included. He says that he is thinking of the risk of lighthouse keepers on a rock a long way from the shore who are liable to be attacked by aircraft and who have been so attacked. I ask him to look at the facts. There have been attacks on lighthouses. It would not be in the public interest for me to state the figure here, but I will give it to my hon. Friend afterwards. About half the number of the attacks made on lighthouses have been on lighthouses on shore, but my hon. Friend would exclude that kind of attack.
    Mr. Beechman: I hope that they can be included.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid it would not be possible without driving very deeply into the general principles of compensation for war injury. The attacks in proportion to the total number of lighthouses have been far fewer than the attacks made on many coastal towns and even towns inland. Among the people employed in lighthouses there have been only three casualties. None of them occurred on the sea journeys in the tender. Two persons were injured by blast and one was fatally injured by picking up some explosive object, a thing which has happened in every town in the Kingdom. I suggest that these facts do not support the view that there is for these people any special risk similar to that of merchant seamen or of lightship keepers or of salvage workers who are included in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that they are adequately covered by what is done for other civilians in the light of the actual casualties that have occurred and that no injustice or hardship will result if the Amendment is rejected.
    Sir R. Keyes: Suppose the crew of the "Bishop" Lighthouse, which is further off than any lightship, about 50 miles from its relieving station, became casualties on the way over, how would they be compensated?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They would be dealt with as civilians are dealt with under the civilians risk scheme. There are other classes of civilian workers who have to go by sea to their work.
    Sir R. Keyes: The relieving of the "Seven Stones," which is the most exposed lightship, is not so formidable as the relieving of the "Bishop." If the crew of the "Bishop" suffered from attack while they were in their tender, would they get as much compensation as the crew of the "Seven Stones "?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They would get the compensation due to them under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. A. voyage of 50 miles is a considerable distance and involves a certain risk, but it is extremely small compared with the risks we are dealing with in this Bill to people who are all the time at sea. It is not a greater risk than that of people who live

    625
    in some towns on the South-East and East coasts who are subject to continual attack from German bombers even now. I venture to suggest that the risk to these people is greater than the risk to the lighthouse crew on their tender journeys.
    Sir R. Keyes: From personal knowledge I know that the risk in relieving the crew of the "Bishop" lighthouse is greater than that in relieving the crew of the "Seven Stones" lightship and men much prefer service in the "Seven Stones." It is a much more formidable undertaking to relieve the "Bishop" than to relieve the "Seven Stones."
    Mr. David Adams: I take it that the Minister has given the Committee a definite assurance that lighthouse keepers and their assistants, whether their journey to their employment be by sea or land, are adequately covered under previous legislation?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: They are covered the same as everybody else.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."?
  Perhaps in view of the hour the House will excuse me if I deal with this Bill somewhat shortly. I can properly do that because the main part of the Bill is purely for a temporary purpose to meet war circumstances. It does not touch the substance of the law of marriage. It is purely a procedural Bill and, therefore, perhaps does not require the same careful' consideration as would be necessary if we were touching the law of marriage itself. I will explain the sort of case that has been giving us trouble. We have already provided in the course of the war for the case in which one of the two intended spouses is on war service, but not for the case in which both are on war service. We have had a considerable number of
  626
  cases in which both the man and the girl are either in the Forces or on some sort of war work away from home and both are out of Scotland. The girl wants, as is right and proper, to be married from her parents' home in Scotland. That is practically impossible just now, because of the existing residence qualification, and what we propose to do, putting it very shortly, is to make the usual residence at the outbreak of war equivalent to the usual marriage residence qualification; so that if the girl resided at her home in Scotland on 3rd September, 1939, it will not matter that she has been in England for the last two years, she is still qualified by residence to be married in Scotland.
  I should add that exactly the same difficulty has arisen with regard to the Church law. As the House will be aware, the Church is responsible for the proclamation of banns. The civil authority is responsible for notice to the registrar. Accordingly, we consulted with the Church authorities before introducing this Bill. We were at one in our views, and the Church has already passed an Act of Assembly to achieve just the objects of this Bill. Accordingly, there is no question of Church law and civil law diverging; on the contrary, this Bill will bring them into line. I ought, in ordinary circumstances, to have said one or two words about the other Clauses which follow Clause 1, but I do not think I need do so, because they raise very minor points. If any hon. Member desires to ask a question either now or on the Committee stage, perhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I deal with his points then rather than at this stage.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE BILL. [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Hall): I beg to

  627
  move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a very short Bill, and I trust that it will be possible for me to explain its purpose without taking up very much time. The Bill is necessitated by a peculiarity of the Royal Naval Reserve Act, 1859, under which the Reserve can be mobilised by Proclamation for three years. At the end of that time their services can be extended for a further two years by means of a fresh Proclamation. The conditions of service which apply to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are governed by another Act, the Naval Forces Act, 1903. This Act contains no power to extend the period of active service beyond the initial period of three years. This being so, it follows that, as the law now stands, the members of the R.N.V.R. can claim release on the completion of three years' active service. The object of this Bill is to place the R.N.V.R. in exactly the same position as the other naval reserves during the present war. A similar Act was passed in 1917 during the last war. This Bill covers both officers and men. There is no alteration in conditions of service at all.
  Mr. Ammon: I know the Government want to get through some other business so, exercising some self-denial, I do not propose to ask too many questions about the Bill. The hon. Member has already answered one by his statement that the Bill applies to both officers and men. I presume that that means that they will be entitled to all the emoluments, compensation for risks and everything else, to which they would be entitled if they were in the ordinary Service. The only other point is that the Bill refers to an Act passed nearly 100 years ago. The hon. Member has mentioned three other Acts, and there are several others which come in between. I would suggest to the Admiralty that they might consider whether the time has not come to codify all this legislation and introduce a Measure to bring it up to date.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time "put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Measure is identical with previous Bills of the same character which have appeared from time to time, generally with a lapse or two or three years between them. In this case we are asking for £35,000,000 for development work. The only point I should like to make clear to the House is that owing to the circumstances in which we now are, the Post Office has to undertake a great deal of capital expenditure which is directly connected with the Fighting Services and with repairs to plant which has been damaged by enemy action. That strictly war expenditure is borne on the Vote of Credit and not on the Post Office Vote. The money for which this Bill asks is for development, mainly of the telephone system. Of the £35,000,000 asked for, £34,000,000 is for the telephone and the remaining £1,000,000 is split up between the postal side and the telegraph side.
  Mr. Ammon: The civilian service?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I should make it clear that the Post Office development programme for which the money will be applied is all directly connected with the prosecution of the war, that is to say, it will provide increased telephone facilities for the vast industrial activity which supports our war effort and for various purposes connected with the Services which are conducting the war—the Civil Defence Service and some of the fighting Services. When the Post Office provides communications for the Fighting Services as it does nowadays, which are not part of the Post Office network, that is borne on the Vote of Credit and not on this Capital Account at all. The Bill does not -differ in any way from its predecessors.
  Mr. Buchanan: Has a civilian no rights to a telephone as a new subscriber?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that matter, and I will tell him what the position is. This money also provides for normal civilian services for non-essential

  629
  subscribers, when we can do it—for ordinary civilian subscribers. Owing to the demands on labour and materials at the present moment, we have been forced to restrict to some extent the provision of services in respect of ordinary non-essential subscribers and we have made a rule, a rough rule, that we cannot, in the meantime, put in a new telephone if it means erecting more than one pole or new wire on existing poles over a furlong; but if the subscriber can show that it is necessary for him, and for the war effort, the appropriate Department that covers his activity, be it the Home Office or whatever Department it may be, will certify that fact, and then we do the work. When it is a case of a new telephone being asked for which does not involve labour or material exceeding what I mentioned, we do the work as quickly as we can, and whenever men and materials are available we put in the telephone at once.
  Mr. Buchanan: Some people doing essential work find the position nearly impossible to-day. I am thinking of the case of a funeral undertaker. I do not know what Department of Government would have to certify that he was essential. Perhaps the Ministry of Supply. I think nobody would deny that, in existing circumstances, he is doing work which the community considers essential.
  Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member puts me in a difficulty when he asks me into what category the activity of the professional undertaker falls. I cannot answer the question off-hand. If he has a case in mind of that kind, the best thing I can suggest is that I should look into it and we will see what we can do to help. We still have a certain amount of discretion in these matters. Our work is devoted, like that of other Departments, to the war effort. We are trying to do the best we can with the means at our disposal for the civilian user of the telephone. I hope that the House will consent to the Second Reading of the Bill, although my explanation of it has necessarily been short and, I fear, inadequate.
  Mr. McKinlay: I should like to ask the Postmaster-General two questions. The first is, does his Department come under the Ministry of Works and Buildings when it is a question of the supply of materials, and the second is, may I have an assurance that when a
  630
  person has a telephone installed his conversations are not overheard by others? There is a great suspicion among subscribers to the telephone that they have at the moment no protection against eavesdroppers and "snoopers." In some parts of Glasgow, at least, people have been "butting in" on telephone conversations, and not too politely, and there is a growing feeling that telephone conversations are listened into all over the system. Subscribers are entitled to an assurance that "snooping" will not take place. Also, as I said, I want an assurance that the Postmaster-General does not require a licence from the Ministry of Works and Buildings if he wants a bag of cement or a couple of" dozen bricks to build an extension.
  Mr. Morrison: I can answer those questions very briefly. In the first place, the Ministry of Works and Buildings does construct all ordinary Post Office premises, and works in harmony with us. There is no trouble whatsoever. As regards the second point, it is against the rules of the Post Office for people to listen to telephone conversations. A certain amount of overhearing is inevitable. You cannot avoid it.
  Mr. McKinley: I am not talking about those employed in the exchanges as operators, or about employees of the Post Office. There is a growing suspicion that other persons listen in with the connivance of the Post Office.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: My hon. Friend says he is not concerned about operators listening in. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would take drastic action if an operator listened in, perhaps in the course of his duty, and repeated some of the conversation outside?
  Mr. Morrison: That is so. I was going on to say that there is one exception to what I have said. As the hon. Member knows, there is a system of priorities for telephone conversations. When communications were difficult, we had, for operational purposes, to give a certain A1 priority. It was abused, and in order to check the abuse I had to institute a monitoring system, to ensure that this priority system was not used improperly to the detriment of the ordinary public. That is the only exception to which I would refer at this time.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting Day.— [Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and the repayment to the Post Office Fund of moneys applied thereout for such development, it is expedient—

  (i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole thirty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment;

  (ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;

  (iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund. (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

  Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

  EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.
  Resolved,
  "That the Bricks (Charges) Order, 1942, dated 13th May, 1942, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 19th May, be approved."—[Mr. Hicks.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  REQUISITIONED FACTORIES (STORAGE ACCOMMODATION).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]
  Mr. Arthur Jenkins: I wish to raise a question with regard to the closing of a works in a certain part of the country the name of which is well known to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The closing of these works was intended to provide storage for certain war undertakings. I think that, on the principle of war necessity, no exception can be taken to the closing of works in these circumstances, even though it involves discomfort to people, the upset of their homes and various other things. I have always taken the view that we have to put up with these inconveniences in the period of war: But I think there is definitely a principle involved in the closing of works, and that unless that is satisfied such a project should not be carried through. This subject has been under the consideration of the Prime Minister, as a result of previous harsh treatment in the closing of works and the requisitioning of premises. The matter was referred to Mr. John W. Morris, K.C., some time ago and his Report was published in 1941. In a memorandum by the Prime Minister, referred to in that Report, it was stated:
  "The Prime Minister's attention has been drawn to complaints that requisitioning powers are often exercised harshly. He regards it as of the utmost importance that the national war effort should not be impaired by any suspicion that the wide powers necessarily entrusted to Government Departments are exercised without due consideration, or in any way inflict unnecessary hardship."
  Mr. John Morris considered that suggestion and he reported that
  "if a proposed requisitioning involves interference with the activities of a going concern or with the occupation of residential or business premises I think that the exercise of the powers should only be decided upon if the need is imperative and if no alternative and less disturbing course seems practicable."
  That directive of the Prime Minister seems to have been totally disregarded in this case. The President of the Board of Trade received a deputation, and, as a result, he agreed that an investigation should take place in the district, to ascertain whether or not alternative accommodation was available. That investigation took place on the following day. The space available in the factory, which it was proposed to requisition, was 25,000 square feet. The following day upwards of 40,000 square feet were shown to be available in buildings that could have been used—not in one building, but in a number

  633
  of buildings. That was regarded as not suitable. Therefore, the works was closed. Some of the men employed there were put to work in other places. I think I ought to stress this because we have to give consideration to the question of whether or not the war effort is being advanced by actions of this kind. Some of the men were transferred to other works. Their production fell by no less than 69 per cent. What they are producing is a war requirement. Some of the men were sent to yet another works. Shortly after, that works was closed. The output of that works has to be made up somewhere.
  I recognise the difficulties that the President of the Board of Trade will have in coming to a decision on matters of this kind, but in this case there is not the slightest doubt that our war effort was not being served by the action which was taken. Some of the men who were transferred have to travel by bus. I have made a calculation, and it is a very conservative estimate, that the consumption of petrol in conveying those men to that less productive works will be somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons per annum. There is also a considerable use of rubber, and men have to be employed in driving those buses. No bus was required when the men were employed in the other, more productive, works. The step was taken, and the works was closed. But now it has been discovered—it was known before, but apparently very little attention was paid to it—that there is no road access to the works. Anything which has to be taken to or from that works will have to go by rail. It is intended to store things there which may be, on occasion, very urgently required. It would take a long time to get them there by rail. If there were a road they could be taken in an hour to the place where they were wanted, but there are great difficulties about taking them by railway, and that is the only means unless a bridge is built across a small river. I understand that a representative of the Ministry of Supply has been there, and that he has expressed great surprise that there is no road access. It is rather disturbing that we should have reached such a position.
  This matter has given rise to considerable feeling locally. I am sorry about that. We are all anxious to get maximum production at present. Working men,
  634
  looking at this matter, say frankly, "Does production matter so much after all when we can afford to allow a substantial output such as these men were getting to be lost? Does it matter so much in the other industries?" It takes away the reality of our claim upon these people to produce. This is not an argument which applies only to men employed in this industry. It applies to men employed in many industries. One hardly likes to say this, but it is said locally this action has been taken on the part of the big combines, for the purpose of securing their positions in the post-war period. I cannot prove that, but that statement is bandied around pretty freely.
  The production of the combines has been reduced to about 55 per cent. of their capacity. The capacity of the industry was reduced by 50 per cent. by voluntary arrangement before the commencement of the war. The combines are still producing round about 55 per cent., whereas this particular firm has had its output reduced by 18 per cent. There is some favourable treatment here, but to what extent it goes on I do not know. I understand that one of the combines at the present time, in spite of the shortage of materials and labour, is in the process of making arrangements to produce this particular commodity four times in excess of the production of the works which has been closed. Whether that will be carried out or not I do not know, but-they are in process of preparing for it. Some of the big firms have vast sums of capital employed and they know well that, in the post-war period, unless they get a big production, they will not be able to meet the financial demands upon the money invested in these big concerns. It inclines one to the view that some steps are being taken to secure the positions of these big firms when the war is over.
  In any case now we have a substantial loss of output, a 50 per cent. reduction in men's wages, unnecessary use of labour and petrol, over 40,000 square feet of unused space available, loss of working time owing to men having to work in great heats and having to travel by 'bus considerable distances and being exposed to bad weather, causing the incidence of sickness to go up very considerably. These factors ought to be taken into account when consideration is given to

  635
  the closing of works. My sympathies go out to the President of the Board of Trade because he has a whole network of interests to consider. The Ministry of Supply will say they want space. They consult the Iron and Steel Control. They make a list of works which is sent on to the factory and storage people, who make an examination and decide what is and what is not suitable. They then come back to the poor President of the Board of Trade, who has to reach a decision. He has my sympathy. I would not have raised this matter if I believed for a moment that the national interests were being served. I am absolutely convinced that they are not being served and that very substantial damage is being done by the closing of these works.
  Mr. Cove: We are discussing this very important matter under great disadvantages, with a time-limit, whereas with proper notice of such a Debate, a full and proper discussion would take a number of hours. There is no doubt that in the closing of this works a great principle is involved. This was clearly revealed in the courteous and prolonged discussion in which the President of the Board of Trade took part in his Department. What is the issue? It is whether the trusts and combines are to embed themselves more strongly or whether they are to be controlled and run for the public service. The tinplate works in my Division was closed not because it was uneconomic—the irony of the situation is that when there was an investigation into the cost of production there, it was found to be relatively cheap. In spite of that, however, the works had to close, leaving the whole village desolate. Think of the effect that has on the minds of the people in South Wales. It is said that they will be transferred to other places, but they see that their employment and livelihood have gone. They do not believe that they will have any better time, owing to the action which has been taken, or more security at the end of this war, than they had following the last war. They are firmly convinced that this action was dictated by those who are in control of the big units of the industry.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton)indicated dissent
  Mr. Cove: I am afraid my right hon. Friend is just the handmaiden of these people. The impression one has is that he is carrying out the dictates of the big people in the steel control. There is great suspicion of the steel control in South Wales. It is suspected that they dominate the whole position. I ask my right hon. Friend to get on with the job of making this a public concern. At present there is nothing but desolation and the morale of the people who see their industry going is being destroyed. At the conferences I have attended the overwhelming impression in the minds of people in South Wales is that this action has been taken at the dictation of the big trusts. It is a big trust policy, not only for the period of the war, but a policy in order to entrench themselves when the war is over. We expect the right hon. Gentleman to stand four square against that.
  Mr. Dalton: I will do my best in the short time remaining to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) and Aberavon (Mr. Cove). First of all, I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon would know me well enough not to charge me with being the handmaiden of a large combine in the tinplate industry, and seriously, there is no foundation whatever for that view. I have to consider the evidence that is put before me. I do my best to come to a fair judgment upon the evidence, and indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool knows, one of my first duties in relation to this matter, when first I took up my duties at the Board of Trade, was to decide between the closing down of two firms. On all the evidence before me, I decided that one should be closed, and in fact, that' one was associated with the large combine which is in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon.
  What I have to consider, in relation to the demand for accommodation in South Wales, is which of these factories should be closed, having regard, on the one hand, to the need to maintain the essential output of tinplate, and on the other hand, to provide storage accommodation suitable in "character and suitable in location. The particular case raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool has, as he admits, been the subject of prolonged consideration. No fewer than three deputations

  637
  have visited the Board of Trade in relation to this matter. My hon. Friend has been there on three occasions. The hon. Member for Aberavon came with him on one occasion. On two occasions he saw me, and on another occasion he saw the Controller-General of Factory and Storage Premises. I have looked at this matter from all angles and in the light of all the evidence. What is required is to get a substantial amount of storage accommodation in existing buildings in one unit within convenient distance of a large Royal Ordnance Factory. It is in order to meet those requirements that the particular works in my hon. Friend's constituency has, greatly to my regret, had to be closed. I would like to mention that during the past 12 months, the Control of Factory and Storage Premises at the Board of Trade have been asked to provide for other Departments—we act in this matter on behalf of other Departments, and not of our own free will—70,000,000 to 80,000,000 square feet of space, and to do that we have had to take over from 7,000 to 8,000 premises. I must say frankly that if there had been as much reluctance and resistance all over the country as there has been in this group of tinplate works in South Wales, the; war effort would have been very greatly slowed down.
  Mr. Cove: No.
  Mr. Dalton: Indeed, it would, considering the amount of time that has had to be devoted to this matter. I do not grudge that, but I say that if I and my officials had had to devote as much time, in connection with cases all over the country, to receiving deputations, conducting discussions in London, visiting the area and inspecting various alternative sites, the war effort would have been choked.
  Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that a number of works have been taken over in connection with which no contentious points arose such as I have mentioned? In no other cases where the Board of Trade have tried to take over works have these things arisen to the same extent. That is the whole point.
  Mr. Dalton: These have been extremely difficult cases in terms of the amount of time taken up. I want now to deal with the particular points which my hon. Friend raised. He quoted the Morris
  638
  Report. I entirely accept that report. I entirely accept the Prime Minister's dictum. Operating on the great scale that we have been doing, I am prepared to maintain that the exercise of these powers is decided upon only when the need is imperative and when no alternative and less disturbing course is practicable. I have to satisfy myself in each case, and I did so in this case. My hon. Friend does not agree with my decision, but it was reached after prolonged consultation, in which he was continually taking part, with his friends. It is said by my hon. Friend that there were more than 40,000 square feet of available space in the neighbourhood. I am afraid that that is not in accordance with the information I have received from more than one quarter. In the first place, there was no one unit available, and in the second place a considerable amount of the accommodation was not suitable for the storage of the commodity which we are discussing. If we had plenty of labour and material and were living in the easy times of pre-war economics, it would, no doubt, have been possible to have furbished up these rather derelict buildings, by putting roofs on and so on.
  Mr. Cove: If the Ministry had had plenty of storage, would they have closed them down?
  Mr. Dalton: It is because we have not got storage space that we have had to take these premises over, and I can give no undertaking that, as the war develops, we shall not have to take over a lot more storage space in many other parts of the country, including South Wales. The war must be continued. I have had the most careful reports made, and officers in whom I have every confidence have inspected these alleged alternatives on the spot, and I say that they are not fit alternatives for the purpose. In saying that I am guided not by agents of big combines, but by those who know for what purpose they desire the storage—in this case the Ministry of Supply. With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool has said about the conditions of labour and the transference of labour to new works and so on, that is not my concern; it is the concern of the Ministry of Labour. My hon. Friend must distinguish between the responsibilities of one Minister and another.
  Mr. Jenkins: That is one of my complaints. There is no co-ordination between the different Departments. When the Minister of Labour is approached he says that it is not his business and that it belongs to the President of the Board of Trade, and now the President of the Board of Trade says that it does not belong to him but the Minister of Labour. Surely, we could have co-ordination by Government Departments on a question of this kind?.
  Mr. Dalton: The decision to take these works over is my decision, following consultations with other Departments. That is my decision, and I stand by it. As to what happens to the labour which is displaced, that is not a question for me. So far as employment is concerned, that is for the Ministry of Labour, and, so far as output is concerned, that is for the Ministry of Supply. My hon. Friend has not, as far as I know, put down Questions on this matter to either the Minister of Supply or to the Minister of Labour. It is, no doubt, true that initially inconveniences may arise from the movement of labour. I am afraid that I cannot take
  640
  very seriously my hon. Friend's calculations about petrol, because what we are getting from the works in his constituency is of much greater value to the war effort than the quantity of petrol he mentioned. That matter has, of course, been taken into account, as have other matters. As long ago as 8th April, I stated in a letter to my hon. Friend that it was quite impossible for me to reverse my decision. I am sure he will agree in his heart that if I dilly-dallied and because of local pressure and other persuasions continually altered my mind, we should not be carrying on the war and I should not be occupying the post which I now hold. Ministers should take their decisions after listening attentively to all the evidence put up, as I did in this case, and I am satisfied, if my hon. Friend looks at the matter in all its aspects, he will be convinced—although it is distasteful to me and more distasteful to him—that it was the right decision, in view of the need for storage accommodation in the close neighbourhood of this important factory.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

BRITISH ARMY.
  FUEL AND LIGHT ECONOMY.
  FUEL AND LIGHT ECONOMY.
  EDUCATION CORPS OFFICERS (RETIRING AGE).
  EDUCATION CORPS OFFICERS (RETIRING AGE).
  FORM B 160.
  FORM B 160.
  CHURCH PARADES.
  CHURCH PARADES.
  DETENTION SYSTEM.
  DETENTION SYSTEM.
  CHANNEL ISLANDERS (BADGE).
  CHANNEL ISLANDERS (BADGE).
  OFFICERS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).
  OFFICERS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).
  LEAVE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  LEAVE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES).
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  PRIVILEGE LEAVE.
  PRIVILEGE LEAVE.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  DISMISSALS ON SECURITY GROUNDS (PROCEDURE).
  DISMISSALS ON SECURITY GROUNDS (PROCEDURE).
  BOARD OF TRADE.
  BOARD OF TRADE.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  PETROLEUM BOARD (PRICES).
  PETROLEUM BOARD (PRICES).
  COAL SLACK (UTILISATION).
  COAL SLACK (UTILISATION).
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS.
  WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EMERGENCY WATER CONTAINERS.
  EMERGENCY WATER CONTAINERS.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  CLOTHES RATIONING.
  RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).
  RETAIL BUSINESSES (LICENSING).
  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES ORDER (PENALTIES).
  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES ORDER (PENALTIES).
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES.
  RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES.
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (DEFENCE REGULATIONS).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (DEFENCE REGULATIONS).
  ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS (PROSECUTIONS).
  POST OFFICE (DESTROYED RECORDS).
  POST OFFICE (DESTROYED RECORDS).
  ADULT EDUCATION (GRANTS).
  ADULT EDUCATION (GRANTS).
  B.B.C. TURKISH BROADCASTS.
  B.B.C. TURKISH BROADCASTS.
  "DAILY WORKER."
  "DAILY WORKER."
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  PROBATION OFFICERS.
  PROBATION OFFICERS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' MEETINGS, SCOTLAND (PUBLICITY).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' MEETINGS, SCOTLAND (PUBLICITY).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  ACTIVE LIST (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  ACTIVE LIST (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
  BOMBING TARGETS (COMMITTEE).
  BOMBING TARGETS (COMMITTEE).
  RECRUITS (TRAINING COURSES).
  RECRUITS (TRAINING COURSES).
  MILITARY SERVICE (LONDON FIRM'S EMPLOYEES).
  MILITARY SERVICE (LONDON FIRM'S EMPLOYEES).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLER on the Woolsack.

COAL POLICY.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement about the coal policy?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's question I have to say that the proposals of His Majesty's Government in regard to coal will be available to noble Lords in the form of a White Paper before the House rises on the next sitting day. The Government will invite your Lordships to approve of the proposals by means of a Motion which will be put down for debate on the third sitting day of next week.

POST-WAR SETTLEMENT.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to move to resolve, That it is of urgent importance both for the successful prosecution of the war and for the establishment of a satisfactory and lasting peace, that the Government should prepare without delay the proposals they intend to make for world settlement after the war. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before us is concerned with questions and with
2
hopes that are in the minds of free peoples all over the world. I believe that if they are courageously dealt with they will greatly strengthen the resolve of the United Nations. That resolve is utterly to destroy the hateful German military system. It has desolated the world; it plans slaughter, and it can exist only by oppression. The determination of people to fight and to fight on, to obstruct and thwart the enemy by every means possible, to endure until deliverance comes, grows ever stronger the more certain it is that victory will not again be an interlude between wars, but the bringer-in of a real peace wherein those freedoms from fears that President Roosevelt so dramatically described will be in fact attainable.
The Atlantic Charter, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will especially refer, is a very great testament, and all honour to the statesmen who framed it. None know better than they, however, how immense and how complicated will be the difficulties before the nations as soon as victory is obtained. Unless thought is given to these difficulties beforehand, and sufficient agreement obtained upon the main lines of action to be taken, the United Nations at the moment of victory may well be precipitated into a confusion that will make resolute and definite action impossible upon those measures which are essential to an enduring settlement. There is at this time, moreover, a further important reason for timely action in this regard. We have now in our midst the leaders of many of those nations which have been subjugated for the time being. The opportunity for conference with them

3
is altogether exceptional; it cannot possibly be so favourable when, at the time of victory, they will inevitably find themselves beset by the day-to-day problems of restoration in their own homelands. The fullest use should be made of this priceless opportunity. The hopes of hundreds of millions of freedom-loving people are fixed on the future for which they fight, and I believe that there are overwhelming reasons for our striving with might and main to reach a sufficient measure of international agreement beforehand upon how their longings can be satisfied. Unless this is done we may find that victory is merely the forerunner of divided counsels and disappointments.
There are three outstanding questions only of which I would remind your Lord-ships, and around which many others can be grouped. They arc the immediate post-war emergency, the means whereby peace may be made secure, and the sort of life that will be open to the people afterwards. As to the first of these, the post-war emergency, it is certain what that will be, at any rate in some respects. There will be millions of homeless people in Europe, taken away from their homes into strange lands, from Greece, from Yugoslavia, from Czecho-Slovakia, from the Netherlands, from Norway and from France, not knowing where their friends are and whether their homes still exist or not. There will be forced labourers in enemy munition camps, prisoners, and all manner of exiles. The very fact that their war oppressors are vanquished may even exacerbate the miseries of those who are working for our enemies, for a tyrant must at least feed his slaves. There will be in Europe hungry, homeless, penniless multitudes—above ail, hungry multitudes—and there must therefore be already-concerted arrangements for dealing with them.
The tasks involved will have to be undertaken very largely by the United States and the British Empire. We shall have the ships and the food. The feeding and sustenance of these scattered millions, however, necessitates understanding in advance with the leaders of the nations as to the provision of food, as to its transport and distribution, and as to who is to pay for it, if anyone is to pay for it, and as regards a multitude of other practical but inevitable questions. I know that
4
some preliminary work has been done on this matter and has been carried out by Mr. Greenwood, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to tell us something about it.
The second subject is the security for future peace—a vast topic at which it is impossible to do more than glance. I imagine that there is agreement everywhere that, if we are to secure peace in the future, there must be, over a long term, control in Germany. I should think that, if they dare to say what they think by then, even the people of Italy will be almost as unanimous as the people of the United Nations on that matter. It must mean, I think, at least three things. I put it at no less than the destruction of the German military system. The militarists are the strongest caste in Germany by far, deeply rooted in German traditions, and they will ever strive after the things they love. It will be a long but an essential business, I believe, to destroy that system. There will, I think, have to be a long-term control of German education. Think what they have done in ten years, or less than ten years—transformed the mind of all the young people in Germany by an organized system of so-called education. And I believe that will have to be undone before there is any hope of rest in the world. It will take a long time. There is one other part of control of Germany which will be essential: the control of the German financial system. Unless it is controlled we may be sure that it will be capable of use, and will be used, for the dissemination of discord among the United Nations, for the instilling of insidious and destructive propaganda in every part of the world. I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, but I was greatly impressed by the preface which he wrote to a book the other day which is called The Greatest Swindle in the World, as to how Reparations were dealt with by the German financial authorities, and how-even the loans mistakenly made to them were used for the preparation of another war. I cannot imagine any security unless some adequate system of control over that engine is provided.
But does any one imagine that any system of military control in Germany can be undertaken without preliminary agreements, at least in principle, with the United States and with Russia? That is

5
completely essential and not to be left to the last moment. What sort of military occupation must there be? Is it to be an international force? Who is to control it? Not agreement on details, but agreement on principles must be arrived at in advance. And beyond this, what are we to look to in the future with respect to the smaller nations in Europe? Is there to be a Defence Union, or are we to try to build something upon the League of Nations? I think, in any case, we shall have to recognize that the future of Europe, if there is to be security, must entail some surrender of sovereign rights by smaller nations. It is easy to say that, but how difficult it will be to negotiate it. One almost trembles to think of it; but it must be faced, and it must be faced in advance. Every man with knowledge of the realities, of the responsibilities that must be thrust upon the Governments at the conclusion of hostilities, must know that, whilst many details must be left to be settled according to the circumstances of the time, there must be in advance sufficient agreement upon the main principles affecting the actions to which I have referred.
Now it is necessary to look at the third group of issues which require preliminary discussion. What sort of life may people look forward to after the war? On this subject we have had a number of very notable speeches lately. We had one from the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, at Leeds. I found it greatly heartening, with real vision. We have had equally striking speeches from Mr. Cordell Hull and from Mr. Wallace, the Vice-President of the United States; and on Monday of last week, we had a most remarkable speech from Mr. Perkins, who is the Director of the American Board of Economic Warfare. I would like, if I may, to read one or two short extracts from his speech. He said that the battle to avoid this war was lost because men had not yet learnt how to distribute what they produced. Civilization broke down after the last war because it was "commodity-rich and consumption-poor "—a remarkably accurate summary of what happened. Then he went on to say that the plain people of the world know what they want—a chance to work, to be useful, an income which will give them enough food, clothing and shelter to drive fear and want from the fireside, and all this within a
6
society that guaranteed their civil liberties. Then he made what was to me—even me, a Socialist—a staggering statement. Let me read it to your Lordships:
" If we take all that can be produced at the end of this war, and divide it among all the peoples who will then be alive to share it, we shall be within reach of a very good standard of living for the first time in all history."
Well, it was a Utopia; I confess it dazzled me. It was what one was almost afraid to think of in definite terms.
What has been said in this country is mild beside what Mr. Perkins said. I see that Mr. Harold Laski, in a speech at the recent conference of the Labour Party, for which he was castigated by the Daily Telegraph, said:
" We seek in this war for victory, not to return to the old world, but to build a new-world. We have done once and for all with the mad competitive system which spells poverty for all peoples and war as the outcome of poverty."
That did not seem to me to be a very extravagant hope; but I shall depart from my usual custom by referring to the criticisms made in the very important organ of Conservative opinion, the Daily Telegraph. It said that others might
" postpone putting the cart of domestic controversy before the horse of military triumph. They might indeed ask what the Labour Party would have said if a Conservative or Liberal Conference had called for striking off the shackles of bureaucracy ' after the final victory is won; ' but in fact no other Party is likely to waste its time on crying for academic moons That does not mean that they would accept for a moment the idea that the Labour Party's policy alone can ensure a better world or that they are barren of ideas of their own."
I would say that if the Conservative or Liberal Conference, or anybody else, has any useful ideas or suggestions to make as to how these terrible questions can be dealt with, for God's sake produce them. There never was a time when humanity was in greater need of good ideas as to how to deal with these terrible issues that must arise. We all agree, I am sure, that poverty is the main cause of unemployment—the inability to buy. If the millions of China or India could buy a little more, how much it would mean for our productive industries. It is the major problem before us—to enable people to obtain from the plenty that we can produce, sufficient for their needs, and to do it, if we can, under a system

7
which will preserve indvidual initiative and individuality.
It is deplorable to suggest that we should be debarred from discussing these great matters which are stirring the minds of people everywhere by what I can only describe as Pecksniffian stupidity. Just look at one or two of these post-war issues. What will happen? You will have millions of people stopping work away from their homes before industries can be reassembled—bewildered. Are we not to think about what we should do in their case? I had some concern in these matters last time, and I hope we shall be readier this time than we were then. There is this too—the great matter of prices and control. There will of a certainty be a clamour to be released from control. We shall have headlines, not of a quarter of an inch, but an inch or, may be, two inches demanding release from "The New Despotism" and from controls. These demands will certainly arise. They will be shrieked at us every day, and if all controls are relaxed or, at all events, unless there is some well-conceived scheme of dealing with them, there will be soaring prices as there were at the end of the last war—a temporary boom, perhaps, and then ghastly unemployment.
If we can avoid it, I am sure there is not one of us who wishes to return to what, to me anyhow, is a disgusting scramble under a system which is based upon the existence of millions of people who are unemployed, a reservoir which can be called upon. We want something better than that, and unless there can be sufficient agreement between the Parties beforehand as to the main lines of action, we may well find that victory is the precursor of disorder. There will be astronomical debts—if they are to be regarded as debts—and there will be such debts that if they are sought to be paid, the operation will ruin both the debtor and the creditor. The creditor nation will find its products not required, and the debtor nation will be unable to buy what it needs for its own life. What is to be done about that? Some understanding in regard to finance and debts will be at the very foundation of recovery. If we look at these things at which I have only glanced, thongh I have taken longer indeed than I meant, it is clear that there
8
is an urgent necessity for the consideration of some of these great issues and for as much agreement as possible beforehand. Instead of decrying discussion on these matters, I suggest that it is overwhelmingly desirable that we should as far as possible project into the period of peace as much as we can of the glorious unity that now possesses us. It is worth a great sacrifice by men of all Parties. It is, I suggest, the way of statesmanship; it is the leadership for which the people long, and moreover and finally, it is the only way whereby mankind can obtain that more secure peace and fuller life upon which our hearts are set. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is of urgent importance both for the successful prosecution of the war and for the establishment of a satisfactory and lasting peace, that the Government should prepare without delay the proposals they intend to make for world settlement after the war.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF PERTH—in whose name stood the following Notice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether satisfactory progress is being made with the study as to how the articles of the Atlantic Charter can best be put into practical effect when the time comes; and to move for Papers—said: My Lords, you will have noted that I have a Motion of my own on the Order Paper for to-day, but the words of the Motion so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, are such that it would be more convenient if I made on it the observations I should have made had I introduced the Motion standing in my own name. I hope your Lordships will not object to the withdrawal of my Motion when the time comes for it formally to be moved—that is, when we have finished the discussion on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, on which we are now engaged.
When I saw that Motion on the Order Paper—and it has been there for a considerable time—I frankly confess I was somewhat puzzled. It seems to me that the general principles of post-war settlement had been admirably set out in that great declaration known as the Atlantic Charter. That Charter has become of even greater importance than when its provisions were last discussed in your

9
Lordships' House. At that time it had been endorsed by various nations, including the U.S.S.R. Now it has received the formal assent of twenty-six Allied Nations, and the approval of the States of Latin America. I think, therefore, that we can regard its principles as firmly established and as constituting the lines on which all those who are fighting Hitlerism and the German and Japanese idea of the New Order would wish to see the post-war world constituted.
The Leader of this House, in a speech which he made on November 18, told us that His Majesty's Government, and no doubt the Governments of the Dominions and the Allied Powers, and the Government in the United States of America, were already actively engaged in its study in order that they might be in a position to put all the provisions of the Atlantic Charter into effect when the time came. Now if we can receive an assurance—and I hope we may—that those studies, which are the preliminary work necessary to the application of the provisions of the Atlantic Charter, are proceeding satisfactorily, then I suggest that we should rest content. I know His Majesty's Government are often being urged in influential quarters to set out immediately a detailed programme of post-war settlement, but I suggest that to do so would be a great error. For any single Government at this time to set out proposals of their own would surely tend to create dissension rather than promote unity, that unity which has been so happily achieved and which it is so vital to maintain. I think that the next: stage should be, when the studies are completed, that the Governments of the various countries concerned should exchange views and information, and we should rest content till that happens.
Now, in regard to those studies, I trust that His Majesty's Government will not be influenced by the scornful references which are so often made to the failure of the League of Nations. It is true that the League of Nations did not succeed in fulfilling the high purposes for which it was created. I do not intend to try to analyse the causes of that failure. Some of them have been explained in a most interesting book written by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, although I must not be held as agreeing with all his arguments and all his conclusions, but neither the
10
noble Viscount nor the other writers whose works I have read on this subject have paid sufficient attention to the fundamental cause of the League's failure—namely, the absence of the United States of America. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the League which failed was not the League envisaged by President Wilson, by General Smuts, by the noble Viscount himself, and by other statesmen. That League was based on the intimate participation in its inner councils of the United States of America. That League has never been tried, and has never failed.
I want to emphasize the point because, some little time ago, in one of those brilliant performances of the Brains Trust, the earlier performances, I heard Professor Joad tell his vast audience: "We have tried the League, it has failed; we must try something else unless civilization is to perish." I think a statement of that kind might well mislead the millions of listeners unless it was accompanied by some such qualification as I have suggested. The League without America failed. I am profoundly convinced that had the League as originally conceived come into being it would have fulfilled all the hopes and all the aspirations of its founders, and the present calamities would have been averted. I could adduce solid and compelling grounds for my belief from the historic happenings following the years after the last war, but I doubt whether it would be expedient and opportune to do so at the present time. I have no wish to awaken the echoes of old, unhappy controversies, or to cast the slightest reflection on those whose actions lay entirely within their rights and was, I feel sure, inspired by what they then held to be their highest interests. But if it is wrong and harmful to search the records of the past for purposes of recrimination it is right and beneficial to examine them to see whether we can obtain guidance for the future. I think that when the various Governments study the application of the provisions of the Atlantic Charter they will find that it is desirable, if not indeed essential, that some international organization should be set up analagous to that of the League of Nations, and with a Charter on general lines similar to that of the Covenant, though I, personally, earnestly hope that some of the provisions will be less absolute.

11
The lesson which I think we should learn from the past is that no such international organization will succeed unless it has in some form or other the closest co-operation with the United States. An international organization including the United States—I say "in some form or other" —is the ideal at which I think we should aim. If we can attain it, and I pray that we may, then I think we can look forward to the future of the world not only with hope but with confidence. Meanwhile, I think we can receive much encouragement from the fact that President Roosevelt is the co-author of the Atlantic Charter, from the fact that the Allied Declaration has been signed by the United States of America, and from statements such as that made by the American Ambassador in a speech which he delivered at Liverpool in November last, when he said that the United States and Great Britain would have to co-operate in the maintenance of international security if they were to co-operate in the maintenance of more satisfactory economic relations.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I feel sure His Majesty's Government will have no complaint to make of the action of either of the noble Lords who put Notices on the Paper for debate this afternoon. Both are most eminently qualified to initiate a debate of this kind—the noble Lord who leads the Opposition from his long Parliamentary and administrative experience, in which he has not many equals in this country, and the noble Earl behind me from his long experience at the Foreign Office and at Geneva in the League of Nations, concerning which he has given us such a very illuminating and convincing account, and from his experience afterwards as Ambassador at Rome. But in addition to their personal qualifications, both noble Lords are undoubtedly the spokesmen of no little national anxiety on these matters.
It is, I think, obvious from what we see in the Press and hear in public speeches, that the country would be thoroughly uneasy if people believed that the experience of the last war and 1919 is to be in any way repeated when hostilities end. Undoubtedly at that time there was a general belief—by no means universal, but a largely-held belief—that when the "Cease fire" came, everything would go
12
well, that the war was going to end war, that the various difficulties could be settled by conferences, and that something like a millenium would arrive. Some of your Lordships may remember a musical play which amused London many years ago, in which a party of amateurs were preparing to take part in a pantomime. One of the amusing things about that play was the series of frequent mishaps in the rehearsals. One of the rather lackadaisical members of the company consoled himself and his friends by repeating "It will be all right on the night." That phrase became a popular catchword applied to people who did not make preparations but supposed that everything would be easy to settle when the day came. Now everybody knows that everything will not be ail right; that on the contrary the difficulties which have been to some extent foreshadowed by the noble Lord who leads the Opposition, are exceedingly grave and exceedingly numerous.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, worded his Resolution most carefully and he fully carried out his intention in his speech. He asked for immediate preparations by His Majesty's Government, but not for an immediate announcement. There, I am sure, he will receive the concurrence of your Lordships. In the first instance, to attempt to announce the details of world settlement now is altogether impossible because, though we not only believe but know that our victory is certain, yet the precise circumstances of that victory cannot be foreseen. In the second place, it would be absolutely impossible for His Majesty's Government to make any form of public announcement without complete co-operation and general agreement with the Allied Powers and all the countries concerned. Obviously that must be a matter of time and, I should trust, of continuous consultation.
The general world settlement divides itself under several heads. In the first place there is what may be described as the territorial, or in one sense political settlement—that is, what is going to happen to the aggressor countries, and how are the countries which have been the victims of aggression to be restored so far as can be to prosperity after peace. It is obvious that it would be altogether impossible to attempt now to rearrange the boundaries of Europe. What the precise future, in the geographical sense, of Poland will be, or what will be the

13
precise area of Yugoslavia, it surely would be i utile now to discuss. On the other hand, there are some definitely hopeful facts of which I think we can take note. One of the most hopeful to my mind is the fact that already Poland has achieved a measure of agreement both with Russia and with Czecho-Slovakia, altogether obliterating the memory of past differences. That is surely a most hopeful sign. We can also look with complete confidence to the restoration to prosperity of the people of Greece, the sufferings of whom have been so much in our minds. There is one further fact which we have to bear in mind—namely, the attitude of Turkey; and that, as compared with the attitude of Turkey five and twenty years ago is a matter upon which we can look with deep satisfaction.
On the other hand, we have to remember that the world settlement now presents an infinitely more complicated problem than it did in 1919. Then Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey were the only hostile countries. Now we have Germany, Italy and Japan—three Great Powers—arrayed against us, and, again, the unhappy little community of Bulgaria. I am not going to dwell at all upon the prospects of the just treatment which we, and our Allies, will have to mete out to Germany because I find myself in very complete agreement on that point with what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Addison. It seems to me that as regards the necessary occupation of Germany it will have to be continued for a certain time. He expressed what I believe to be the absolute common-sense view of the situation. Nor shall I attempt to offer any opinion as to what the future geographical settlement ought to be in the Pacific Ocean and what penalty Japan will have to pay. It will be, I am sure, a severe penalty for the absolutely unpardonable aggression of which she has been guilty.
That is one aspect of the circumstances which have to be considered in relation to the world settlement. The other division is that mentioned in the last five Articles of the Atlantic Charter—that is to say, questions of economic and moral settlement, including of course the abolition of resort to force as an instrument of policy. I shall not attempt to elaborate any opinions on the last five Articles of the Atlantic Charter which cover questions
14
of trade and currency. But, speaking from these Benches, I cannot help saying one word of satisfaction regarding the terms implied in the Atlantic Charter which indicate a desire for greater freedom of trade and the absence of restriction. As we know, there have' been, and are, Free Traders in all political Parties, but, at the same time, I think that we on these Benches are entitled to claim that we have been the principal evangelists of that creed simply because we believe more in it and less in regulation than either of the two great Parties of the State.
At the same time we do not seek to deny that any attempt to return to or to institute a system of universal Free Trade and free exchange of goods would be altogether an impossibility, and would cause such a complete dislocation of industry in so many countries of the world that it would be almost disastrous if it were brought in. But in view of the sentiment which we have always held—namely, that all departures from the free exchange of goods are unfortunate and should be avoided so far as possible—in contradistinction to those who have always believed that each country ought to be, so far as possible, self-supporting and produce all that it can and take as few goods as possible from its neighbours, we do regard the phrases in the Atlantic Charter to which I have referred with feelings of considerable hope.
Also, of course, one matter which His Majesty's Government will have to bear closely in mind concerns questions of exchange and currency. Some of your Lordships will have noticed in The Times to-day a most interesting article setting forth the views of a well-known economist in the United States on the question of exchange. I shall not attempt to discuss that question; I would rather leave it to the experts to do so. Your Lordships may have noted, however, that in this article the suggestion is that some form of blocked credits should be substituted for Government debts between nations. How far that may be possible I do not pretend to state; but it is quite clear that unless national currencies can be stabilized internationally in some form or other, it will be impossible for commerce in a large sense altogether to revive.
There is one final consideration which I wish to put before the Government. Although it is impossible now for them

15
to offer us a detailed statement of what they believe to be a proper world settlement, I think that they should, as far as possible and as soon as they can, take the country into their confidence; and my final reason for saying this is the fact, which has already been announced, that it is not proposed that when hostilities are concluded a General Election should follow immediately. That decision was, I believe, generally applauded, because the General Elections of 1900 and 1919 are not regarded by those who are familiar with their history with great favour. It must be remembered, however, that, when the time comes, it is not likely that the postponement of a General Election will be welcomed by everybody. There is a general feeling—we frequently see it stated—that Parliament cannot now be said to be exactly representative of the nation. Into the causes of that it is not necessary to enter; but it seems to me that the only way in which His Majesty's Government will be able to satisfy the country when the war ends is by being able to state as fully as possible what their beliefs are and what their intentions are, and to announce them, so far as they can, when they have been decided in concert with our friends and Allies.
I feel sure that that is important, and will tend to keep the country contented during the interval, an interval which may extend over two years, or possibly longer; because the mere relief questions of which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, spoke—that is to say, bringing the necessary relief to those who have suffered from the war all over the world—will take a considerable time to carry out. Those of us seniors who lag more or less superfluously on the stage cannot expect to see the reaping of that harvest; but we can offer our warmest hopes that it will be well and fairly reaped, and we can do so with the confidence which we feel in the spirit of the nation, which we believe will meet, as in the past, the extreme difficulties of such a settlement.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, you will not be surprised if I say that I find it somewhat strange to be addressing your Lordships in a position very different from that which I have held and from a part of the House very different from that which I have occupied for thirty-four years. I confess that, as I have sometimes said, I
16
feel rather like a schoolboy who, having been at the top of the school, returns to it as a member of the junior form. My object in rising—and I do so with very great diffidence—is to give what support I can to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and to the very interesting speech, if I may say so, of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do not propose to say a single word about possible terms of peace, for obviously it is completely premature to attempt to do so; I wish only to make some observations about the social and economic settlement which must ensue after the war.
We are all agreed—there is no need to waste time in speaking about it—that the first essential is victory. There is no possible security of any kind which is worth having unless and until the principles and the policies of the Axis Powers have been fully and finally destroyed. It does not seem to me to follow, however, that we ought therefore to acquiesce in any postponement of a really responsible consideration of the great problems which must arise when the war is over, because, if we wait until then, it will be impossible to give them the consideration which they demand. There are two special reasons for that. In the first place, let me remind your Lordships that the process of economic reconstruction is going on in the midst of the stress of war. Steps are being taken now of a somewhat fundamental character, some of which at any rate must remain, and it is of vital importance even now that consideration should be given to the question which of these somewhat drastic steps are to be continued in the future. But secondly, and perhaps more important, I know that I am speaking for a great multitude of people in this country when I say that it would bring fresh hope, and therefore fresh enthusiasm, and some relief from strain, if they were more satisfied that out of the obviously vast ruination of the world at the present time the building-up of something better was the fixed intention of our rulers.
No one knows better than I do how gravely we have suffered from what happened at the end of the last war. All this talk about "a better world" makes us really impatient. I happened the other day to be reading over the notes of many addresses which I gave all along the front in the summer of 1917 in France

17
and Flanders, and I must say I read them with real sickening of the heart, to realize that the hopes and aspirations, which then were perfectly genuine, not least among the officers and men of the Army, came to so little. And the reason was, of course, that there was so little preparation beforehand, ready to be put in action at once. There were Committees—the noble Lord, Lord Addison, presided over one of the most useful—but most of the plans for dealing with the situation were narrow in scope and not sufficiently matured to be applied just when they were most needed. At the present time surely the ruination is vaster than was even conceivable at the time of the last war—greater perhaps than at any period of history. Therefore, the possibilities of chaos after the war are infinitely greater, and in the wake of chaos, unless it is controlled, there is bound to come another war.
For these reasons I am quite sure that it is of vital importance that we should be better prepared now than we were at the end of the last war, to deal with a far graver situation, and that there should be some clear knowledge, not kept in the bosoms of His Majesty's Government but given in confidence to the people, as to the general principles upon which a social and economic policy after the war should be framed. We are also agreed—and it does not need much discussion—that it would be futile at the present time to attempt to do more; than indicate possibilities, and in the most general way, in the form of genera] principles, and that anything like details would be out of the question—" blue-prints of the future "I understand that they are now called in the language of the day. That is obvious; but there ought to be, steadily and definitely framing in the minds of responsible authorities, and gradually coming into such shape that it can be communicated to the nation, a clear conception of what is proposed, so that it may be adjusted readily to the actual situations as they arise.
Now I know that there have been many most valuable speeches—the noble Lord, Lord Addison, called attention to them—made by individual Ministers. I agree particularly that we owe much gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for several speeches which he has made of a more illuminating kind than have come always from all of his colleagues. There
18
have been speeches quite recently by Mr. Bevin, by Mr. Lyttelton, and by Sir Stafford Cripps, and I am very glad that the noble Lord called special attention to the declarations quite recently made in the United States by Mr. Cordell Hull, by Mr. Wallace, the Vice-President, and by Mr. Perkins, the Director of Economic Warfare. No doubt, it might be said, Why should not these suffice? Also there are, thank God, the declarations of the Atlantic Charter, and the value of these declarations is difficult to exaggerate. They represent the agreement, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, told us, of some 28 nations, and, most of all, that agreement, on which so much of the future of the world depends, between the British Empire and the United States of America.
And yet there are three things still needed. One is a more authoritative statement from the Government of the general principles which they conceive should regulate economic policy after the war—again I stress the word "principles," because anything like detail is impossible. Secondly, some further interpretation of the Atlantic Charter. At present it is so general that it can easily be misconceived. It might have been said there is a great danger if you attempt too much interpretation of breaking up the unity which the original Charter secured, but if there are any chances of misunderstanding it is better that they should be faced now, when we are in a position of co-operation, than that they should occur later on. And, thirdly and chiefly, I think what is needed is a very definite assurance on the part of the Government that they have committed to responsible Committees or individual men the task of seeing how these general principles can best be put into effect when the actual needs arise. I submit that in these ways there is real need of settling the principles of long-term policies, which can be applied at once to short-term expedients.
The task, I think, ought to be the easier because of the really remarkable agreement as to the ends that must be kept in view. Here I would allude not only to the speeches to which I have referred, but to some remarkable reports which have just been issued. There is the report on the one side of the Labour Party—very

19
full, more drastic than most of your Lordships would agree with, but covering the ground with considerable ability. On the other hand, there are the reports of the Federation of British Industries, and quite recently, of the London Chamber of Commerce. And it is really remarkable what a consensus there is among all these different bodies as to the main outlines of any economic settlement after the war.
I think that is seen particularly in three respects. First of all, in the need of protecting common folk in all countries from fear and want, and of course the two go together. It is the fear of unemployment that haunts the common people in every country, and the fear of those impersonal forces which they cannot control, and which seem to produce situations which it is impossible for them to understand, such, for example, as the situation, which surely brands with a certain absurdity the hitherto existing system, by which foodstuffs were actually being burnt in order to maintain world prices, while there was widespread need for them elsewhere. And that is why I am very glad that Lord Addison called attention to that terse and vivid phrase of Mr. Perkins in which he said that the reason why there was this collapse after the last war was because we were a civilization which was "commodity-rich and consumption-poor." There is most remarkable agreement that what we need to aim at is the increase, not so much of production as of consumption, or rather the increase of production only in relation to the increase of consumption. And that increase of consumption, coming as it must from increase of purchasing power, must be brought about by raising the standard of living in every country.
Secondly, there is agreement that there must be some control and regulation of production by the State. That is one of the ways in which, manifestly, the State's responsibilities must grow. I notice that even the Federation of British Industries agree that that regulation by the State must continue—they hope only for a certain time, but they regard it as imperative that it should be in operation when the war has come to an end. This is only one sphere of that enormous problem which governs the whole future—how we are to combine the planning and ordering which is so obviously necessary with the proper place of individual enterprise
20
and initiative. Thirdly, and above all, there is common agreement as to the imperative need of international co-operation in the economic sphere. Mr. Cordell Hull frankly said that the whole aim of the Atlantic Charter would be defeated if, after the war, we were to return to the old condition of narrow economic nationalism. We must somehow, by international co-operation, bring to an end the old scramble for markets and all that is implied in the sinister phrase "capture of markets," the cut-throat competition which brought such great evils in its train. So only can the true functions of international trade be realized that it should be an interchange of goods for the mutual benefit of all countries.
I submit that, when there is so much agreement upon the general principles, it ought not to be difficult for His Majesty's Government to give some indication of the degree in which these matters of general agreement are, in their own minds, those which ought to determine the outlines of future policy. But once more I would submit that long-term policies are necessary for the control of the immediate expedients which will be required when the war is over. If I do not weary your Lordships I would speak very briefly on three of them. There is, first, that huge problem that is involved in the word "demobilization," to which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has referred. He spoke of it with great clearness, but I find it difficult to imagine the situation in which not only all these men will come back from the Forces to civil employment, but hundreds of thousands of men and women will almost immediately leave their munition works and other branches of national service and require some civil employment. No doubt the problem was dealt with last time to some extent, though there was great confusion. It will be even more necessary to deal with it now, and it is very difficult to see how that adjustment can take place unless there are in hand carefully prepared plans to deal with the situation not only ad hoc, but with reference to the future organization of industry.
Secondly, there is the problem of the countries which have been destroyed in their economic life, even in their means of existence, by the enemy. I was very much impressed by the forcible eloquence with which the noble Lord described that situation Our Government have given a

21
pledge that when the war is over these countries will be provided with foodstuffs, but that alone is not enough. It is almost like expecting people to continue to live upon the "dole." There must be, as soon as possible, through such international co-operation as already exists, the beginning of some economic system by which all countries—and, I would add, including Germany—may benefit and be saved from economic collapse. Lastly, there is the old and ever-present problem of housing in our own country. Here again let us realize the problem that will face us when the war is over—the rehousing of all those destroyed or damaged areas. We shall all agree that rebuilding is not enough. What is quite as essential is replanning. Nobody wants just to put up so many houses as may be wanted. What we desire more than ever is that when the houses are put up there should be due regard given to light and air and, above all, space. We hope to get rid of the overcrowding of people. We do not want any more the overcrowding of houses. For that purpose there must be, as we all admit, very careful planning.
There are the kindred problems to which I only allude as I pass—the problem of localization of industry, the problem of how expansion of industry is to be related to the preservation of agricultural land. There is plenty of information on these issues. There are the Reports of the Barlow Commission and the Committee of Lord Justice Scott; and with so much good material it ought to be possible to have very definite plans in hand. But they will need, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has so often insisted in this House, a Central Planning Authority. It is almost impossible for any such Central Planning Authority to work unless it has definite principles and plans upon which to move. We had great hopes in this House, from a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, that this Central Planning Authority was coming immediately into being. I do not know what has happened to it. Lord Reith himself, for some strange reason, has become one of those "transient phantoms" with which we have been too familiar of late in this country in the Government, and I do not in the least know how matters stand. His successor was able to assure your Lordships that the Central Planning Authority would continue, but we should
22
all agree that these matters cannot be left to the local authorities. They must be taken in hand and carried through by plans which have been carefully thought out and are thoroughly prepared.
I have spoken longer than I intended. That is one of the evils of speaking from this place, where my back is turned to the clock, instead of from where I used to speak, where I was always confronted by it. But will your Lordships forgive me if I cannot close without giving expression to a conviction which is to me far deeper than any of the others I have mentioned. Let us make no mistake that even the carrying out of these matters upon which there is so much rather surprising agreement will make a very great moral as well as intellectual demand. It will mean—let us make no mistake about it—that many vested interests, sectional interests, strongly entrenched, many temptations to make Party advantage, will have to be resisted. It will mean for most of us a change in our accustomed ways of thinking, acting, and living which we cannot now imagine. I am sure that to carry through any kind of social and economic resettlement after the war will need some inward constraining motive and inspiration.
What is that to be? I would not venture to express it in my own words because in so doing I might be misunderstood. It might be that some of your Lordships would go away and say, like Tennyson's northern farmer: "He said what I thought he ought to have said, and so I coomed away." So I use the words of one to whom the whole Empire always listens with the greatest respect, that distinguished soldier-statesman, General Smuts. He said, the other day:
" Speaking from longer and wider experience than perhaps has been the lot of most others. I want to say this. Fundamentally the world has no need of a new order, of a new plan, but only of the honest and courageous application of the historic Christian idea. Our Christian civilization is based on eternal order, an endless plan, the message of Christ. Let us hold to the eternal message. Let us follow the greatest light that has ever arisen on the human horizon, and which can surely lead to that better world for which the peoples everywhere are longing."
I believe that those words really go to the root of the matter.
But I return, as I close, to my main object in making these too lengthy observations. It is simply to suggest that

23
the time has come when the Government might make a more authoritative statement than has hitherto been made, apart from individual speeches, as to the general principles which they envisage for the future economic settlement, that there should be in co-operation with the United States, some attempt to make explicit what is implicit in the Atlantic Charter, and some assurance that all these matters are receiving the most careful, constant and thorough attention of His Majesty's Government. We had a great chance at the end of the last war and we largely lost it. We have a greater chance before us at the end of the present war. Let us see to it that no lack of preparation now brings upon us the guilt of losing the chance again.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion proposed by my noble friend Lord Addison. It is the experience of most nations that from time to time in their history changes take place in their customs, habits and outlook on life. As population increases, isolation becomes impossible; men live nearer and nearer to one another, are more and more dependent upon one another, and it is necessary to define their mutual rights and relationships. This has led them to state their ambitions and their policy in a public document, and there are time-honoured precedents for an issue of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Our own Bill of Rights is a well-known example, possibly even better known is the Declaration of the Rights of Man published by the French Assembly in 1789. When we consider the sentiments expressed in such documents in the light of subsequent developments, although we see that some of them fail to distinguish between the ideally perfect and the practically possible, we cannot help wondering why others should ever have been a subject of dispute.
We are witnessing to-day another of the great changes from era to era. Nations are no longer isolated from one another. Paris and Berlin are much nearer to London than Bristol was a century ago. One of the greatest inventions, the internal combustion engine of the aeroplane, has shattered isolation, and nations formerly separated from one another by intervals of time and space are now next-door neighbours. It seems, therefore, that as in former years we had time-honoured precedents
24
for Declarations. of the Rights of Man, so to-day we must endeavour to frame an agreed Declaration of the Rights of Nations. No doubt after the war an attempt will be made to lessen the chances of future conflict by the creation of some such tribunal as was devised by the League of Nations for the settlement of international disputes, but before providing any machinery we must adopt some code or system of law which the Court will be called upon to administer. To set up a tribunal without establishing the principles it has to follow is like putting the cart before the horse. An effort should now be made to think out not only the method of settling disputes, but the principles which are to be employed in doing so.
Something more than the germ of such an idea has been laid down in this Atlantic Charter. At present the Charter seems to be drawn up as an example of the aims and ambitions of those who were parties to it. They say that they "seek no aggrandisement," that they "desire to see no territorial changes that do not agree with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned," that they "respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live," and that they will endeavour…to further enjoyment by all States…of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity." Would it not be possible to translate some of these aims and some of these ambitions into a more definite statement of the rights of each nation, so that in any future dispute those who have to decide it can find in such a declaration the principles upon which they should come to a just conclusion?
The subject on which I would claim your Lordships' attention this afternoon is the first Article, that the signatories to the Charter "seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other"; but before doing so permit me to call attention to one other point. Article 4 provides for the access of all nations to the raw materials of the world, and I should like, if I may, to adopt the argument of the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, in the speech which he made earlier to-day. Will it be necessary in the light of this statement to reconsider in some degree our Ottawa Agreements? Free trade has removed many of the

25
causes of friction between European nations. It would have been unthinkable in the earlier days of English history that one part of our country should not trade with another, and if the nations of the world have become so near one another by modern development it may be necessary to reconsider some of the regulations made at Ottawa.
In a book recently published by the Oxford University Press on the British Commonwealth of the future, an account is given of the proceedings of the second unofficial conference on British Commonwealth relations at Sydney in 1938. It was suggested that Ottawa had had extraordinary political as well as economic repercussions and that, while a critical examination of the results showed little evidence of the establishment of an economic bloc, Ottawa had undoubtedly convinced much of the outside world that an exclusive economic bloc was in the making. War is not our national industry. A peaceful and prosperous Europe is a fundamental interest of the United Kingdom. This is not a subject for argument to-day, but it is a matter which should be considered with a view to what is to happen after the war. There is one small point, the only point of detail to which I desire to refer, and that is how you are going to deal with those rare metals found in different parts of the world which are necessary for the provision of munitions of war. It is not a subject that can be wholly neglected. Is anybody to have as much as he likes of them?
Let me turn now to the first Article, that the signatories to the Atlantic Charter seek "no aggrandisement, territorial or other." Probably the great difficulty after the war will be the territorial one. There can, however, be no territorial aggrandisement for anyone as a result of the war. We have promised to restore prosperity to all the German occupied countries; but do not let us forget the conduct of the Nazis. Their policy has been that the powerful exact what they can and the weak grant what they must. No nation should act, or ought to be allowed to act, on these principles, but they must be resisted to the death. When, therefore, the war comes to an end, no question of territorial aggrandisement is admissible at the peace table. To entertain such a claim would be to acknowledge that aggression pays. There is
26
yet another reason for refusing any such suggestion. In addition to their many other misdeeds, the Nazis have corrupted the youth of Germany and weaned them from the principles of European civilization. We shall be confronted for some years after the war with a rising generation in Germany whose views and outlook on life, until they are changed, will prevent the permanent establishment of peace on the Continent. This is a danger against which adequate precautions must be taken. It is a danger which will gradually pass away but which may postpone for a period the final war settlement. There must be a period of control and a period for consideration.
I look forward to the future with no misgiving, but meanwhile it would be foolish to ignore the history of the past few years. Peace and the Nazis cannot exist together. This does not mean that we should isolate Germany after the war, continue to blockade her and have no dealings with her. The sooner the wheels of international trade and commerce begin to revolve again the better. The sooner international barriers are broken down the sooner a real peace will be established. The sooner peaceful employment is provided the sooner the happiness of millions will be restored. But the safety of mankind demands that Germany shall show unmistakable signs of a change of policy and that the nations are sure that she neither can nor will attempt to interrupt the peaceful progress of Europe. But what about a more distant future and a more permanent settlement? National boundaries are not stabilized for ever. Changes must come. They are achieved not by conquest only but by agreement, by arbitration, even by purchase. Lousiana was bought from France by the United States in 1803. Florida was ceded by Spain in 1819, Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867. Can we not begin now, or cannot the Government begin now to work out some system not only for disarmament, but for the settlement of international disputes without recourse to the horrors of modern war? We can, if you like, adopt the verse which runs:
" The good old rule …the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can."
This, my Lords, would mean a war in every generation for the next century. Whether war will ever be abolished

27
altogether is open to doubt, but it is worth while attempting to make it the exception and not the rule for the future.
Let us examine for a brief moment the question of alteration of boundaries and of ownership. No man and no nation has a right to Naboth's vineyard merely from motives of jealousy or because he craves for it. But can any remedy be found apart from war where a densely populated country seeks expansion into a new territory in a sparsely inhabited area? To begin with, is such a claim ever to be admitted as a right? By agreement such a change could be effected. Will it ever be possible at some later date, subject to conditions, to submit such a claim to the arbitrament of some independent tribunal to prevent war? Many things would have to be considered—the extent of the territory claimed, its position, its present and potential value, its natural resources, whether mineral or agricultural. Are you not to consider the acquired rights of settlers in the territory, of the natives and of others? Are you not to consider the views of the people affected by the transfer? Are you not to consider the future rights of trading or settling in the territory? Are you not to consider how the present holders of the territory have behaved with regard to it, how they have developed it, and how they have treated the natives and other inhabitants? Are you not to consider in such matters the record of the country which seeks the transfer? Are you not to consider any strategic points in case of future war? Is it possible to consider anything in the nature of a condominium or an international mandate or a purchase, and if so how and when?
Those are some only of the questions involved and I do not endeavour to answer them this afternoon, but I propose them to guard against the dangerous delusion in some quarters that the difficulties affecting transfer are no greater than those of a man who, having a cake too large for himself, is ready to cut off a slice to sell or give way. Do not let us forget that those entrusted with Empire are entrusted with a mission. Great Britain is not without the reproach incidental to all human work, but we have not neglected our trust. Our mission is not over, our Empire is not drawing to a close. Let our aim and our ambition
28
still be to uphold freedom and justice and to contribute our share to the peaceful progress of the world. If the old rule of taking and keeping by force is abandoned, some Declaration of the Rights of Nations and of the methods by which they can be realized will become necessary. Let us therefore with the noble Lord urge the Government to begin to prepare plans as soon as possible for a wise settlement of these difficult points after the war.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate to-day and in one respect I think the Government are to be congratulated on the extreme unanimity of the point of view of those noble Lords who have spoken, that this Motion is well founded and in principle ought to be accepted. There are, of course, two entirely different aspects in the expression "world settlement." There is first the domestic aspect—what we shall do at the end and what other nations will do at the end of the war to set right what they believe to be the evils under which they are at present labouring. I fully recognize the enormous importance of that, and in his very interesting maiden speech the most reverend and noble Lord, Lord Lang, dealt with a good deal of that subject. Nor do I doubt that it has a considerable bearing on the ultimate world settlement. But I feel that I must not attempt to deal with that subject if I wish to deal with the other aspect—namely, the international aspect—of the situation.
This Resolution which my noble friend Lord Addison has proposed urges, fundamentally, a preparation for peace. No doubt, apart from the observations, the very forcible observations, which have been made here, he has in his mind the statement of M. Clemenceau a year or two after the last war that he had come to the conclusion that it was much more difficult to make peace than to make war. I believe that is true. At any rate, he found it so, and I believe that the Government will find it abundantly true when we come to the end of this war. There are, therefore, on the face of it, reasons why every preparation should be made. But the Resolution draws attention to particular aspects of the question. One aspect is the effect on public opinion in foreign countries. The Resolution suggests that the preparation of proposals is of urgent importance "both for the successful

29
prosecution of the war and for the establishment of a satisfactory and lasting peace." I believe that is a very important aspect, though very little has been said about: it to-day. I think it is of the utmost possible importance to satisfy the world, even to satisfy the German public, as to what the United Nations really propose to do with their victory when they have obtained it.
Undoubtedly, German opinion is considerably agitated, unless all the reports which are published arc mistaken, and the Germans seem now to be abandoning very much their belief in the necessity of German domination. They are being urged by their Government to consider what will be the effect of a German defeat. The German Government are trying to create that kind of "backs to the wall" sentiment in Germany which will enable them to call for further efforts and further sacrifices from their people. So far as other peoples, and not the Germans, are concerned, there is no doubt that the great argument that the Germans are using—you see it continually coining up in various forms in reports giving account of the state of feeling in other countries—is that the victory of Germany and her Allies is the only way of obtaining a settled world, a world in which the arts of peace can again flourish and in which the individual will be able to live in comfort and security. To us that may seem a very fantastic and absurd prophecy as to the result of German victory. But no doubt it is what they are trying to make people believe. A: one time it had very considerable effect but that effect is lessened now.
I think that we must, somehow or other, get before the world a really vivid impression of our determination not to be satisfied with mere victory (not to treat war just as a. game in which you win or lose), but to treat it for what indeed it is, as the first step to something far larger and far better even than victory in the war. That is the aspect of the thing which I think we ought to have in our minds, and which, if I may say so with respect, the Government ought to have in their minds. I agree with the broad answer made in the Atlantic Charter. It can be summarized in the two words "justice" and "security." That is quite right so far as it goes. In order to impress men you must not deal in abstracts, you
30
must deal in concrete, definite proposals which they can understand and grasp.
The second reason why I support this Resolution that we ought to devote our attention to the preparation of peace, lies in the immense responsibility that seems to me to rest upon this country. We have borne so far—at any rate for the first two years of the war until Russia came in—by far the greatest part of the burden of the war, and our interests are involved in every part of the war. We share with Russia the greatest interest in the settlement in Europe. We share with China, perhaps, the greatest interest in the settlement of the world in Asia and the South Pacific. And even as regards America, though we fully recognize, of course, the great, the immense position of the United States in that Continent, still we, too, have great national interests both in North and in South America. So that we and our chief Allies may be said to be profoundly interested in the settlement that is to result' from the war, and we, ourselves, for the reasons to which I have just alluded and for other reasons as well, must have the largest share in that interest when the moment comes.
I do not propose to enlarge upon it, but it must be in all our minds that the settlement after the war will be a settlement which will determine the history of the world—so far as one can presume to foresee it—for many years. It will be, as far as one can see, a tremendous turning point in the whole of civilization and in the fortunes of all the countries which have been involved. Not only is our responsibility great, but the difficulties with which we shall have to deal—as previous speakers have constantly insisted—will be enormous. Much has been said about economic difficulties, and they will be very great. The mere task of feeding and reestablishing the suffering populations of Europe will be prodigious. Very great territorial questions are sure to arise, though I earnestly hope that the territorial changes made after the war will be as little as possible, provided, of course, that you set aside every change that has been made as part of the policy of aggression of the Axis Powers. Beyond that, I hope that we shall not set out on the fascinating, but I think almost always pernicious, task of re-drawing the map of Europe or of the world, and that we shall do as little as we can in that direction

31
consistently with the urgent claims of justice. Still, those questions will be very difficult.
Then there are the broad political questions of how we are going to establish permanent peace and how we are going to help the world back to normal conditions of life, morally and materially. We shall have to face all those difficulties, and I certainly do very earnestly hope that we shall not, as the noble Marquess said earlier, trust to the doctrine that "it will be all right on the night." I hope we shall remember that if we have suffered, as we have suffered, in the present war, from beginning the war without sufficient preparation, we may well suffer more severely and more permanently if we go into the Peace Conference without having made sufficient preparations for peace.
I am not going to ask your Lordships, on this occasion at least, to listen to my views as to what shall be the detailed proposals for that peace; I want simply to say a few words about things which I think ought not to be done. I am quite sure that the idea of a peace of revenge is quite futile and purposeless. It has not been advocated this afternoon, and I do not suppose that it will be advocated in this debate. I have, as we all have, the greatest possible sympathy for the unhappy populations who have been subjected to the horrors of German rule, but you will not make those horrors any less if you create fresh subjects of difficulty and controversy by your terms of peace. I am satisfied that revenge would be both wrong and foolish. But I am, of course, equally satisfied that precautions against any further aggression are absolutely essential. In this matter I have long come to the conclusion that you may be ever so right, and your reasons may be unassailable, but, unless there is some force to back up those reasons, they will not, as things stand in the world at present, be effective. Conversely, if you take the German view and say that it is only force that matters, you will find that a disregard for morality and reason will be fatal to any settlement that you may attempt to make. You must have a combination of the two; Might must back up Right. If you attempt to ignore the proper place of force and the proper place of reason, your settlement will be a failure.
32
It is for that reason that, personally, I very strongly hope—though I admit that there are many difficulties which will have to be faced—that those who have been personally guilty of the horrors which have been committed in this war shall be tried and adequately punished. I think that that is essential; I do not believe that the public opinion of the world will be satisfied unless that is done. I understand that that is part of the policy of the Government. I hope that they will stick to it, and that they are working out, with their advisers, how to deal with the very great difficulties which will arise in giving effect to it.
In the same way, I cannot doubt that we must enforce the disarmament of the Axis Powers, and particularly of Germany. I think that that is essential. I know that that also will be difficult, but it must be enforced until we can be satisfied, not only by what they say but by what they do, that they have abandoned the pernicious doctrines on which their present action is founded. I do not think that it is right to put any particular term—five years, ten years, or whatever it may be—to that. It will be necessary to see how the German people react to it. I have the greatest sympathy with what fell from my noble friend Lord Addison about the necessity of remodelling German education. I should certainly like to see that done. Whether that is one of the things that arc practicable by outside effort, I am not quite so sure. The Germans are making a most awful mess of their attempt to remodel Norwegian education, and the difficulties are undoubtedly very great. Nothing, indeed, is more remarkable to me than the extra-ordinary folly of the German Government and of the German directing authorities. They seem to me always to do the wrong thing, and to do it in the worst possible way. Therefore, although I should like to see the reform of education, even that seems to be a matter which ought to come of itself from Germany, rather than be imposed from outside.
In any case, however, whatever they may do and whatever steps they may take, we must have security given to us by the possession of some international strength—for I do not think that any single nation is strong enough to wield it—which will see that any attempt at aggression is so instantly corrected that it

33
will become an impossible policy for the Chancelleries of Europe. What the machinery for that purpose may be is, I agree, a very difficult question. I have great sympathy there with what fell from my noble friend Lord Perth. He and I have collaborated for many years on the thesis which he recommended, and I hope that it may be possible to do something on those lines. I agree most heartily with him that a great deal depends on the attitude which the United States may decide to take in this matter. However it is done, our objective is, and must be, two-fold. One object is security. We must have, even if we call it an Alliance for Peace, overwhelming force available against the aggressor. That is essential. How to secure it is a different matter, and I agree requires grave consideration; but it must be done, or all our plans of economic; reform and social justice and all the rest of it, admirable though they may be, will turn out to be perfectly futile, and will be blown away by the first gust of international passion.
I do not deny that it is necessary to promote international co-operation and friendship for progress and advance as closely and as continually as possible. I regard security and co-operation as two causes closely locked together. They are the only road, as I see it, towards the peace and prosperity of the world. Whatever the machinery you aim at—and as to that I will not say more than I have already said—you must take account not only of the events of the war, though that would be an important matter, but of the great currents of opinion and feeling which are sweeping through the world at the present time. You cannot ignore, for instance, the tremendous force of nationalism, not only, or even mainly, in the Axis countries, but in those countries where you find the population ready to endure every hardship and suffering in order to assert the independence and sovereignty of their own country. You cannot ignore the feeling that is driving these men women and children into the mountains of Serbia or into the deserts of other places. Those feelings are prodigiously strong, they are as strong as any feelings in the world. And in any attempt at international organization—and, as I have said, I am confident you will have to have some international organization—you trust not forget the strength of that feeling. Nor must you
34
forget that great factor, to which we heard eloquent allusion by the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, the Prussian tradition of aggression. That represents a very real truth, and a very important truth, now very much sunk into the consciousness of the great mass of the world's population. You have to take account of that in any organization you set up. Nor must you forget the great political currents, the current of Communism, the passionate devotion to Democracy, and other currents of that kind, which we find to-day so much in different countries.
All these things mean a mass of difficulties and problems, which I do not think have ever been exceeded in the history of the world. I earnestly hope that the Government are giving every attention that they can possibly spare from the actual conduct of the war—of course, I admit that that must take precedence of everything else—in order to prepare themselves for dealing with these questions. When they go into the conference, whenever it meets and wherever it meets, if they have got a definite policy—a policy, I trust, discussed and agreed to with some of our great Allies—they will be able in all human probability to obtain, if not the whole of it, a large part. There is nothing peculiar about international conferences; they are just the same as conferences or meetings in this country among our fellow-countrymen. The man who goes into them, having thought out the subject and having a definite policy to propose, always has a prodigious advantage in dealing with the difficulties which arise. And we must have that advantage, but it means preparation. I can only say that in my judgment the broad principle we shall have to insist upon internationally is the greatest amount of national independence consistent with peace and economic progress. I do very earnestly and profoundly beg the Government not merely to tell us—I am sure they will not—that everything has been done that ought to be done and that every avenue is being explored, but that they really will devote themselves to this subject, because it is on the right solution of these tremendous problems that the future of this country and of the Empire and of the world at large may well depend.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, though I think it is likely that this debate will now carry on until a later day, it may

35
be for the convenience of the House that there should be some statement on behalf of the Government at an early stage in the debate. The Motion which is before your Lordships' House to-day states that it is of urgent importance that the Government should prepare without delay the proposals they intend to make for world settlement after the war. When I read the terms of the Motion I felt, like the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, how very wise Lord Addison had been to confine himself to urging His Majesty's Government to "prepare," rather than declare, their peace aims. And the sincere and very moving speech which the noble Lord made in opening the debate this afternoon certainly confirms that impression. The wisdom and the restraint which he showed, and which has been imitated by all other speakers this afternoon, might well serve as a model for some others outside.
There are indeed, as we all know, some in this country who press for an immediate and detailed declaration of war aims, or peace aims—for they are in effect the same thing—by His Majesty's Government. But while I think we must all sympathize with their desire to know what progress is being made in the formulation of a post-war policy in the international sphere, there are, I think, overwhelming reasons against a unilateral declaration of policy at the present stage. We have already put our names, as has already been said this afternoon, to the Atlantic Charter. This lays down the fundamental principles on which the peace settlement must be based, and I do not think there is any one—certainly there has been no one this afternoon—who dissents from those principles. As I tried to explain in a debate we had in this House a few days ago, His Majesty's Government regard themselves as absolutely pledged to carry out the Atlantic Charter—all the Articles of the Atlantic Charter. I would emphasize this in view of certain doubts which I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, expressed earlier in the debate. But what the Government are now being asked to do by the people outside to whom I have referred would be something quite different, and that is to apply those principles to certain detailed aspects of a post-war settlement now, in other words to define the details of it.
36
The noble Lord will perhaps remember a debate which took place in this House on the 18th November of last year. I think it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. On that occasion I explained the difficulties involved in any unilateral statement of allied policy, and I recalled some words which had been spoken by the Prime Minister in another place on his return from the Atlantic meeting. I would like to quote those words again, because, though I think there is a general view in this House that there should not be an early declaration of peace aims, there is still in various parts of the country a pressure in that direction. My right honourable friend said:
" Questions have been asked, and will no doubt be asked, as to what exactly is implied by this or that point, and explanations have been invited. It is a wise rule that when two parties have agreed to a statement, one of them should not thereafter, without consultation with the other, seek to put special or strained interpretations on this or that passage."
Those words are profoundly true. Clearly the application of the principles of the Atlantic Charter must be a matter not for His Majesty's Government alone; it must be the joint task of all the nations who have adhered to the Atlantic Charter. When peace comes, that will be the time for the inclusion of those principles in a legal document, such as I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, suggested. Anything I said to-day would be, I think, not merely useless, but would be far more likely to do harm than good.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang, whose return to our debates all of us welcome so very warmly, did I think urge a certain further clarification of the Atlantic Charter. But he will I am sure be well aware of the dangers attaching to any premature declaration of peace aims. I feel it is almost impertinence on my part to remind him and also the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who also in his heart of hearts, I think, hankers for some statement of peace aims—at any rate before the end of the war—that there was of this an outstanding example before the end of the last war, the Fourteen Points of President Wilson. The House will remember that on January 8, 1918, President Wilson proclaimed his famous Fourteen Points as a basis for a world settlement. When in the following year the Peace Treaty was signed the Germans loudly complained, and continued to complain, that the

37
settlement eventually reached differed widely from the Fourteen Points. How far there was truth in their contention has always been a matter of dispute. Some authorities have taken one view, some have taken another; but at any rate the discrepancies which the Germans affected to have discovered served them, as the House knows, as a basis for a charge of breach of faith against the Allies and played a considerable part in embittering the feelings between victors and vanquished in the years that followed.
What is the moral that we can draw from this episode of history? I suggest it is this, that it is a great mistake, during a war, to anticipate the terms of the future peace settlement. The conditions which obtained in 1919 were not the same conditions that obtained in January, 1918, and it was inevitably on the basis of the conditions obtaining in 1919 that the peace settlement was made. There is another moral which has to be drawn. It was very clearly defined in a pamphlet by Mr. Gathorne-Hardy entitled "The Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles." This is what he said, and it has application to all of us who are engaged in politics:
" The real moral of these discrepancies between the opinions of highly qualified authorities may well be that political oratory is incapable of exact interpretation, and therefore forms a very unsatisfactory basis for a binding international agreement. The politician, particularly in the fluctuating circumstances of a great war, is necessarily alive to the dangers of committing himself irrevocably by his utterances."
It is a slightly satirical quotation, but it has a measure of truth in it.
" It is characteristic of his art to use language capable of various explanations. Legal or diplomatic draftsmanship, on the other hand, calls for a precision that leaves no doubt in the minds of the parties as to the nature and extent of their obligations. The two forms of expression stand at opposite poles. Any one who attempts to construe the Fourteen Points is at once confronted with a series of highly debatable questions."
That is the view of Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, and there is a great deal of truth in it. It is most important that representative spokesmen of the Government should not now fall into that error. For all the reasons I have quoted, I believe that the arguments against His Majesty's Government being drawn, at the present stage, into a detailed declaration of peace aims during the war are unanswerable, and I do not propose to make one to-day.
38
We have the Atlantic Charter, and surely that guarantees us against those dangers of misrepresentation to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred during his speech.
But if it is a mistake to make a declaration of war aims, that is not to say it is a mistake for a nation to prepare war aims. That is a very different thing. Clearly, any responsible Government ought, to the full extent that is possible, to make preparations for the situation which will arise when peace comes, or rather when the war is over—for there is likely to be an interim period between war and peace. To neglect that, we should all agree, would be a deplorable dereliction of duty. The very fact that last time, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, the Government were perhaps not wholly ready, makes it all the more incumbent on us on this occasion not to repeat that error. In preparing proposals for peace there are two different lines of approach, which are not inconsistent with each other but are, on the contrary, complementary. There is, first of all, what I would describe as the "exclusive approach"—that is to say, studying recent history, attempting to find out what errors we made last time, with a view to avoiding them this time. Of that aproach the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is a very good example indeed.
It is a remarkable feature of this House, if I may say so, that whatever subject is raised, it is almost certain that we shall find among the speakers one of the greatest experts on that subject in the world; and this debate has certainly been no exception to that rule. No one can speak on what I may call the experiments in international co-operation which were made after the last war with such authority as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. It is exceedingly valuable to this House and to the Government, and to the country as a whole, that we should have the benefit of their experienced advice at a time like this, and I am certain the House will have listened with the greatest interest to their speeches.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke in particular of the League of Nations. I know it is the fashion to-day, principally among those who never had any practical experience of Geneva, to decry the League. We are told that it was useless

39
and that, instead of being an instrument for peace, it had within it the seeds of war. I do not believe that anybody who ever went to Geneva would accept that very superficial assumption. The League had undoubtedly severe defects which we all recognize, but I still believe—and I think any one who went to Geneva would agree—it represented a very great step forward in international machinery in a world which was no longer composed of nations that were independent and self-sufficing, but interdependent and bound to each other by many links of commerce and mutual interest. At the same time, I do not suppose that the warmest advocate of the League would pretend that it achieved all that its founders expected. Unfortunately, after a brilliant start, it became gradually less and less effective from the political point of view, although even now its organization is doing very good work in the social, economic, and humanitarian sphere.
This is not the moment to go into the long history of the League, and I should find myself on very controversial ground indeed if I did. But the noble Earl, Lord Perth, himself suggested some of the reasons for its failure, and it is essential for us, if we are considering the future, to take these things into account. There was one main reason to which the noble Earl referred, and he dealt with it so fully and authoritatively that I do not propose to add anything on that subject. But there were one or two other reasons about which I should like to say something. I suggest that a second main cause of its failure was that it did not have behind it the sanction of preponderant military force. Strange though it may seem to all of us now, it does not appear to have occurred to the statesmen and peoples of the Member-States that "collective security," as it was called, was not an alternative to armaments, but that the two were complementary and must go hand in hand; otherwise you may get indeed collectivity, but you get no security.
We would, I suggest, do well in future to govern our conduct in the international sphere by the principles which apply in our own national life. I suppose we here in England are about the most law-abiding nation in the world. But we still maintain a large and efficient police force. We do this, not because we want to be able to quell disorder when it has arisen; we
40
do it because we want to show that the forces of law and order are so strong that it is not worth while for lawless people to attempt to break the peace. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has already said, we must apply the same principles in international affairs. For law-abiding nations to disarm their Army or their Navy because they have won one war is really just as foolish as it would be for a law-abiding community to disband its police force because it has quelled one riot. The forces of order—and this principle is incorporated in the Atlantic Charter itself—must be stronger than the forces of disorder if peace is to be preserved. Criminals, whether they be nations or whether they be individuals, must be fully disarmed. As a noble Lord said this afternoon, a time may come when all men will be naturally law-abiding, but that time certainly is not yet, and in any settlement that we are going to reach at the end of this war we must take account of human imperfections.
The third reason to which I suggest was due the failure of the League—and this was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey—was that there was no adequate provision for peaceful change. The framers of the Covenant thought indeed they had solved this problem by Article 19 of the Covenant. But in practice. Article 19 turned out to be a complete dead-letter. It was found on every occasion—I think without exception—that nations were unwilling to refer problems affecting their sovereignty to the arbitrament of third parties, and so Article 19 was in fact never operated. This question of peaceful change clearly presents, as I think has already been said, one of the most complex and difficult problems with which the world is likely to be faced. No nation, whether it is big or small, will willingly or easily submit to the derogation of its sovereignty, the sense of sovereignty is so deeply ingrained in us all. But we must face the fact, that the world will not stand still, and sooner or later changes will be inevitable. I know this problem is going to be very difficult, but unless we can devise some machinery for making changes peacefully, ultimately they will always be made by war. That is a fact we must face. These considerations, which I put forward with very great diffidence to your Lordships, are, I suggest, some of the main lessons that we may draw from the failures of

41
international co-operation in the period between the two wars. They must, I think, be taken fully into account by all those statesmen who may, and should, be already beginning to prepare proposals for the coming world peace system.
So much for what I have described as the "exclusive approach" to the problem of preparing for a new world system. But clearly that is not in itself enough. Evidently it is not. We need not only to learn the lessons but to apply them and to incorporate them in some new and positive scheme. We need also to discuss that scheme, even at the present early stage, with other nations, so that when war comes to an end it may be ready to be put into operation. I think there have been certain suggestions—not, I am glad to say, very strongly expressed—in speeches that have been made this afternoon, that this has not yet been done, that preparations are not being made, that schemes are not being considered, and so on. But it would be a great mistake for noble Lords to assume this. I can assure all those noble Lords who expressed anxiety, Lord Perth, Lord Cecil of Chel-wood and others, that plans are being hammered out, that exchanges of view are already taking place, and that various aspects of the post-war problem are being considered with the Dominions, with the United States, with Russia, and with the other United Nations. Noble Lords will fully appreciate that these exchanges are still at a confidential stage, and certainly they have not reached a point when either His Majesty's Government or any other Government could make a general declaration. But there are certain matters about which I can already give the House some information, and this I am very glad to do, because it may help to show the sort of lines on which we are working.
There are indeed certain questions which have been referred to this afternoon on which in any case consideration could not possibly be postponed, for they deal with the situation which will arise immediately upon the conclusion of hostilities. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, in particular I think, referred to the feeding of European people. Clearly that is a matter of the most urgent and immediate importance. The first step in reconstruction is what may be called relief. At the end of the last war no preparation had been made in advance—I think this is a point
42
which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lang—to meet the needs of the war-stricken countries; and it was not, I think until January, 1919, that a relief organization was set up; and although in fact it distributed a very substantial volume of relief supplies, mainly from the United States, many of your Lordships will remember the widespread economic dislocation and the tragic amount of human suffering, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, which could not adequately be dealt with.
This time, as has already been pointed out, the areas devastated by the war will be far greater, and the problem of postwar relief will be correspondingly vaster. As the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said, the greater part of Europe will emerge from the war denuded of stocks of food" as well as of raw materials, and with few financial resources. Not only must food be provided in order to prevent starvation, but agriculture and industry must be revived, so that the peoples of each country may, as soon as possible, be able to support themselves. Unless steps can be taken rapidly to ensure supplies to the necessitous areas, a process of disintegration may set in which will create further dangers and political strain. Nor will this problem be confined to Europe. It may be equally necessary to provide relief for countries in the Near East and in the Far East. Steps will have to be taken on the basis of needs, and effective machinery for distribution will have to be organized. It is an immense problem and the planning of the arrangements for these purposes cannot be left to settlement when the war is ended.
Happily, there is to-day, both in the Government and outside, a general appreciation that immediate action must be' taken to provide for post-war needs and to ensure that economic recovery will be restarted as soon as possible. I think His Majesty's Government can claim to have taken the lead in this matter. As your Lordships will be aware, as far back as August, 1940, at the very lowest moment in the war, the Prime Minister pointed to the need for arranging in advance for the speedy entry of food into the enslaved areas of Europe when they had been cleared of German forces and had genuinely regained their freedom. Following on this declaration, His Majesty's Government took the initiative

43
of convening a meeting of Allied Governments at St. James's Palace in September, 1941. At this meeting, as your Lordships will remember, a resolution was proposed by the Foreign Secretary, setting out that it was the common aim of the Allied Governments to secure that supplies of food, raw materials and articles of prime necessity should be made available for the post-war needs of the liberated countries.
The resolution provided that each of the Allied Governments and authorities should be primarily responsible for making provision for the needs of its own people, but that their respective plans should be co-ordinated in a spirit of interallied co-operation. Accordingly, each of the Allied Governments and authorities should prepare estimates of their requirements and of the order of priority in which supplies should be delivered. It was further agreed that the re-provisioning of Europe would require the most efficient employment after the war of shipping resources, and that plans to this end should be worked out as soon as possible. Finally, a small bureau, which for the time being consists of a few British officials, was set up to co-ordinate the estimates of requirements and present proposals to the Allied Governments. In accordance with this resolution the preparation of the estimates of requirements is going forward. The work is being undertaken by the representatives of the Allied Governments in London who are in daily touch with the officials of the bureau engaged in collating these estimates.
Various technical problems have arisen which are the subject of general discussion, and a Committee on which agricultural experts sit under the Chairmanship of Sir John Russell, whom your Lordships know very well, is making the survey of post-war agricultural requirements such as the produce of the special qualities of seed required and the position of livestock, agricultural machinery and fertilizers. Experts from the United States as well as the Dominions are collaborating in this work. Estimates of requirements having been ascertained, the next step will be to organize the provision of supplies. It was expected that in many parts of the world there would be excessive production which could not be absorbed during the
44
war and would be available for post-war requirements. That applied to such foodstuffs as wheat and maize and coffee and also the supplies of some raw materials, particularly cotton and wool which would also be adequate to meet all demands, so that it might be possible to organize the supply of some of the most important primary commodities. In the case of other commodities, however, the extension of the war to the Far East has resulted in available supplies being fully absorbed by the war requirements of the United Nations. Therefore, there is no longer a question of laying up stocks of these commodities and making them available, and arrangements will be needed to co-ordinate world production and allocate it according to need, as happens with all commodities with regard to which there is a shortage.
If the extension of the war has aggravated the problem of securing supplies, it has also brought about a new alliance of the free nations. The problem of postwar relief is no longer the concern merely of the Allied Nations. It is a world-wide problem which can be dealt with only by concerted action between the United Nations. His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Government on this subject, for no policy and no programme can be formulated in the near future without such collaboration if it is to assure as far as is humanly possible that effective measures are organized to meet the events of the postwar world. I cannot say more at this moment, but I hope that the plans made between all the Governments concerned will be sufficiently acceptable to meet any emergencies that may arise. I have dealt at some length with this particular point. It has been most urgently raised in the debate and I hope your Lordships will therefore forgive me.
Then there are economic questions to which many noble Lords have devoted considerable portions of their speeches. It would not be possible for me to go at very great length into these exceedingly difficult questions, but I would say this. The Atlantic Charter outlines the objective which the United Nations have set before themselves. To give practical effect to this objective, the fullest and frankest consultation between the United Nations is called for. We hope the Conference held recently will be a new step

45
in such consultations not only between this country and the United States, but between all like minded countries. This Conference will necessarily deal with many of the matters referred to in this debate, especially with international monetary arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, referred, and in general international co-operation to provide security against unemployment and to provide the maximum possible prosperity for all countries. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we shall be ready to consider with an open mind—with a very open mind in fact—all proposals put forward either from the American side or by others of the United Nations, and we shall be ready to put forward constructive proposals of our own.
In the immediate post-war period it is reasonable to expect that shortage of supplies and transport difficulties will continue, and measures to prevent inflation will be as necessary or even more necessary than during the continuance of the war. War-time measures, such as rationing and control and guidance of investments, must remain national needs and will necessarily continue for some time. Willingness to make sacrifices for the general good will be as important in the post-war period as in the war period. That I can assure your Lordships will be the spirit which will actuate His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United Nations as a whole.
I would like now to say a word or two about what is being done on a rather different plane. Considerable progress is being made in the discussion of post-war problems under the auspices of the International Labour Organization. A meeting of the Emergency Committee of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization was recently held in London. The purpose of this meeting was to carry further the work begun by the New York Conference on post-war prosperity and reconstruction. The nature of the work which was to be carried out by the International Labour Organization was not closely defined by the Conference, nor was it indeed possible for the Conference to do more than indicate its general character. The part which the Organization can play will depend on the circumstances and the use which the Governments continue to make of it when
46
the time comes. One of the main tasks was, therefore, to decide on what subject and in what way the International Labour Organization should take up certain economic studies which are necessary for the preparation of post-war planning and measures of long-term reconstruction. It is intended that this Committee should serve as a link between the Allied Governments and responsible agencies who are planning post-war reconstruction. Its main function will be to keep itself informed of financial and economic plans and to scrutinize them in relation to the International Labour Organization. The meeting of the Committee also provided arrangements for co-operation between the International Labour Organization and the economic and International Department of the League of Nations and other international agencies. Preparations were made with regard to the programme of studies of the International Labour Organization with special reference to public work policy, immigration and textiles. Perhaps it is hardly necessary to add that His Majesty's Government, as a member of the International Labour Organization, will continue to give it every assistance in their power.
I hope that I have said enough to show the House that steps are being taken on the official plane. But that is not all. Supplementary to these formal negotiations, there are informal contacts too, equally close exchanges of views, going on between His Majesty's Ministers here and Allied Ministers in London. The Foreign Secretary, in the normal course of his daily duties, is in close and regular touch with the Allied Foreign Ministers in London, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary of the Treasury are in constant touch with the Allied Finance Ministers. Opportunity is thus afforded for exchanges of views not only on current affairs but on the financial aspects of post-war reconstruction. Particular attention is being paid at the moment to problems which arise in connexion with inflation and currency difficulties which will have to be faced when the occupied territories are freed from enemy domination. The President of the Board of Trade equally maintains touch with the Allies.
One medium of discussion is provided through the agency of a Sub-Committee set up for the purpose of exploring the

47
post-war needs of South-Eastern Europe. In form, this is a Sub-Committee of the Post-War Export Trade Committee, but in practice its scope is very wide, since discussion of post-war conditions in that part of the world involves questions of a fundamental kind. Such questions cannot indeed be answered adequately until there are more definite signs of what post-war conditions are to be and what commercial policy is to be followed. The Sub-Committee's work should, however, contribute something to these very questions, since it involves a study of the means of raising the standard of life in South-Eastern Europe and putting those countries in a prosperous and tranquil state. The method adopted by the Sub-Committee is to hold a series of conferences, which are tentative and semi-official in character, without commitment to any particular policy on either side, with representatives of the countries concerned and with the people in this country who have made a study of the subject. This matter has also been discussed with members of the United States Administration visiting London, and an exchange of views has taken place on the scope of the problem. Finally, though I do not propose to go fully into this, apart altogether from official and semi-official contacts, there are other contacts between the Allied experts here in London. These go on the whole time. They are blessed by His Majesty's Government and are of the greatest assistance, because we have been fortunate to have within our shores some of the greatest authorities on these many and difficult problems.
I have tried briefly, and I am sure imperfectly, to enumerate some of the steps which are being taken by His Majesty's Government to prepare plans for the post-war world. I am afraid I have kept the House rather long over it, but it is only possible in the course of a single speech to touch the fringe of this vast and complicated problem. At any rate, I hope that I have said enough to make clear to the House that His Majesty's Government are not being backward or supine in this matter, and the Allied Governments are equally working, and equally working along the same lines. Noble Lords will have read with appreciation a remarkable series of speeches—they have been referred to, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Addison—which
48
have been delivered recently in the United States by members of President Roosevelt's Administration. There have been speeches by Mr. Cordell Hull, by Vice-President Wallace and Mr. Perkins, his very able assistant, and finally by Mr. Sumner Welles. I would in particular commend to your Lordships' attention the very remarkable and moving declaration made by Mr. Welles within the last few days. In all these speeches, the statesmen concerned have stressed their country's readiness to shoulder full responsibility for building a better world. Our outlook, as we believe, is the same as theirs; our aims are the same as theirs; and we can assure them that we propose to face these post-war problems with the same breadth of outlook as themselves.
Equally, we seek the closest co-operation with our Allies in Soviet Russia. Noble Lords will remember that during the visit of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Moscow last year he had exchanges of views with M. Stalin and members of the Soviet Government on questions of the post-war organization of peace and security. These exchanges of views have provided important and useful material for further elaboration of concrete proposals on this subject, and since that visit we have kept, and shall continue to keep, in close touch with a nation which is playing so very great a part in winning this war and has an equally large part to play in winning the peace. Finally, there is the great, ancient, and indomitable people of China. I suppose that never has the star of China shone as brightly as it shines to-day. Never has the world owed her so much. So aged in wisdom, so young in spirit, she has a great contribution to make to the future of humanity. We welcome her co-operation in the task of world settlement which lies before us.
And noble Lords should make no mistake; it is no easy task. The edifice which we seek to build must have its foundations deeply grounded in the past, and yet it must be susceptible to constant adaptation and improvement to meet changing conditions. Its windows must lie wide open to the keen fresh air of the future. We have already the broad design of this edifice in the Atlantic Charter, but we have not yet at our disposal the materials for completing the edifice, nor can we yet know, until the war comes to an end, exactly what those

49
materials will be. What we can do and must do is to prepare the preliminary plans. On that task His Majesty's Government and the Allied Governments are at present engaged. I hope that no one will underestimate—no one can overestimate—the importance of this work. For on its success or on its failure must depend the whole future peace, happiness and prosperity of the world.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, it is a little difficult for me to follow the speeches which have been delivered to-day as they have examined so many different points in connexion with the Motion moved by Lord Addison. I think that Lord Addison is to be congratulated on having put down this Motion, and also, if I may say so, on the speech which he made upon it. Certainly I found very little to disagree with in that speech. Indeed, I would have supported most of it on any occasion. He is also to be congratulated upon having extracted—because it is extraction, after many requests—the very full statement, having regard to the times, from our Leader the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The fact that such a speech has been made by the noble Viscount to-day will be of very great encouragement to this country and to the conquered territories.
I was a little puzzled when I first read this Motion because, like some other noble Lords, I was not clear whether the intention was that these plans" should be disclosed at once or not. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, informed us that he did not intend them to be disclosed at once, and I do not see how it is possible that they should be, with the war in its present stage. We do not know how or when or where the war is going to end, where it will end so far as we ourselves are concerned, where it will end so far as the United States are concerned, and where it will end so far as Russia and China are concerned; so that to suggest that the Government can prepare full proposals to-day for a world settlement seems to me quite impossible, and I was not at all surprised that the noble Viscount in his reply was not able to go further than he did.
The whole of this debate has been concerned principally with the restoration of the peoples of the conquered territories and with the social and economic conditions to which we hope to lead them after
50
the war. It is quite right that that should be so. After all, there is no one in this country or amongst those peoples in Europe to-day who is not yearning for a better order than that which has been imposed by Hitler, and who does not seek for some relief of the sufferings and the starvation which the peoples' of the occupied countries are undergoing at the present time. I fully support everything which has been said in this debate in that regard. At the same time, however, I think that perhaps too little has been said about the aggressor nations and about how we are going to prevent them in the future from once more launching the world into the abject misery in which it finds itself to-day. I should have liked to hear that side of the world settlement stressed with rather more emphasis than it has been. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, did refer to the question of the prolonged occupation of Berlin, and to the question of the reeducation of the German people, and he also referred to the destruction of German militarism. This was supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in so far as he said that Germany should be disarmed after the war, and that we ourselves should remain fully armed.
I want to emphasize that that was one of the great mistakes which we made after the last war. We made a number of mistakes at that time, and those mistakes should not be repeated. First of all, we did not occupy Berlin at all. This time we must occupy Berlin, and we must have a prolonged occupation not only of Berlin but of many other centres in Germany, in order to achieve the re-education of the people of Germany. Secondly, we must not ourselves disarm; we must remain sufficiently strong not only to see that our measures of disarmament and security in Germany are complied with, but to secure the strength of our Empire as a whole. The next point is one on which I should like to lay great emphasis. It is that after the war we failed to recognize that, since the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, Prussian militarism, with all its egregious faults, had been gradually infiltrated by Prussia throughout the length and breadth of Germany. By not appreciating that, we failed to apply the only obvious method calculated to combat this aggressive cult and calculated to have prevented Germany, under the leadership of Prussia, once more entering into war.

51
How are we going to loosen that stranglehold? How can this be done effectively? I venture to submit that the only possible way of effectually accomplishing this is by separating Prussia after this war from the rest of Germany, and by making her into an entirely separate entity, so that in future she will have no sort of control over the rest of Germany. I am not prepared to-day to enter into the question of what should constitute the boundaries of Prussia in the future, but that must be one of the matters to be arranged between ourselves and our Allies when the time comes, and in the meantime it requires very careful study not only by our own Government but with our Allies and with the Dominions. It will be said that this will not be acceptable to Prussia. Of course it will not be acceptable to Prussia; but, as far as the jest of Germany is concerned, she is likely to view it with very little regret or difficulty. We must not forget that in 1923 Bavaria, because of her dislike of Prussia, attempted to secede from Germany, but was not allowed to do so by the Allies. I believe that only by the separation of Prussia can we cut out this cancerous sore of Prussia in Europe which for so long has disturbed the peace of Europe and of the world.
Let me remind your Lordships of the number of wars in the last 75 years instigated by Prussia either with Germany or as a principal part of Germany. She has attacked France three times; Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Russia, twice; Norway, Holland, Greece, Italy and Yugoslavia, once. So that practically no part of Europe has escaped from the brutal attentions of this savage and infamous aggressor. These four points all are of the utmost gravity, and I suggest should be borne prominently in mind when the Government are considering the question of the world settlement.
Now I want to pass to another question. Notwithstanding past and present acts of aggression and atrocities, there are still many people in this country who apparently have not studied German history, and fail to understand the true character of Germany and what she might do again if she had another opportunity. Such people—credulous sentimentalists, as I described them in your Lordships' House not long ago—are
52
foolishly urging wholesale appeasement and conciliation of Germany as a means of securing Germany's good will and of settling Europe peacefully after the war. Only a week or so ago I listened to a speech in your Lordships' House which, to quote the description of a noble Lord, gave me neither indigestion nor nausea, but made me sad—I might say almost ashamed—to think that a member of your Lordships' House should at this time give expression to the sentiments and views which he had the audacity to state here. If the Duke of Bedford had made that statement outside I should not have been surprised if the Home Secretary, in spite of the friendly support that he was given in his speech, had taken a very serious view of it. For myself, I should have been glad had he done so. All history and all the facts of Germany's former and present actions are against the belief that general appeasement and conciliation, as advocated by the noble Duke; as advocated by Lord Ponsonby, as advocated by quite a number of people outside this House, would ever secure a satisfactory and lasting peace.
Nevertheless we cannot unfortunately afford to disregard these noble appeasers, who, through their insidious writings and speeches and propaganda, and aided by German refugee propagandists resident in this country, are trying hard in every way possible to secure the adoption of the policy of total appeasement, a policy which, as I think all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon will agree, would be of lasting detriment to our country and our Empire, and indeed to the whole world. It is for this reason that I ask your Lordships to bear with me a little longer whilst I bring to your notice a recently published book which is having a wide circulation. It is called Conditions of Peace, and the author is Professor E. H. Carr, who, judging from his book, is a total appeaser of the first water. Now let us look for a moment at the record of this gentleman. He was originally for a good many years in our Diplomatic Service. Subsequently, in the early stages of this war, he held the responsible office of Director of Foreign Publicity in the Ministry of Information. He then became Professor of International Politics at University College, South Wales. He is now, I understand, being employed in an influential position by the

53
most important daily newspaper and leader of public opinion in this country, The Times. He is therefore a man whose views are bound to carry weight and to be listened to.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I will read some short passages from his book. Whilst Professor Carr admits that the military occupation of Germany is necessary, and must be completed by some immediate measures of disarmament, he goes on to say:
" but the process of disarmament should be limited to what can be achieved within a year of the laying down of arms."
That, as your Lordships know, is quite contrary to Article 8 of the Atlantic Charter. It has been denied to-day, I think, by the noble Lord. Lord Addison, who in his speech said that however long disarmament takes it must be fully accomplished. The noble Viscount, our Leader, in his reply, gave expression to the same opinion. Professor Carr, on the other hand, Suggests that, whether disarmament be complete or not, it should be abandoned after one year. Then, writing on another page about the ecomonic position of Germany, Professor Carr says:
" We cannot put back the clock by breaking up the economic unity of Germany; we must help to build up the economic system into a larger unit under different forms of control."
That policy seems to me disastrous, especially for our European Allies, and it is a policy which we should all live to regret if we pursued it.
But when Professor Carr comes to deal with the question of our Colonies he is staggering, because his proposal would have no other result than to break up our Colonial Empire, and inferentially the British Empire. This is what he says:
" A way will thus be open to treat the administration and management of Colonial territories as a matter of international concern."
I wonder what our loyal Colonies would say to that. I can well imagine their bitter sense of frustration and betrayal. And what would be the position of this country if the British Empire were broken up? Do these people ever stop to think about this when devising their theoretical paper plans?
Finally, let me give your Lordships one more quotation from this mischievous book:
" Hitler, Mussolini, and many of the other Nazi and Fascist leaders may suffer vengeance
54
at the hands of the German and Italian peoples. If they escape they should be subjected to no indictment save that of history, and suffer no penalty save that of permanent isolation in some remote and secure place."
This proposal is monstrous, in view of what has happened and what is happening to-day, and of the barbarous brutalities and atrocities for which these people and others are responsible. And it is quite contrary to the public statements of our Prime Minister, who has more than once told us that these people will suffer retribution, not vengeance. Professor Carr is indeed an active danger to this country and its future in the position which he holds, and if we were so foolish as to be guided by his views, we should certainly lose the peace, and all our sacrifices would be in vain.
In conclusion, I should like to say this. It is obviously very important that in any proposals for world settlement we should have every consideration for the views and wishes of our Allies who are fighting so valiantly beside us in our titanic struggle for freedom and liberty. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that this will be the case, and we have heard to what extent the various matters are being-tied up; but I confess I was disappointed in the speech because of its failure to mention our Dominions. I am not quite clear—and I should like to know from the Government—to what extent the overseas Dominions are taking part in these discussions which are going on between the United Kingdom Government and the foreign Allied Governments in this country. The noble Viscount made no mention of anything of the sort, and I have felt for some time that we in this country are apt, owing perhaps to the difficult position in which we are placed, and the many matters which have to be dealt with urgently and otherwise, to overlook the assistance and the part which the Dominions are playing in the war.
I was somewhat disturbed this afternoon not to hear that they, through their representatives, were taking part in these discussions. I have no doubt that when the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, replies later to the debate he will be able to tell us that there is no reason for my anxiety, but I do feel that at this moment it is very important that we should take the Dominions into full consultation in whatever we do. I feel it is also most important—and it ought to be possible—that any proposals

55
for world settlement put forward from this country should find full acceptance in the Dominions, and that in relation to any such proposals put forward now or after the war this country and the Dominions should march together in full accord just as we are doing at the present time.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, as I seem fated for the time being, at any rate, to play in your Lordships' House the joint part of a Socrates, a Jeremiah, and an enfant terrible, to the disgust of the noble Viscount who has just' spoken, I am glad to say that this afternoon I find myself in a considerable measure of agreement with some of the speeches to which we have listened. From the standpoint of reconstruction, there is no issue so important as the reform of the financial and foreign trade system, because in the material sphere, at any rate, you can do very little without money and goods. As we were reminded, some months ago the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, delivered a very able speech on this question, but I am afraid that I found the reply made on behalf of the Government by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, by no means satisfying, nor indeed can I say I have been entirely satisfied by his further remarks this afternoon. What he said was a little too reminiscent of what is often said in another place by representatives of the Treasury who, by their persistent evasiveness, would often be ludicrous if, by reason of the importance of the issues at stake, their attitude were not completely reprehensible. I do not for a moment suggest that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, descended to the same depths of evasiveness that one sometimes observes in another place, but I did find his reply unsatisfactory.
If my memory is not at fault, he said on the earlier occasion that no definite action could be taken until the end of the war. He said that by the terms of the Atlantic Charter we could do nothing without the consent of Allied Nations, and he also, I think, said that further time was needed for the consideration of problems which, by their complexity, have baffled economists for the past hundred years. It may be perfectly true that we cannot hope to secure the full advantage of financial reforms as long as hostilities continue, but it is vitally necessary that the Government should put into operation measures
56
of reform here and now, partly as an earnest of good faith to our own people and the people of other countries, and partly also to relieve the nation from the burden of further and unnecessary debt. There is no more common delusion than the idea that nothing can be done in the way of financial reform unless you get international co-operation. Money, however, is national and not international, and no injury would be done to the Allied Nations if our Government were to give a lead to the progressive sections in those nations by instituting reforms of the financial system which, subject of course to unavoidable war restrictions, enabled the people of the country to buy at a price fair to sellers all that their industries and commerce, working to full capacity, could produce or import. With regard to the suggestion that more time is needed for the study of complex problems, the solution of most of these problems was discovered quite twenty years ago. It is not more time for further study that is needed, but rather a greater willingness to adopt the measures already known, by those persons with financial interests and their economists, who unfortunately so largely control the Government of this country and of the United States; who also control the Press; and who in pre-war years, by their policy, were responsible for the paradox of poverty in the midst of potential abundance.
I can see no reason why the Government without delay should not put into operation measures of the following kind, or why they should not announce their recognition of certain factors of vital importance in the financial situation. They should declare their intention to regulate the country's money supply in the interests of consumers and producers and not of moneylenders. They should, as I have already said, declare their intention to adjust the supply of the nation's money to the things which money is needed to buy—namely, the country's maximum output and import of desired goods and services. They should also declare their intention permanently to abandon the use of gold, either in connexion with the creation and issue of money or in connexion with foreign trade. They should announce their intention to earmark for the use of the State whatever percentage of an adequate annual creation of money it is in the public interest that the

57
State should spend, using taxation only as a means of preventing inflation. They should declare their intention, as rapidly as possible (with due regard to the need for preventing inflation), of liquidating the National Debt and of ceasing entirely from further borrowing by the State either from the banking system or from private individuals. They should also announce their recognition of the fact that in a labour-destroying age you cannot permanently expect to provide paid work for everyone, for which reason the great problem to be tackled in the future is rather a problem of "unempayment" "than a problem of unemployment.
With regard to foreign trade, the Government should announce their intention permanently to prohibit the buying and selling of currencies by private individuals and organizations. Such supplies of foreign currency as are obtained by the nation as a result of the trading operations of its merchants should be held by the Central Bank for the nation, and should be administered solely in the interests of trade. Currency rates of exchange should be fixed, either permanently or for the longest possible periods, by agreement with countries willing to trade on a sensible basis. Last, but not least, the Government should announce their recognition of the fact that international payments must be made with goods or services, and that on no account should a debt be settled by the borrowing of a further sum of money.
May I very briefly be allowed to say just a word or two in explanation of some of these points? Under the existing system, as your Lordships may be aware, money may only be created for three purposes—to enable banks to make loans, to enable them to buy securities, and to enable the Central Bank, the Bank of England, to buy gold. Only the first two of these purposes are of great practical importance. They mean that hardly any money may come into existence unless it brings in a tribute of interest to the banking system, or a tribute of dividends, and in the case of Government securities the dividends are obtained from the taxpayer. When the war is over there will be need for the payment of very large sums in compensation to those who have suffered war damage either as the result of enemy action or as the result of agents of the Government who have taken possession of their premises or land for war purposes, and it is extremely important,
58
first, that this compensation should be adequate; and second, that it should not fall on the taxpayer. Part of it should be provided by the remission of taxation, and part of it by new money created not in the form of debt.
We are so accustomed by long-established practice to the idea of the Government obtaining its revenue largely from taxation, that we are all apt to overlook the clumsy and unbusinesslike character of this operation. It may, indeed, be compared to the action of a man who directs his cook to throw his breakfast every morning to the chickens, and then sends out his other servants to pursue the chickens and recapture from them such portions of the food as he requires for his own use. In this analogy the man represents the State; the chickens represent the people of the country; and the cook represents the banking system which creates and issues to the people of the country the whole of the nation's money supply with the exception of that portion which it creates and issues to the Government in the form of loans. Obviously it would be a much better arrangement for the man to direct his cook to send him his breakfast up direct, and to give the chickens their food direct.
If this plan were adopted in conjunction with sufficient taxation to prevent inflation, it would be possible to do away with the financial humbug of Warships Weeks and War Weapons Weeks. I call these financial devices "humbug" for these reasons. The general public are deceived into believing that the sums they subscribe increase the output of warships. In point of fact they do nothing of the kind, for when in time of war the State needs money for some war purpose, if it cannot obtain enough by taxation or by borrowing from ordinary citizens, it asks the bankers,, by a bank loan, to create new money for the purpose. Warships Weeks, therefore, are merely anti-inflation taxes, called by another name, to make people more willing to pay them. Some of the largest subscribers are banks, and when banks buy Government securities in connexion with Warships Weeks they create new money for the purpose, so that even the anti-inflation object is defeated. Alternatively, they and insurance companies may sell older holdings of Government securities and buy the new issues associated with Warships Weeks for the sake

59
of the higher rate of interest. Here, it is true, there is no alteration in the total amount of money in existence. All that has happened has been that there has been no limitation to luxury spending, but the banks and insurance companies have secured for themselves a higher rate of interest at the expense of the taxpayer.
With regard to foreign trade, it is true that under the exigencies of war-time, currency speculation and the buying and selling of currency by private individuals has been prohibited; but there are many important people in financial circles who are longing for the time when what they euphemistically decribe as the "freedom of the exchanges" shall be restored. Indeed, a prominent official of the Bank of Montreal went so far as to say that one of the principal purposes for which the war is being waged is to restore the freedom of the exchanges. By this he meant that when the war had been won he hoped that the very sensible veto imposed by the German Government on the buying and selling of currency before the war would be removed. When I use the term "very sensible veto" some of your Lordships may think: "There goes Bedford again with his pro-Nazi propaganda." Unfortunately, however, it is a fact that the economic, system of the Axis Governments in peace-time, though not above criticism, is in many respects inconveniently superior to our own, and perhaps the explanation is this: undoubtedly there is very good evidence that some of the fundamental principles of finance which they have accepted were originally obtained from certain English progressive economists, notably from the late Mr. Arthur Kitson, who were derided in their own country and in America. Indeed Mr. Arthur Kitson in America was offered a bribe by financiers of £30,000 to keep his mouth shut about his ideas. As he would not accept the bribe, they ruined the business with which he was connected.
There is, however, another exceedingly important aspect of this whole question. It is not enough for the Government to have a fine programme of post-war reconstruction. It is extremely necessary that that programme should be put into operation while there is still something left to reconstruct with, and by the wise handling of the whole economic situation it is possible to bring nearer the day of peace.
60
May I draw your Lordships' attention to some of the factors in the situation which at first sight may appear irrelevant and disconnected but in reality fit into the whole picture? Britain is a thickly populated, indeed I would say, an over-populated island, and is very dependent upon imports for its standard of life. Every day that the war continues, more and more of our foreign investments are being lost, sold, or rendered worthless, and more and more of our shipping is being sunk. More countries become self-supporting and no longer need our exports, and more and more of our export markets are being captured by America. It is by means of our exports and our foreign investments that we obtain the right to secure imports. Even if we adopt the most ideal political, social and financial system which the mind of man can devise, and therefore develop our own resources to maximum capacity and distribute fairly the burden of poverty, still, if we cannot get enough imports, we shall not be able to support our population even on the most meagre standards.
It is well to remember that this war, apart from the ideological reasons for which it is supposed to be fought, has other reasons by no means ideological. In one of its aspects it is a war between the Haves and the Have Nots, the Haves being represented by Britain, America, Russia and formerly France, and the Have Nots by Germany, Italy and Japan. Dr. Salter, in an article written in 1938, pointed out that Britain, France, Russia and the United States of America, owned or controlled more than 30,000,000 square miles of the surface of the world, including much of the richest, the most fertile and mineral-producing land. Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Austria, Hungary, possessed less than one million square miles, much of it of poor quality and remarkably deficient in minerals and raw materials. Britain, France, Russia and the United States owned 85 per cent. of the world's total minerals and raw materials. He went on to point out at the same time that Japan had issued a manifesto to the British people in which she complained that starvation and literal death were the results of the economic policy of Great Britain, and she added that if, and when, Great Britain decided to open her surplus resources to others, a possible solution of the world's problem could be arrived at.

61
The answer is sometimes made that these countries could have got all they wanted through trade, but that is not an adequate answer. A country cannot import more than it can pay for by means of its exports. If exports are kept out by tariffs, it cannot get all the imports it requires. It is sometimes said, also, that Germany used some of her limited foreign currency for paying, not for ordinary goods, but for armaments. Here again there are two sides to the question. If she came to the conclusion that by peaceful means she would never be allowed by the financiers of the Democracies to get her fair share of the world's economic resources, she might therefore decide that by victory in war she would get a fair share of such ordinary goods.
Then, in another of its aspects, this war represents an attempt by the money-lending financiers, currency speculators and big business monopolists to destroy the relatively sane financial system of the Axis Powers. These financiers do not care two hoots about Liberty and Democracy, but they are very willing to exploit the generous emotions of those who do.
The plain fact is that we want a breath of fresh air let into the whole war situation. We need some statesman whose mind is not clouded by war hatred and who is still able to realize that the people of other nations are fundamentally very like our own, being a mixture of good, bad and indifferent individuals, the majority of whom can be reached by an appeal to their good sense and good feeling.';, if words are accompanied by deeds. Such a statesman needs to make to the people of the warring nations and their Governments an appeal of the following kind.
" Look here," he should say, "this mass murder in which we are all engaged is sheer madness and is getting us nowhere. It is unworthy of human beings claiming to be civilized. Why not stop killing one another and, for the first time in history, with an economic system which enables us to realize our aim, get together and plan, so mat we can develop the world's resources for the benefit of the people of the world, having regard for their needs and numbers, but without any regard to race, colour or political opinions? We realize that the wealthy nations must help the poorer ones, if need be, with actual gifts of goods and
62
not by an economy which gets them into debt. (That is the new economic need of the world: gifts of goods by wealthy nations to poorer ones.) We realize also that Governments must restrain the antisocial activities of their big business monopolists which limit production for selfish ends or political reasons. The Governments of the Axis Powers, with which we are at war, have often said that their chief enemy is international finance. We have come to realize that international finance has been the enemy of our people also. We therefore offer a fair bargain. We are prepared, as our contribution to the new world, to abandon the tyranny of international finance and its anti-social practices. We invite the Axis Powers on their part to restore freedom to nations and individuals."
If peace can be secured on some such basis as this, each side could then claim to have secured victory. The Axis Powers could claim that they had secured victory over international finance, and we could claim that we had gained victory over tyranny. Objections may be raised to the policy which I have just outlined. I may be told that the Axis Governments would not agree to it. My reply to that is, "Try it and see." If it is rejected, our military position will be no worse, but we shall for the first time have something for our propagandists to talk about that is really worth talking about. Then it is well to remember that there is some reason to suppose that such a proposal would not be turned down. Hitler is probably impatient to get on with the work of post-war reconstruction and may be willing to pay a good price in the matter of restoring liberty to non-German people in order to be free of the hindrances of war. Again, a great and growing percentage of people in every nation are sick to death of the war and the war effort, and he would be indeed a rash man who deprived them of the chance of peace on anything approaching reasonable terms.
If we are told that Hitler cannot be trusted, I would reply that the chance of a lasting peace will not depend on the personal trustworthiness of Hitler or of any other statesman, It will depend on the good sense of the arrangements made, particularly in the economic field. It will depend on the honesty, openness and unselfishness of the foreign policy of the future-, and, most important of all, it will

63
be guaranteed up to the hilt by the bitter experience which people have had of modern war. Any one who underestimates these factors shows a grave lack of imagination, and undoubtedly if our great Empire should fall in ruins as the result of this conflict "Lack of imagination" should be written on its tombstone. It is interesting to remember that in a recent speech even Stalin, while he said that he hoped that the war would result in the downfall of the Nazi Government, made it fairly plain that he did not make this an essential war aim or peace condition. If he can take this statesmanlike view of the situation there is no reason why our Government cannot do the same.
It would be far better to save the country, to save what is still left of the Empire—if we put it to better use in the future than we have done in the past—and, most of all, to save the people of the world and particularly those of the famine-stricken areas from further suffering, than it would be to save the faces of those politicians who have promised by the method of war to change the government of other countries, and who, in spite of the sacrifices which have been made, seem further than ever from achieving their aim, if only because the natural and normal tendency of war is to consolidate the position of any Government which does not prove hopelessly incompetent. I may be told that if we ended this war now we should have another war twenty-five years hence. To that I would reply that any one who thinks the danger of war twenty-five years hence, when we should have had twenty-five years' opportunity to benefit by the mistakes of the past, is a worse evil and a worse danger than the war at present in progress, is a fit inmate of a lunatic asylum.
Finally, I might be told that great difficulties and dangers would attend the course of action which I have suggested. In a time of crisis like the present any course of action will be attended by great difficulties and great dangers, but one thing is certain and that is that the difficulties and dangers of this course would be infinitely less than those which must attend a further plunge down the Gadarene slope of total war. A cynical observer has described the attitude of a good many people towards war in these lines:
64
" We've lost so much, we'd better lose the lot,
Let's throw the rest into the melting-pot! "
That is not the counsel of patriots but of fools. Our country, unfortunately, has made grave mistakes both before and during the war. Let her now atone for those mistakes and regain the respect of other nations which she has lost, by showing plainly the way of escape from this morass of slaughter and suffering. Let her show the way out from destruction to construction; from hatred to co-operation; from increasing poverty to increasing prosperity; and, since she claims to be a Christian nation, let her show the way out from death to life, and from hell to God.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, when the noble Duke first rose to-day I had the hope—admittedly a somewhat slender one—that he might be prepared to appear in a white sheet of expiation for his remarks of about a fortnight ago. However, in company with the rest of your Lordships, I was speedily disillusioned for he first of all appeared to be wearing the green shirt of a Social Creditor, which garment he speedily changed for a brown shirt complete with Swastika and jack boots. It is rather difficult to understand, if I may so put it, how the woolly humanitarianism of the noble Duke seems to be able entirely to overlook the appalling atrocities, appalling both in number and in character, committed by the German Forces all over the world, and committed, so far as one can see, not only with the approval but at the direct order of the monster who controls their nation. In these circumstances I do not think that the appeal that the noble Duke made to His Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of putting forward tentative proposals for peace will be thought worthy of a moment's consideration, at a time when it is obvious that were they ever made they could not be accepted even if the German people were willing to accept them, for the German Government is much too strong to allow it. Secondly, apart from anything else, the effect throughout the whole world—on our own country, on our Allies and on the neutrals—would be a moral disaster greater than the greatest military calamity could possibly be. I think it is not necessary to pursue the noble Duke in his arguments further;

65
particularly as he has seen fit to leave the Chamber within two minutes of resuming his seat.
In view of the lateness of the hour your Lordships will be relieved to hear that it is not my intention to make the speech which I had intended to make. I desire only to allude very briefly to one or two points of considerable importance which have arisen in the course of the debate, but which to my mind have not had adequate attention. The first is the observation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, to the effect that he hoped that in the various schemes for world settlement the map of Europe would be altered as little as possible from the state in which it was before: the commencement of the present war, or, rather, before the commencement of German aggression. I submit that in this point the noble Viscount —with whose speech I was more in agreement then I usually am—was grievously in error because some of the main causes of the war were undoubtedly the serious mistakes made at the end of the last war in drawing up the boundaries of the various States of Europe. If we are to have in future an Austria reduced to the size, metaphorically, of a postage stamp with an unwieldy capital and hardly any ground around it, a Hungary truncated of territory which had belonged to her for many centuries, and a monstrosity like the Polish Corridor and other similar errors, I submit that there can be no satisfactory and final peace. I would earnestly beg His Majesty's Government to consider—it would have to be very vaguely, in view of the problems now facing us—how the map of Europe can best be redrawn so that States now existing and States that may be set up will have boundaries of such a character that they will be ethnographically, economically and, in some cases, strategically sound. If not, we are heading once more for severe trouble.
Here I would like to express my agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, when he said that he would like to see Prussia separated from the rest of Germany. I would repeat what I said to your Lordships about a fortnight ago, that I myself go much further than that. It is my belief that the whole German nation—a very modern creation, after all—has been so impregnated with the spirit
66
of militarism, of aggression, of heathenism and of bloodshed that to leave that nation as a political entity is to invite another war in a few years' time. It might not come for a considerable number of years, but come it would. For that reason, Germany should be broken up into a number of States, a sufficiently large number to be sure that no one of them would be able to be effectively aggressive by itself, and each of them large enough in extent to ensure that it could have an economic existence of a sufficiently satisfactory character to prevent economic causes and poverty causing its inhabitants to desire to create trouble again in Europe.
At the same time, all the States to be set up or at present existing should have their boundaries so arranged that there are no large blocks of other races within their boundaries. To accomplish this, it is true, might be a task of a very considerable difficulty. It would certainly mean the compulsory transference of hundreds of thousands of people—possibly of several millions—from one part of Europe to another; but I submit that, whatever trouble that might cause, it would be well worth doing if in that way we could avoid these racial causes of conflict which have contributed so much to the last war and to the present war.
My last point concerns what is to happen with regard to international control after the war. Whilst it is possible, and may be desirable, that something resembling the League of Nations should arise again after a time, it seems to me that the responsibility for maintaining the peace of the world must rest for a very considerable number of years, if it is to be effective, upon the shoulders of Britain, our Dominions and the United States of America. It is quite true that, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, the main cause of the failure of the League of Nations was the fact that the United States, which had given it birth, was unwilling afterwards to assume responsibility for it. In the future I think we shall probably find that the United States will be willing to co-operate with ourselves and our Dominions in ensuring world peace.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Would not the noble Earl include Russia?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I was going on to say that Russia might or might not be in a state afterwards to be an efficient partner in such policing. China also might or might not be able to take part. That depends on the internal condition in which those countries find themselves at the end of the war. If China is in a state to look after the external affairs of Japan, so much the better; but Japan is not likely to be the same danger that Germany could be, owing to the fact that, once we have entirely destroyed or confiscated the Japanese Fleet, she will not be in a position to be much of a menace, whereas Germany, being a land power, is a much more formidable proposition. If we and our Dominions and the United States were in such a position of supremacy that, aided by our other Allies in this war, including the smaller Allies, we were able to dominate the policy of the world for some years to come, then there is no reason why we should not be able, unfettered by the difficulties of having to look over our shoulder lest another war should arise, to get on with the great and appalling task of reconstruction which must face us throughout Europe.
Those are all the observations that I wish to put before your Lordships on this occasion; but the problems which have been raised and briefly alluded to in the course of this debate have been so numerous that your Lordships could consider each one of them and devote a whole day to it with advantage, and sit continuously for some weeks. I agree with the Government, however, that at the present time public discussion on many of these problems is extremely undesirable, and I cannot share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, at the mild castigation which the Daily Telegraph gave to various policies which were adumbrated. To produce various cut-and-dried schemes at the present time is likely to cause disunity among our own people and friction with our Allies, and to do so at a time when it is vitally necessary that, in order to bring this war to a complete and satisfactory conclusion, which can only be by total victory, we should have unity both at home and abroad.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned—(Viscount Samuel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STAN MORE): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That the Earl of Perth and the Lord Rushcliffe be added to the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That the Earl of Perth and the Lord Rushcliffe be added to the Special Orders Committee.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PALESTINE TERRORISM.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when and under what circumstances a Palestinian Jew named Stein or Stern was killed while attempting to escape.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranborne has had to leave the House, and he has asked me to make the following statement on his behalf. Abraham Stern, to whom the noble Lord's question presumably refers, was the leader of a secret terrorist organization of Jewish extremists formed in Palestine about the middle of 1940. The Stern group included persons known to have been responsible for the murder of two British police inspectors in 1939, but against whom nothing could be proved, and others concerned in cases either of murder or robbery with violence who have subsequently been convicted. Soon after the group was formed, its members entered upon a campaign of organized terrorism, primarily with the object of obtaining funds for the furtherance of their

69
so-called political programme, which was Fascist in character. In the furtherance of their objectives, they sought to enlist the help of Italy after Italy had entered the war. Steps were taken by the authorities to round up the gang, and the activities of these Jewish terrorists reached their climax in the cold-blooded murder at Tel Aviv in January last of three police officers and the wounding of four others. Vigorous action has since been taken by the police in rounding up members of the gang, and this resulted in the death, while attempting to escape, of Stern himself and of two other terrorists in February last, and in the detention of the principal members of the gang.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord realizes that the connotation of the words "killed while attempting to escape" is unfortunate. They have a very unfortunate background and, indeed, come from Germany. I hope that that sort of thing is not going to develop in Palestine.

MR. WINTRINGHAM.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether Major Wintringham is proceeding to India to assist in the formation or training of Home Guards.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, some ten weeks ago the Commander-in-Chief, India, asked for the services of MY. Wintringham as an instructor in guerrilla warfare. Mr. Wintringham was not at that time able to accept the offer, and the post for which he was required was filled by an officer of exceptional experience whose name was, in fact, suggested by Mr. Wintringham himself. The possibility of finding some other scope in India for Mr. Wintringham's special qualifications is at present the subject of discussion with the Government of India.
LORD WEDGWOOD: There is still a possibility of his going to India?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is still under discussion with the Government of India.

MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PENSIONS (MERCANTILE MARINE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLER The LORD CHANCELLER acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill: Coventry Corporation, [H.L.]

SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1942.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Swindon United Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER BILL, [H.L.]
Report from the Standing Orders Committee that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for the Bill ought to be dispensed with and leave given to introduce the Bill. Read, and agreed to.
Bill presented (pursuant to leave given this day), read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned.